Guys if you like these videos, make sure to hit that like and subscribe button and drop a comment below! Its the best way to support the work I do here and is much appreciated! And FREE!
Good review but I cannot believe the Color and contrast differences versus the gm II that’s just not acceptable but the colours on the G macro and the old tamron looked also as bad so please check if you made some other settings for the gm II because otherwise it’s not understandable such a huge difference here….
I'm looking at the comparison pics around 5:30. The sony 720 2.8 II seems showing darker black compared to tamron 70 180 II, is it also a difference of the performance?
Because the examples were taken at different times with different lights and even cameras, in reality the contrast and colors will be closer to the others. That said, it's an unbelievably good performing lens.
@@StefanMalloch but you find this difference in contrast that we seen in the chart or in real shot are equal? you found difference in optical performance between 70-200 gm2 and g2 macro?
Meh. I bet if we put the images side by side, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Smaller, lighter, way less expensive, the Tammy is a great choice.
The gm ii has way more contrast and color. However, the price of the Tamron G2 surprised me. I was expecting $1500 for the updates and new features but to see its $1300 is insane. Tamron continues to make high value lenses - seriously considering picking one up.
Because the examples were taken at different times with different lights and even cameras, in reality the contrast and colors will be closer to the others.
@@StefanMalloch I agree. I have used my G1 to shoot many mountain bike events and in the area we have here is very fine granite sand. I recently did a deep clean of everything, and no dust in the lens in any way.
One thing I love about G1 is how almost frictionless its zoom ring is, but after 35-150mm I'm worried - has this feature been preserved? How is the zoom ring itself done, is it as rough as 35-150mm, as external design has been updated as well?
Oh nice! I've been waiting to see real world reviews of this lens since it was announced. I have the original and I was really on the fence about trading up to it. That addition of IS is huge.
I'm worry about weak contrast and muted colors of this tamron, iv been waiting for this lens but now im a bit disappointed, unless you messed up with measurement, differences are huge
Because the examples were taken at different times with different lights and even cameras, in reality the contrast and colors will be closer to the others. That said, it's an unbelievably good performing lens.
Hi Stefan, whoosh! I havent surfed in for a while, wizz! You seem to be onto my interests in lenses, beep! Although I've moved from sony, whirr! I appreciate your work on the reviews, Click!
Thanks for the video Stefan, I'm hard pressed deciding between this G2 and the Samyang 135 1.8. There is a used mint condition Samyang 135 1.8 for sale locally for $650. I may pick it up for now until some used copies of this G2 70-180 start hitting the marketplace. Cheers bud
I've got the amazing Sigma 135 and the Tamron 70-180 G1 and can tell you they serve two entirely different purposes. While the 135 offers more "pop" and "bokeh" (at least the Sigma) my 70-180 G1 gets far more use as it serves so many more situations. I'd opt for the 70-180 G2 or G1 used before getting the 135. Just my experience.
I reccomend for you to get the 70-180 G2 first, because it's so versatile. I had the Tamron 70-180 G1, I still have the Sony 135 1.8 GM(it's just AWSOME) and I tested all the 135 1.8 lenses before getting the Sony. I sold the Tamron 70-180 after a few months after getting the Sony 135GM because the Sony is a much, much better lens and I preffered it at photoshoots over the Tamron. But the Tamron was decent too and I'm glad that the new one is much better(I replaced my old Tamron 28-75 with the G2 version last year and it was a noticeble difference too). A lot of times I miss the versatility of the long zoom because I sometimes shoot indoor or outdoor sports and something like a 70-180/200 or even the 35-150 would be a welcome adition, so maybe in the future I will still get the new 70-180 G2 or even the Sony 70-200 II if I can justify it's price... Speaking of the Samy 135 1.8, it's a great lens, the second best 135mm in Sony FE mount, after the GM(maybe 80% as good), it's a bargain when it's discounted at 800 $ or E. The Sony 135 GM it's just in another league, continent, planet lol, so with the first good discount I got and buy it, it produces magic, not photos. Cheers guys ! :)
Thanks Stefan for this review! For the lens IS test, did you leave your body IS on? Just wondering how much of that excellent result was due to the body vs the lens (I've read some reviews saying that with a stabilised body, there is almost no improvement in stabilisation vs the Tamron version 1)
Awesome video! Can you provide a recommendation? I'm getting into real estate / events / portraits. Currently on a A7IV I have the Sigma 20 1.8, Sigma 24-70 2.8 and Tamron 35-150. I'm considering returing the 35-150 and getting the 70-180 instead. The idea behind the 35-150 being a 'do it all' lens for events and such. What are your thoughts?
