@@LisaRSArti have a 70-300 very lightweight 545g , the qualityvis fantastic. I would recommend a 50-300 for weight 665g but you get the standard zoom. 70mm is too tight sometime. The 50-400 is best but it is 1100g. However it give you 600mm on a7c and on a7r5, a7cr, you can get crazy zoom and clearzoom x2 on a7c would give me 1200mm.
I got permission from my wife to get a Tamron 18-400 for my Nikon D-7000 back in the spring. I had been shooting beach stuff and soccer with a Tamron 70 -200. I am really enjoying the 18-400. Very light and it gets all the action shots I want. Tamron has yet to dissapoint me with the 3 lenses I’ve bought.
Thanks for the great review! This just confirms that my recent pickup of this lens to add to my two other Tammy’s was the right choice. Along with the 17-28, and the superb 35-150 that are already in my bag, I think I now have virtually every shooting situation I’m interested in covered!
That's a very nice combo of lenses. I own the Tamron 28-200 + Sony 200-600, which works well for me (landscape + wildlife). I guess a wider lens would be nice, but so far I've managed without it. Very interested in this 50-400 for its versatility. With that lens in the bag I could leave the big gun (200-600) at home when shooting landscape. And if it's as sharp as the 28-200 on overlapping focal lengths it's more than sharp enough. Are you happy with the results you get from the 50-400?
Unless you’re shooting wildlife very far away, or that you don’t want to be close to (like brown bears!) the range of this lens seems perfect. I was on East Knik Glacier Rd a few days ago (I assume you fly from the lodge at the end of that road where it’s like a parking lot full of copters). I was flying my drone from the glacier viewing point on the road, and I had my Sigma 150-600 L-Mount with me. At full zoom on a windy day, with the added mass of the hood, I couldn’t stop it from shaking. Ok for photos, but for video it was tough. At Beluga Point it was almost impossible to get good whale video. I love the lens, but the shorter zoom you tested might be better for most situations. Good review!
Thanks and yeah long zooms are really hard in the wind! I fly with Outbound Heli Adventures over by the Butte but the lodge is a really cool place to hang out
Great review! Already own and absolutely love the Tamron 28-200 and Sony 200-600. But I could see this lens replacing them both at times. Wonder how it compares to them in overlapping focal lengths 🤔
@@JakeSloan I couldn't resist it, bought the 50-400. Have done some quick comparisons with the 28-200 and 200-600. They're all good and I can almost not tell them apart when shooting at shorter distances (5-20m). When shooting at longer distances the bigger lenses seem just a tad sharper. The 28-200 is still perfectly acceptable for my needs. Super happy with them all. Wish the 50-400 was sent with a lens collar though.
@@user-ey8rs2bm1q I actually got the Tamron 50-400 a while ago. Absolutely love it. I'll keep the 28-200 as a lightweight option, but I'm using the 50-400 a lot more unless saving weight and space is of importance (multiday hiking with super heavy backpack). If you already own the 24-105 I'd still get the 50-400 over a 100-400 for sure. Why limit yourself to a 4x zoom when you can get the same results with this 8x zoom? 50-400mm is a lot more versatile and has amazing IQ. I can't really answer whether the 50-400 or the 150-500 is the better choice for you. I think it all comes down to what you intend to shoot and how convinient you want your bag and camera to be when you're out in the field handling all your gear. I use my 200-600 for birding only now that I have the 50-400. For birds I want max reach, but for all other occasions the 50-400 is a much better choice in my opinion. The 200-600 is a pain to handle for longer periods, and I'd imagine the 150-500 would be too (even if it's a little lighter). The downside, I think, of the 50-400 is that it has some distortion but that's easily corrected in post and nothing that bothers me at all. There are many reviews on yt and internet and I think I've seen/read them all. All of them recommend this lens. Hope this was helpful. Just ask me if you want to know more. Good luck with your decision! :)
@@edc641 thanks for the info very interesting. I managed to get a killer deal on a 100-400 sigma, kinda thinking 400 is no where near enough but then the only options is a 100-400 or 200-600 sony with teleconverter on either, but then that’s at least another 1-1.5k on top of what I got this sigma for..on an A7Sii I won’t have much room to play with for APSC mode.
