I remember way back in the day when Tamron released the 28-300. I don’t remember the minimum aperture, at 28, but at 300 it was 6.3. That lens won a few awards it it was $500. They have come a long way and still rocking and rolling!
What concerns would you have using this for paid work? You designated as Intermediate instead of Professional but the performance + weather sealing and how lightweight and mobile it is seems to be perfect given there's still daylight.
What happened at 0mm is field curvarture. Only the center is in fouces, if you focus on the corner it won't be that bad, but of course the center will be out of focus. Field curvarture is quite strong on this lens at 70mm, but it won't be that big of a problem if you shoot anything other than a flat board.
I have the Sigma 100-400, and I would consider selling it and picking up the Tamron just for the size. The Sigma is heavy, so I rarely take it anywhere, and I have a hard time stabilizing and focusing it. I love Tamron lenses, and I already have the 28-75 and the 28-200. Thanks for the review video, Stefan!
I'm thinking the same thing. The Sigma should certainly be better and the longer reach is great, but really size and weight are IMO even more valuable than that, they're the difference between actually carrying and using the lens or not.
Great video as usual! I'm planning to get a Tamron zoom lens, but I'm still doubting. I'm between 28-75 f2.8 and 28-200... Don't know wether the extra reach or the constant aperture is better for me...
I just saw Christopher Frost' review of this, and it was soft in the corners wide open at 70mm, but drastically improved stepping down one notch. I guess there are some quality variations, but I would have traded it in for a new one if that was my lens
I'm using a sony A6400, would you reccomend me this lens to use with it? or the lack of image stabilization can be a major issue? I'm using the lens for travel photography (landscape and occasional portraits)
Great review - worth noting the soft corners disappear by 100mm, so it's not a big deal. My old Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 has terrible soft corners, but it almost never matters because they are always OOF anyway.
The corners at 70mm are field curvature problem and it is only a problem if you like taking pictures of brick walls. It is sharper and lighter than the sony at 300mm and equal to at all the other focal lengths.
Great review Stefan. Do you think this lens would be ok for low light? I work at a hobbyshop/rc track, so I think I'm looking for a low light telephoto zoom for sports photography with good autofocus
Depends on your available light and cameras low light performance. AF should be fine but a faster f2.8 will perform better of course but you'll pay for it.
I do not think so. 100-400 GM is in different class regarding handling, build and image quality. And it supports x1.4/2.0 and 30 fps - no 3rd party lenses are supporting it.
@@ihtishamhussain3887 The two lenses are not even comparable. I have both.The Tamron is in a different league than the 55-210 which is a cheap kit lens with pretty bad IQ.
What's your favorite budget telephoto?
I’m using Tamron 28-200mm it don’t have same focal length but I’m in love with its Performance 🎭.
Sony 70-350
@@fernandoatorre Is that an APSC lens?
@@francissosingindyrcworldga8936 yes, it is
I remember way back in the day when Tamron released the 28-300. I don’t remember the minimum aperture, at 28, but at 300 it was 6.3. That lens won a few awards it it was $500. They have come a long way and still rocking and rolling!
did this video was updated? i think i watched it again before
Yes sorry bud had to re-upload!
How do you think this compares to the Tamron 28-200?
What concerns would you have using this for paid work? You designated as Intermediate instead of Professional but the performance + weather sealing and how lightweight and mobile it is seems to be perfect given there's still daylight.
Congratulations on the 25k mark!
100k here we go! 🎉🎉🎉
Thanks my friend!
What happened at 0mm is field curvarture. Only the center is in fouces, if you focus on the corner it won't be that bad, but of course the center will be out of focus. Field curvarture is quite strong on this lens at 70mm, but it won't be that big of a problem if you shoot anything other than a flat board.
Looks like a winner! Thanks
I have the Sigma 100-400, and I would consider selling it and picking up the Tamron just for the size. The Sigma is heavy, so I rarely take it anywhere, and I have a hard time stabilizing and focusing it. I love Tamron lenses, and I already have the 28-75 and the 28-200. Thanks for the review video, Stefan!
I'm thinking the same thing. The Sigma should certainly be better and the longer reach is great, but really size and weight are IMO even more valuable than that, they're the difference between actually carrying and using the lens or not.
Hey, did you get the 70-300 in the end? I'm comparing it with my Sigma 100-400 for the same reasons!
Great video as usual! I'm planning to get a Tamron zoom lens, but I'm still doubting. I'm between 28-75 f2.8 and 28-200... Don't know wether the extra reach or the constant aperture is better for me...
I think it comes down to, how often you would use it in low light environment. If you plan to shoot mostly outdoor than you will be fine with 28-200.
I just saw Christopher Frost' review of this, and it was soft in the corners wide open at 70mm, but drastically improved stepping down one notch. I guess there are some quality variations, but I would have traded it in for a new one if that was my lens
I'm using a sony A6400, would you reccomend me this lens to use with it? or the lack of image stabilization can be a major issue? I'm using the lens for travel photography (landscape and occasional portraits)
Thanks for this! I love my 28-200.
In your opinion What’s best cheap telephoto lens with more focal length than this?!
Great review - worth noting the soft corners disappear by 100mm, so it's not a big deal. My old Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 has terrible soft corners, but it almost never matters because they are always OOF anyway.
Another great review thanks
From what I've heard, 70mm has field curvature, hence softer corners.
I have a Sony a6400 which has no ibs. So will it be good to get this lens ?
It might be a bit tough to hand hold at a 450mm equivilant. Be mindful of your shutter speed.
What will tjis be on a full frame camera?
This is a full frame lens so what you see is what you get.
The corners at 70mm are field curvature problem and it is only a problem if you like taking pictures of brick walls. It is sharper and lighter than the sony at 300mm and equal to at all the other focal lengths.
Sir m cnfusd between sony 18-105 and tamron 70-300 .. I want to purchase a zoom lens for my a6400 please suggest me
The 18-105 is a crop lens. The Tamron is FF and more of a sports zoom. Depends on you my friend. 18-105 is a more all around lens.
Great review Stefan. Do you think this lens would be ok for low light? I work at a hobbyshop/rc track, so I think I'm looking for a low light telephoto zoom for sports photography with good autofocus
Depends on your available light and cameras low light performance. AF should be fine but a faster f2.8 will perform better of course but you'll pay for it.
i use sony a6400 which has no ibs. Then will it be good to get this lens for that aps-c ?
I feel like purchasing the Sony 100-400 GM last week was a mistake. What do you think?
I do not think so. 100-400 GM is in different class regarding handling, build and image quality. And it supports x1.4/2.0 and 30 fps - no 3rd party lenses are supporting it.
@@pawelmod3292 Thanks. I wish I could own an a1😂.
Should I buy Sony 55-210 or Tamron 70-300
The Tamron is the better lens in this case for sure.
@@StefanMalloch for apsc
@@ihtishamhussain3887 The two lenses are not even comparable. I have both.The Tamron is in a different league than the 55-210 which is a cheap kit lens with pretty bad IQ.
Please 2.8!
Nice bro
Good review. The background music is an unnecessary distraction.
Damn actually first for once
Sigma 100-400