Interesting. I read some tests that had the autofocus miss 1 in 3 even on slow moving subjects and was therefore rated worse than the G1 in that aspect. Was that a production copy or an engineering sample/firmware?
I came here initially to determine whether upgrading from G1 was necessary. However, after watching this video, I've been persuaded to start saving up for GM II instead.
I used to own Tamron G1, now move to Sony G II Macro (simply because of the native 0.5x macro capability), and I love it because I also own TC 1.4x and 2x, so that I can get to 0.7x and 1:1 macro. I'm just curious about what the magnificantion ratio of the new Tamron G2 is??? Anyway, great review. Thanks.
@@lorenzo4262I haven't done pixel-by-pixel comparison. To me, both lenses are very sharp. But as mentioned, I go with Sony because of its macro capability and it works with TC. However, this Tamron G2 sounds better than G1 with VC and other features, so it's should be a good choice for those who don't want to pay the price of Sony.
@@apichairiddiboot8492 Sony G2 would make more sense at the same price as Tamron G2. TC and macro are no big deal to me considering the sheer number of alternatives out there. For me if I need extra reach, I'd go with Tamron 50-400. If I need TC, I'd go with Sony GM2. If I need versatility, Tamron 35-150. If I need portability, Tamron 28-200. If I need macro, most of the new zoom lenses have macro at one end or the other; getting a dedicated macro lens wouldn't cost much more.
Good point. I've considered trading up but the cost (G1$850 vs. G2 $1299) to upgrade would be $450 and has me questioning doing the upgrade. The G1 is fantastic.
What a lens. It may sit at the bottom price wise, but seems to exceed where it should. Love to see you do a comparison in sharpness vs the mighty 90mm f2.8 macro by Sony. That is my most used lens for macro photography. Want to use it from time to time for portraits, but it's too perfect and exposes everything on a person's face in extreme fine detail. Thanks for you great reviews, like eating a good home cooked meal at a country restaurant.
hello, you say that the test chart was made by different camera and conditio... but the condition light seems very different for sony GM2. The other three lens seems lack contrast, and full of mist in comparison. I don't believe there's so different from gm2 and other three lenses...
I sold my 70-180 version 1 some months ago and bought the new Sony 70-200 G ii It have OSS and takes TC. The Tamron mark 1 only give you almost macro at 70 mm av with manual focus.
@@lorenzo4262 It is a bit better, the difference is very minor. The auto fucus is very good, even better than my 100-400 GM. And the macro work exellent with my 1.4x tele converter.
Can you do the sigma 70 - 200 next? I want to see the color difference between it and the gm. The gm has really nice color's where the other lenses seem faded. I'm praying the sigma has good colors like the gm
I appreciate folks taking the time to do comparison reviews. But the conditions of the "competitor comparison" make the comparison worthless (it is disclosed the photos are taken at different times with different cameras and different lighting.) Any sane person would look at those photos and conclude the Tamron II is terrible, even though the vocal track says its good. The color and contrast of the GMII vs the other three lenses is impossible to ignore.
I'm torn between the Tamron G2 and the Sony F4 Macro. I can get the Sony from B&H with an edu discount for $1528. So less than a $250 difference after tax. I'm thinking the Sony might be more versatile as a travel lens.
Yeah gm ii is truly awesome... weird I ve found the tamrom g2 to be the least likeable in terms of colors and contrast. Do I have a problem in my eyes or what
These are from RAW photos so don't judge the colors 100%. Because the examples were taken at different times with different lights and even cameras, in reality the contrast and colors will be closer to the others. That said, it's an unbelievably good performing lens.