Tamron is my go to non native lens sometimes outshining the native lenses both in Sony as well as Nikon … thank you for Sharing the last to get lens for my arsenal
I love the new Tamron lenses! Hopefully this lens will be available for Nikon Z mirrorless in the near future. I could have used this lens for Alaska earlier this summer.
Thanks for this review. I am still trying to decide between this Tamron 50-400mm (67mm filter) or the 150-500mm (82mm filter). Thanks for your review I now have the 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 (82mm filter) after also tried out the great IQ & lightweight 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 (67mm filter) you reviewed but at the end went for the one that allows more lights through (and hard to get) for now and most likely buy a used or an on sale 28-200mm in the future for personal/travel/casual use because I really like how versatile and lightweight it was.
I use the 28-200 all the time. Pretty much the only time I switch lenses is when I shoot birds and let the Sony 200-600 do the job. A lot of reviews says the 28-200 is very good for being a super zoom. I think it's more than that. Still interested in the 50-400 for that extra reach. But I'll probably never sell the 28-200. It's too versatile and easy to carry.
Thanks for your review. Do you find yourself using more of the 50-200mm range or 200-400mm range on that lens? Wondering how it compares to using the Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 or the Sony FE GM 100-400mm f4.5-5.6. The Sigma goes all the way to 600 and the Sony GM is faster and compatible with teleconverters.
As always, amazing video Jake! Curious of your thoughts of this Tammy vs. the Sony 70-200 2.8 with a TC? I'm still new to Sony and have not tried a GM yet. Loving my A7iv (aside from the rear LCD Rez lol). I also own the Tamron 20mm 2.8 and 28-200. I'm also considering pairing the 50-400 with the new 20-40 2.8.
@@JakeSloan i have only primes in my arsenal, but i want to add some zooms to it. I never really followed Tamron lenses. My eye was always on native Sony lenses. But now i'm amazed how much really unique lenses in Tamrons lineup! Now i'm thinking what to buy... Tamron 28-200, or 20-40 + 50-400... 28-200 is much cheaper way, and lighter. And i'm amazed that it covers almost all range i need! And the fact that it has 2.8 on wider end is amazing. So i can still use it in darker scenarios. And in crop mode it is 300mm on long end! Crazy versatile! But 50-400 is also very very intriguing! And i'm surprised that it is has a stabilisation! And it's a huge factor in comparison with Sony's stabilised 100-400GM! But 50mm on a wide side of Tamron makes it so much more useful! It's crazy! Tamron 20-40 is also in my wish list, because i always wanted this focal range for a video work. Now i dreaming about 20-50 from Tamron 🙂 I don't know why I am writing all of this to you 🙂 Just a bit of emotions 🙂 Thank you for the videos! ;-) and for the Tamron reviews ;-)
I’m just about to get the sigma 100-400 and I hear about this lens. I need something with more reach as I plan to shoot the surfers on the big Atlantic winter swells. What opinion does someone who has used both say about these 2? I was going back and forth on getting the sigma, or the 150-500 Tamron, and now this is a third potential option so I’m struggling. Can’t try before you buy anywhere around my way, so gotta take a gamble on one of them. For photo and video ideally
I would say between the 50-400 and the 150-500 I’d lean toward the 150-500 as it has slightly better image quality. I haven’t used the sigma so I can’t comment on it
I'm an early adopter of the Sigma 100-400 for Sony. I haven't used the Tamron 50-400mm, but from what I understand it is better than the Sigma in almost every respect: wider focal lengths, better minimum focusing distance, superior (or at least equal) image quality, lighter weight, and more customisable. Relatively slow AF speeds seem to be a shared weakness between both the Sigma 100-400 and Tamron 50-400. I can no longer recommend the Sigma 100-400 now that the Tamron 50-400 is on the market, unless the savings are absolutely essential. The Tamron 150-500 is substantially heavier than all the other options, and puts it closer in class to the Sony 200-600. I haven't used the 150-500, but what I've seen suggests that it has faster AF than the 50-400mm, but probably not to the level of the 200-600mm (which also has better image quality).
Hi Jake, thank you for the excellent review and great real world samples too. I am thinking of letting go of my 150-500 and the 70-300 in favor of this lens. I was thinking of getting the 28-200 to pair its with my 17-28 for a light travel package. This lens gives me more reach at the cost of more weight. On a trip to Colorado back in April, I used the 17-28 and the 70-300 for almost 95% of the images I shot. I used the 70-180 for a few images and did not use the 28-75 at all. You have used the 28-200 and the 50-400. What would you choose for the ultimate 2-lens travel set up 17-28+ 28-200 or 17-28+50-400? Thanks.