If you make a living with lenses, the Sony is by far the better choice and the way to go. It is par excellence and out performs the canon and nikon as well.
I switched to sony and picked up the tamron 70-180 f2.8 v1 and after many attempts on using it for action shots I was giving a lot of missed out of focus images. So I actually got rid of it and was using my Sony 135 mm F1.8 GM for all my action shots with my A9 and A7r5. So I decided to give tamron another try with their 35-150 and again I was not happy with it. I have sent it in to tamron because even with stills I’m not getting sharp photos like I do with any of my other lenses. So in the meantime I rented the Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM II and holy cow that is one hell of a lens. It’s sharp fast and light as often be. It’s like magic on the front of your camera. I’m hoping that my 35-150 when it comes back it’s been calibrated and the photos are nice and sharp. And I can continue to use it but if not I’m not even gonna try the new 70-180 g2 and just get the sony 20-200 v2. I think it’s worth the price. Thanks for sharing this video always love your videos
i have made comparison in autofocus between 70-180 v1 and my 70-200 f4 G OSS (the old version), and there's a lot of difference in favour of sony. I hope this 70-180 g2 will be better. the strange is that the tamron 150-500 f/5-6.3 is af well performance.
These are not great test examples, I can barely make out any differences between the lenses on a 4k screen. Also the test photos just seem to be different in terms of lighting setup and/or exposure between the lenses. I would expect much more effort and qc if you get a chance to make the first video about such a staple lens. The tests should be made with a 60 megapixel body and a much higher resolution ceiling chart. Very disappointing.
I do my best. Because the examples were taken at different times with different lights and even cameras, in reality the contrast and colors will be closer to the others. We're splitting hair at the end of the day and it's always best to do your own tests if possible. Copies will vary too of course.
how can i know if we are splitting hairs if the tests are inconsistent? its not possible, cause i do not get the lens to test it for free before its release. you do have this privilege and not use it well. next time - do better, if you can. also i do know what difference there is between the g1 and gm2, and this video does not reflect that. bit more than a hair. for me personally, that alone invalidates the tests. @@StefanMalloch
No bokeh comparison against the GM II? This is the 2nd video I've watched and am still looking for a comparison. Beginning to get the feeling that this is deliberately being overlooked as the comparison will not be nice to the Tamron. I have the original 70-180 Tamron.
I know the specs for the no of blades. You did not mention that Tamron for its trinity of lenses has a very "disturbing" or busy bokeh and I wanted to see if the G2 is any better in this regard. The fact that nobody I could find has done a side by side bokeh comparison of the GM II and G2 lenses seems really sus. Note I have only looked at 4 reviews thus far. @@StefanMalloch
The sony 70-200 gm ii blew away my tamron 70-180 v1 and my 35-150 in accuracy and sharpness in my opinion. I was sad i had to send it back. Now the new 70-180 g2 i cant say anything about it but using all three of them together the Sony hands-down is my choice.
Im make videos and somehow, the contrast on the Tamron is kind of washed out. Perhaps the test was not done accurately, lighting might be a bit off. Lets wait for another review.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Guys if you like these videos, make sure to hit that like and subscribe button and drop a comment below! Its the best way to support the work I do here and is much appreciated! And FREE!
Release date ?
Good review but I cannot believe the Color and contrast differences versus the gm II that’s just not acceptable but the colours on the G macro and the old tamron looked also as bad so please check if you made some other settings for the gm II because otherwise it’s not understandable such a huge difference here….
05:30 the contrast difference is huge! or is it because the test shot were made in diferent lighting scenarios?
As disclosed, it's not a contrast test, it's a sharpness test. Examples shot at different times, even with different cameras.
I’m hoping that weather seal are better because the first version too much internal dust .
I was waiting for this video, thanks bro ❤
I'm looking at the comparison pics around 5:30. The sony 720 2.8 II seems showing darker black compared to tamron 70 180 II, is it also a difference of the performance?
Because the examples were taken at different times with different lights and even cameras, in reality the contrast and colors will be closer to the others. That said, it's an unbelievably good performing lens.
@@StefanMalloch thank you, your review is really awesome, great for anyone to make decisions between this 4 lens!
@@StefanMalloch but you find this difference in contrast that we seen in the chart or in real shot are equal? you found difference in optical performance between 70-200 gm2 and g2 macro?
Tamron has significantly improved on an already great lens but the Sony 70-200 F2.8 II is just on another level. Thank you for the review.
Meh. I bet if we put the images side by side, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Smaller, lighter, way less expensive, the Tammy is a great choice.
Ok but isn't it twice the price of this Tamron??
yes@@christran351
I'm glad I watched this before buying the 1st version
Question: If i use the G1 lens for APSC, will it solve the loss of sharpness at the edge since it is technically cropped at the center? Thanks
The gm ii has way more contrast and color. However, the price of the Tamron G2 surprised me. I was expecting $1500 for the updates and new features but to see its $1300 is insane. Tamron continues to make high value lenses - seriously considering picking one up.
The chart is exposed wrongly across all 4 images. Look at the greyscale tones and chips. Hard to judge lens quality with a flawed test.
Because the examples were taken at different times with different lights and even cameras, in reality the contrast and colors will be closer to the others.
I recently paid 1.100 for the Nikon Z version of this lens. I wish the G2 version was available in Z-Mount.
@@RCrescente Gotta wait until G3 lol.
My biggest issue with the V1 of this lens was the dust issue. Mine will be hard to sell as it is...I really hope they fixed this.
How bad are we talking? I don't think I had a single spec since launch..
@@StefanMalloch I agree. I have used my G1 to shoot many mountain bike events and in the area we have here is very fine granite sand. I recently did a deep clean of everything, and no dust in the lens in any way.
How do you light your lens chart? Do you use cob light?
Great review! If you had to pick one between this and the 35-150, mainly for sports & event videography/photography, which way are you leaning?
One thing I love about G1 is how almost frictionless its zoom ring is, but after 35-150mm I'm worried - has this feature been preserved? How is the zoom ring itself done, is it as rough as 35-150mm, as external design has been updated as well?
Love my GMII performance, but absolutely HATE that GMII price. Nice showing Tamron! Good review!
Oh nice! I've been waiting to see real world reviews of this lens since it was announced. I have the original and I was really on the fence about trading up to it. That addition of IS is huge.
I'm worry about weak contrast and muted colors of this tamron, iv been waiting for this lens but now im a bit disappointed, unless you messed up with measurement, differences are huge
Because the examples were taken at different times with different lights and even cameras, in reality the contrast and colors will be closer to the others. That said, it's an unbelievably good performing lens.
Hi Stefan, whoosh!
I havent surfed in for a while, wizz!
You seem to be onto my interests in lenses, beep!
Although I've moved from sony, whirr!
I appreciate your work on the reviews, Click!
BOKEH is so much smoother than before, great work. SIGMA 70-200 is also at the corner. Glad to see competitions
Thanks for the video Stefan, I'm hard pressed deciding between this G2 and the Samyang 135 1.8. There is a used mint condition Samyang 135 1.8 for sale locally for $650. I may pick it up for now until some used copies of this G2 70-180 start hitting the marketplace. Cheers bud
Both great! Love that 135!
I've got the amazing Sigma 135 and the Tamron 70-180 G1 and can tell you they serve two entirely different purposes. While the 135 offers more "pop" and "bokeh" (at least the Sigma) my 70-180 G1 gets far more use as it serves so many more situations. I'd opt for the 70-180 G2 or G1 used before getting the 135. Just my experience.
Thanks, good info@@tomirwinphoto
70-180 is more versatile than 135.