For the ultimate travel setup I’d definitely go with the 18-28 and 50-400 for the max versatility. To be honest I’m kind of in the same boat. Looking at selling a few of my lenses and just having this one and a 17-28 or 16-35
@@JakeSloan Thank you Jake. Tamron is not making it any easier for us! Their lenses are so good, we as Sony shooters are fortunate to have choices. I was really impressed with the 70-300. I owned the SP version in my Canon days and it delivered a few five-star images for my client shoots. It is not a "pro" lens but you would not know from the results. From your results and a few other early reviews, I think the 50-400 is a worthy if not better replacement for the 70-300. I am with you, I think the 17-28 and the 50-400 are the ultimate combo. Love your videos. Thank you for sharing your time and talent with us.
@@boristahmasian9604 I have the Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 and am thinking of pairing this with it. I can do a bit of video, even in supper 35 with the 20-40mm and I like the 70-180mm f2.8 for the 2.8, but it doesn't have VC. Some say that you don't need it, but stabilization, I think is more important for zoom lenses. I would consider the 35-150mm even though it is extra money, if it had VC. Now, for a bit more, I can have the 20-400 mm (with 20-60 [with the super 35 for video]) for travel!
@@GuitarRJP I ended up buying the 50-400. I have already sold my 70-300 and in the process of selling the 150-500. This is some month later after the initial comment I made here. I had a chance to shoot with the new 17-50 for a few days and boy do I like it! The only obvious shortcoming is the f4 for the times that light is low. For landscape and general photography in decent light the 17-50 is incredibly versatile lens. Now, I am torn between getting the 20-40 or the 17-50 once I let my 17-28 go.
I am really interested into this as I have 16-35. Than get some brigth 85mm and perfect setup Also its awesome for crash zoom. Probably solely lens to do it o mirrorless
@@JakeSloan hmm, maybe I got a bad batch... No issue at all with the 28-75 and 28-75G2,as well as the 17-28. But the issue comes up quite often for the 70-180
@@JakeSloan thanks for getting back to me I think that might be the best way forward thank you, lastly a friend drew my attention to the 150-500 do you know much about that lens?
Astonishing Tamron lenses have no focus breathing when all Sony lenses have except the old ones like 35 f1.8 and 24-105 f4 that have no focus breathing but these last two have only one motor. My opinion is Sony dual motor is not good, single motor seems better. Tamron have single motor.
Tamron is absolutely crushing it.
They are killing the lens game lately
I agree. I’m considering another Tamron zoom for my Sony. I have a 70-180 f2.8, but not sure to get this Tamron on the one that goes to 500 mm.
@@LisaRSArti have a 70-300 very lightweight 545g , the qualityvis fantastic. I would recommend a 50-300 for weight 665g but you get the standard zoom. 70mm is too tight sometime. The 50-400 is best but it is 1100g. However it give you 600mm on a7c and on a7r5, a7cr, you can get crazy zoom and clearzoom x2 on a7c would give me 1200mm.
Tamron lenses are the reason I switched to Sony. Another legendary super zoom on top of the 28-200.
Agreed
I got permission from my wife to get a Tamron 18-400 for my Nikon D-7000 back in the spring. I had been shooting beach stuff and soccer with a Tamron 70 -200. I am really enjoying the 18-400. Very light and it gets all the action shots I want. Tamron has yet to dissapoint me with the 3 lenses I’ve bought.
Excellent!!
Thanks for the great review! This just confirms that my recent pickup of this lens to add to my two other Tammy’s was the right choice. Along with the 17-28, and the superb 35-150 that are already in my bag, I think I now have virtually every shooting situation I’m interested in covered!
You’re welcome
That's a very nice combo of lenses. I own the Tamron 28-200 + Sony 200-600, which works well for me (landscape + wildlife). I guess a wider lens would be nice, but so far I've managed without it. Very interested in this 50-400 for its versatility. With that lens in the bag I could leave the big gun (200-600) at home when shooting landscape. And if it's as sharp as the 28-200 on overlapping focal lengths it's more than sharp enough. Are you happy with the results you get from the 50-400?
agree
Thank for a great review. I already preorder this lens.