I reccomend for you to get the 70-180 G2 first, because it's so versatile. I had the Tamron 70-180 G1, I still have the Sony 135 1.8 GM(it's just AWSOME) and I tested all the 135 1.8 lenses before getting the Sony. I sold the Tamron 70-180 after a few months after getting the Sony 135GM because the Sony is a much, much better lens and I preffered it at photoshoots over the Tamron. But the Tamron was decent too and I'm glad that the new one is much better(I replaced my old Tamron 28-75 with the G2 version last year and it was a noticeble difference too). A lot of times I miss the versatility of the long zoom because I sometimes shoot indoor or outdoor sports and something like a 70-180/200 or even the 35-150 would be a welcome adition, so maybe in the future I will still get the new 70-180 G2 or even the Sony 70-200 II if I can justify it's price... Speaking of the Samy 135 1.8, it's a great lens, the second best 135mm in Sony FE mount, after the GM(maybe 80% as good), it's a bargain when it's discounted at 800 $ or E. The Sony 135 GM it's just in another league, continent, planet lol, so with the first good discount I got and buy it, it produces magic, not photos. Cheers guys ! :)
Thanks Stefan for this review! For the lens IS test, did you leave your body IS on? Just wondering how much of that excellent result was due to the body vs the lens (I've read some reviews saying that with a stabilised body, there is almost no improvement in stabilisation vs the Tamron version 1)
Awesome video! Can you provide a recommendation? I'm getting into real estate / events / portraits. Currently on a A7IV I have the Sigma 20 1.8, Sigma 24-70 2.8 and Tamron 35-150. I'm considering returing the 35-150 and getting the 70-180 instead. The idea behind the 35-150 being a 'do it all' lens for events and such. What are your thoughts?
I'd go 16-35 or so for real estate. 35-150 covers just about everything else.
Interesting. I read some tests that had the autofocus miss 1 in 3 even on slow moving subjects and was therefore rated worse than the G1 in that aspect. Was that a production copy or an engineering sample/firmware?
That would be a huge fail and I can confirm it's a lot better than that. Could vary by camera tho
Will there be a G2 version of the 35-150 with vibration compensation?
Haven't heard of anything. The IBIS is so good these days, I think I'd rather have a lighter cheaper lens for a max of 150mm.
How it compare to the Nikon version which is based on the G1?
I came here initially to determine whether upgrading from G1 was necessary. However, after watching this video, I've been persuaded to start saving up for GM II instead.
Why? I am using the G1, and besides the dust issue, it has performed flawlessly.
well you can't judge from this video as comparison wasn't done in controlled lighting
H Stefan, thanks for the review and comparisons. How did you turn off the VC please?
You bet! You have to turn on IS in camera.
I do high school sports photography and just picked this up for a6700. Hope it does well. Great review.
How has it been? I also have a a6700
Has it worked out for you? I have the a6700 also and wanted to pick up the lens for sports as well
older tamron can focus closer if in manual focus mode.
I used to own Tamron G1, now move to Sony G II Macro (simply because of the native 0.5x macro capability), and I love it because I also own TC 1.4x and 2x, so that I can get to 0.7x and 1:1 macro. I'm just curious about what the magnificantion ratio of the new Tamron G2 is??? Anyway, great review. Thanks.
The ratio is 1:2.6
With manual focus you can get to .5x at 70mm, just like you can with the G1 Tamron
how you feel with 70-200 g2 macro in comparison with tamron 70-180 g1?sharpness.. contrast...
@@lorenzo4262I haven't done pixel-by-pixel comparison. To me, both lenses are very sharp. But as mentioned, I go with Sony because of its macro capability and it works with TC.
However, this Tamron G2 sounds better than G1 with VC and other features, so it's should be a good choice for those who don't want to pay the price of Sony.
@@apichairiddiboot8492 Sony G2 would make more sense at the same price as Tamron G2.
TC and macro are no big deal to me considering the sheer number of alternatives out there. For me if I need extra reach, I'd go with Tamron 50-400. If I need TC, I'd go with Sony GM2. If I need versatility, Tamron 35-150. If I need portability, Tamron 28-200. If I need macro, most of the new zoom lenses have macro at one end or the other; getting a dedicated macro lens wouldn't cost much more.
I have the first version and it is glass tack sharp across the range. Only real improvement is ibis which really isn't needed on the newer cameras
Good point. I've considered trading up but the cost (G1$850 vs. G2 $1299) to upgrade would be $450 and has me questioning doing the upgrade. The G1 is fantastic.
I have g1 and I don't think the upgrade it's worth it. Same image quality, and I don't really need ibis in my Sony a7iv
Which body you have? I a7r3
Fantastic looking lens, preordered mine last night 👍🏻
What a lens. It may sit at the bottom price wise, but seems to exceed where it should. Love to see you do a comparison in sharpness vs the mighty 90mm f2.8 macro by Sony. That is my most used lens for macro photography. Want to use it from time to time for portraits, but it's too perfect and exposes everything on a person's face in extreme fine detail.
Thanks for you great reviews, like eating a good home cooked meal at a country restaurant.
hello, you say that the test chart was made by different camera and conditio... but the condition light seems very different for sony GM2. The other three lens seems lack contrast, and full of mist in comparison. I don't believe there's so different from gm2 and other three lenses...
I would like to see a comparison with the nikon version, since the lens was itself a relative upgrade of the g1
Is this lens parfocal? Thanks!
Autofocus in video the same?
I sold my 70-180 version 1 some months ago and bought the new Sony 70-200 G ii
It have OSS and takes TC. The Tamron mark 1 only give you almost macro at 70 mm av with manual focus.
how is the 70-200 g2 vs tamron 180 g1 in sharpness.. contrast...
@@lorenzo4262 It is a bit better, the difference is very minor. The auto fucus is very good, even better than my 100-400 GM. And the macro work exellent with my 1.4x tele converter.
Thanks foto your answer. Do you think the af and sharpness works well also for not macro shot with tc1.4x? (Rugby sports for example)
And have you tried the new gm2 in comparison with your g2?
@@lorenzo4262 No, it is probably even sharper, and better in some other ways too. It zooms internally so it takes more space in the camera bag.
3:40 In your sharpness test to be honest the chart doesn't really go to the very corners of the image
Thanks Stefan, great review....🙏🏻
Can you do the sigma 70 - 200 next? I want to see the color difference between it and the gm. The gm has really nice color's where the other lenses seem faded. I'm praying the sigma has good colors like the gm
Waiting on sigma 70-200
That’s going to be more expensive and double the weight.
I’ve been waiting 2 years for that sigma lol.
my man 😂! I've been waiting longer than that and even took a gym subscription this way I'm ready for the weight 😂😂😂
@@dn-bayou lmao. Get an assistant. Much easier and probably the same price
Announcement on October 6th!
Sony Alpha Blog says the auto focus is very bad, while Phillipreeve tells the auto focus is very good. So I don't know what to believe?
Good in my experience. Look at the tests. Watch a bunch of reviews and it's probably the average of all of them.
@@StefanMalloch I'm watching Dustin Abbot now, he tells the autofocus is very, very good.
Good Bro..Beautiful clicks too
Can we get this lens in F/2, please?
For $4000 sure.
ANY IDEA WHEN RELEASING?
Preorders are open. Probably shipping in a few months
I appreciate folks taking the time to do comparison reviews. But the conditions of the "competitor comparison" make the comparison worthless (it is disclosed the photos are taken at different times with different cameras and different lighting.) Any sane person would look at those photos and conclude the Tamron II is terrible, even though the vocal track says its good. The color and contrast of the GMII vs the other three lenses is impossible to ignore.
I'm torn between the Tamron G2 and the Sony F4 Macro. I can get the Sony from B&H with an edu discount for $1528. So less than a $250 difference after tax. I'm thinking the Sony might be more versatile as a travel lens.
I hope this video doesnt dissappear, it wilk be announced only next month
Officially announced now so all good.
Yeah gm ii is truly awesome... weird I ve found the tamrom g2 to be the least likeable in terms of colors and contrast. Do I have a problem in my eyes or what
These are from RAW photos so don't judge the colors 100%. Because the examples were taken at different times with different lights and even cameras, in reality the contrast and colors will be closer to the others. That said, it's an unbelievably good performing lens.
your test shots actually showed dng not arw... I wonder why ... !
@@dn-bayou Same thing, different compression.
If you make a living with lenses, the Sony is by far the better choice and the way to go. It is par excellence and out performs the canon and nikon as well.