Awesomen
Unless you’re shooting wildlife very far away, or that you don’t want to be close to (like brown bears!) the range of this lens seems perfect. I was on East Knik Glacier Rd a few days ago (I assume you fly from the lodge at the end of that road where it’s like a parking lot full of copters). I was flying my drone from the glacier viewing point on the road, and I had my Sigma 150-600 L-Mount with me. At full zoom on a windy day, with the added mass of the hood, I couldn’t stop it from shaking. Ok for photos, but for video it was tough. At Beluga Point it was almost impossible to get good whale video. I love the lens, but the shorter zoom you tested might be better for most situations. Good review!
Thanks and yeah long zooms are really hard in the wind! I fly with Outbound Heli Adventures over by the Butte but the lodge is a really cool place to hang out
Great review! Already own and absolutely love the Tamron 28-200 and Sony 200-600. But I could see this lens replacing them both at times. Wonder how it compares to them in overlapping focal lengths 🤔
quite close and with the latest firmware update even better, I need to test against the 200-600
@@JakeSloan I couldn't resist it, bought the 50-400. Have done some quick comparisons with the 28-200 and 200-600. They're all good and I can almost not tell them apart when shooting at shorter distances (5-20m). When shooting at longer distances the bigger lenses seem just a tad sharper. The 28-200 is still perfectly acceptable for my needs. Super happy with them all. Wish the 50-400 was sent with a lens collar though.
@@edc641 would you go this or a 150-500 to pair with a 24-105, Jake recommended a 100-400 but that seems to be Nikon or Canon only
@@user-ey8rs2bm1q I actually got the Tamron 50-400 a while ago. Absolutely love it. I'll keep the 28-200 as a lightweight option, but I'm using the 50-400 a lot more unless saving weight and space is of importance (multiday hiking with super heavy backpack). If you already own the 24-105 I'd still get the 50-400 over a 100-400 for sure. Why limit yourself to a 4x zoom when you can get the same results with this 8x zoom? 50-400mm is a lot more versatile and has amazing IQ. I can't really answer whether the 50-400 or the 150-500 is the better choice for you. I think it all comes down to what you intend to shoot and how convinient you want your bag and camera to be when you're out in the field handling all your gear. I use my 200-600 for birding only now that I have the 50-400. For birds I want max reach, but for all other occasions the 50-400 is a much better choice in my opinion. The 200-600 is a pain to handle for longer periods, and I'd imagine the 150-500 would be too (even if it's a little lighter). The downside, I think, of the 50-400 is that it has some distortion but that's easily corrected in post and nothing that bothers me at all. There are many reviews on yt and internet and I think I've seen/read them all. All of them recommend this lens. Hope this was helpful. Just ask me if you want to know more. Good luck with your decision! :)
@@edc641 thanks for the info very interesting. I managed to get a killer deal on a 100-400 sigma, kinda thinking 400 is no where near enough but then the only options is a 100-400 or 200-600 sony with teleconverter on either, but then that’s at least another 1-1.5k on top of what I got this sigma for..on an A7Sii I won’t have much room to play with for APSC mode.
Tamron is my go to non native lens sometimes outshining the native lenses both in Sony as well as Nikon … thank you for Sharing the last to get lens for my arsenal
Totally agree!
Looks like an amazing lens! Really want one of those 🤩
I’m pretty happy with it!
yea soft slow wow just great ... bah
Awesome review as always dude!
Thanks Paul!
Excellent Review Jake. Tamron Lenses are good quality lenses. Thank You .
Thank you Doug
Zoom ring on my lens is very smooth and it extends under its weigh when pointed down.
Excellent!!
Damn... that focus breathing was near non-existent. That's crazy at that focal range!
Right?
I love the new Tamron lenses! Hopefully this lens will be available for Nikon Z mirrorless in the near future. I could have used this lens for Alaska earlier this summer.
Thanks I hope so too!
Thanks for this review. I am still trying to decide between this Tamron 50-400mm (67mm filter) or the 150-500mm (82mm filter). Thanks for your review I now have the 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 (82mm filter) after also tried out the great IQ & lightweight 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 (67mm filter) you reviewed but at the end went for the one that allows more lights through (and hard to get) for now and most likely buy a used or an on sale 28-200mm in the future for personal/travel/casual use because I really like how versatile and lightweight it was.