I switched to sony and picked up the tamron 70-180 f2.8 v1 and after many attempts on using it for action shots I was giving a lot of missed out of focus images. So I actually got rid of it and was using my Sony 135 mm F1.8 GM for all my action shots with my A9 and A7r5. So I decided to give tamron another try with their 35-150 and again I was not happy with it. I have sent it in to tamron because even with stills I’m not getting sharp photos like I do with any of my other lenses. So in the meantime I rented the Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM II and holy cow that is one hell of a lens. It’s sharp fast and light as often be. It’s like magic on the front of your camera. I’m hoping that my 35-150 when it comes back it’s been calibrated and the photos are nice and sharp. And I can continue to use it but if not I’m not even gonna try the new 70-180 g2 and just get the sony 20-200 v2. I think it’s worth the price. Thanks for sharing this video always love your videos
i have made comparison in autofocus between 70-180 v1 and my 70-200 f4 G OSS (the old version), and there's a lot of difference in favour of sony. I hope this 70-180 g2 will be better. the strange is that the tamron 150-500 f/5-6.3 is af well performance.
Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 G2 or Sony 70-200mm f/4 Macro??????
Tough one! It would be the Tamron for me personally
No sharpness comparison at 180/200mm? Aw
These are not great test examples, I can barely make out any differences between the lenses on a 4k screen. Also the test photos just seem to be different in terms of lighting setup and/or exposure between the lenses. I would expect much more effort and qc if you get a chance to make the first video about such a staple lens. The tests should be made with a 60 megapixel body and a much higher resolution ceiling chart. Very disappointing.
I do my best. Because the examples were taken at different times with different lights and even cameras, in reality the contrast and colors will be closer to the others. We're splitting hair at the end of the day and it's always best to do your own tests if possible. Copies will vary too of course.
how can i know if we are splitting hairs if the tests are inconsistent? its not possible, cause i do not get the lens to test it for free before its release. you do have this privilege and not use it well. next time - do better, if you can.
also i do know what difference there is between the g1 and gm2, and this video does not reflect that. bit more than a hair. for me personally, that alone invalidates the tests.
@@StefanMalloch
No bokeh comparison against the GM II? This is the 2nd video I've watched and am still looking for a comparison. Beginning to get the feeling that this is deliberately being overlooked as the comparison will not be nice to the Tamron. I have the original 70-180 Tamron.
GM ii has 11 aperture blades compared to 9 and goes to 200mm so ya its going to be nicer for most I would think. At over 2x the cost, I would hope so.
I know the specs for the no of blades. You did not mention that Tamron for its trinity of lenses has a very "disturbing" or busy bokeh and I wanted to see if the G2 is any better in this regard.
The fact that nobody I could find has done a side by side bokeh comparison of the GM II and G2 lenses seems really sus. Note I have only looked at 4 reviews thus far. @@StefanMalloch
@@dyong888 why don't you make a comparison and post? quite sus to criticize others
duh..... did you not read my OP? @@beyondestination
@@dyong888what's OP?
GM ii is another level lol
It wasn't just priced double for the logo, but I have to say Tamron has much brough up the "main stream" quality.
Nope! This Lens is easy on the same Level and so much cheaper!
@@orhansnake9824 Get your eyes checked.
The sony 70-200 gm ii blew away my tamron 70-180 v1 and my 35-150 in accuracy and sharpness in my opinion. I was sad i had to send it back. Now the new 70-180 g2 i cant say anything about it but using all three of them together the Sony hands-down is my choice.
@@orhansnake9824no way…..tamron is good but gm is another level
Why is the contrast worse than the G1!?
Because the test is completely flawed, and you can't rely on the video for a contrast comparison.
I lost 2 units due to being stuck
Im make videos and somehow, the contrast on the Tamron is kind of washed out. Perhaps the test was not done accurately, lighting might be a bit off. Lets wait for another review.
It's a sharpness test of a raw file. I made a disclaimer of the conditions on several occasions.
@@StefanMalloch Understood
“The mark 2 g master has a little bit more contrast” bro are you blind
again no foot collar
use your hands ;)
Thanks for another concrete review! Comment as you asked, hope it feeds the algorithm well ;)