Agreed and thanks for watching
I use the 28-200 all the time. Pretty much the only time I switch lenses is when I shoot birds and let the Sony 200-600 do the job. A lot of reviews says the 28-200 is very good for being a super zoom. I think it's more than that. Still interested in the 50-400 for that extra reach. But I'll probably never sell the 28-200. It's too versatile and easy to carry.
Great review. Thank you.
Thanks for watching!
Thanks for your review. Do you find yourself using more of the 50-200mm range or 200-400mm range on that lens? Wondering how it compares to using the Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 or the Sony FE GM 100-400mm f4.5-5.6. The Sigma goes all the way to 600 and the Sony GM is faster and compatible with teleconverters.
The GM is definitely better as I say in the video. I haven’t used the sigma though. I found myself using a lot of focal lengths with this
As always, amazing video Jake! Curious of your thoughts of this Tammy vs. the Sony 70-200 2.8 with a TC? I'm still new to Sony and have not tried a GM yet. Loving my A7iv (aside from the rear LCD Rez lol). I also own the Tamron 20mm 2.8 and 28-200. I'm also considering pairing the 50-400 with the new 20-40 2.8.
I have yet to use the sony lens, the 50-400 and the 20-40 pair very well though
Sigma 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3 coming on January 12. Also, Tamron 150-400mm f/2.8-5.6 Di III VC VXD coming soon.
I saw!! I can’t wait to see those lenses
How does it compare to the Tamron 100-400 mm lens ?
it's very close I would say the 150-500 has the edge by just a little bit
WOW! Looks beautiful!
It is!
@@JakeSloan i have only primes in my arsenal, but i want to add some zooms to it. I never really followed Tamron lenses. My eye was always on native Sony lenses. But now i'm amazed how much really unique lenses in Tamrons lineup!
Now i'm thinking what to buy... Tamron 28-200, or 20-40 + 50-400...
28-200 is much cheaper way, and lighter. And i'm amazed that it covers almost all range i need! And the fact that it has 2.8 on wider end is amazing. So i can still use it in darker scenarios. And in crop mode it is 300mm on long end! Crazy versatile!
But 50-400 is also very very intriguing! And i'm surprised that it is has a stabilisation! And it's a huge factor in comparison with Sony's stabilised 100-400GM!
But 50mm on a wide side of Tamron makes it so much more useful! It's crazy!
Tamron 20-40 is also in my wish list, because i always wanted this focal range for a video work. Now i dreaming about 20-50 from Tamron 🙂
I don't know why I am writing all of this to you 🙂 Just a bit of emotions 🙂
Thank you for the videos! ;-) and for the Tamron reviews ;-)
I will buy this lense, thankyou for encouraging ........
you're welcome
I’m just about to get the sigma 100-400 and I hear about this lens.
I need something with more reach as I plan to shoot the surfers on the big Atlantic winter swells.
What opinion does someone who has used both say about these 2? I was going back and forth on getting the sigma, or the 150-500 Tamron, and now this is a third potential option so I’m struggling.
Can’t try before you buy anywhere around my way, so gotta take a gamble on one of them.
For photo and video ideally
I would say between the 50-400 and the 150-500 I’d lean toward the 150-500 as it has slightly better image quality. I haven’t used the sigma so I can’t comment on it
I'm an early adopter of the Sigma 100-400 for Sony. I haven't used the Tamron 50-400mm, but from what I understand it is better than the Sigma in almost every respect: wider focal lengths, better minimum focusing distance, superior (or at least equal) image quality, lighter weight, and more customisable. Relatively slow AF speeds seem to be a shared weakness between both the Sigma 100-400 and Tamron 50-400. I can no longer recommend the Sigma 100-400 now that the Tamron 50-400 is on the market, unless the savings are absolutely essential.
The Tamron 150-500 is substantially heavier than all the other options, and puts it closer in class to the Sony 200-600. I haven't used the 150-500, but what I've seen suggests that it has faster AF than the 50-400mm, but probably not to the level of the 200-600mm (which also has better image quality).
Hi Jake, thank you for the excellent review and great real world samples too. I am thinking of letting go of my 150-500 and the 70-300 in favor of this lens. I was thinking of getting the 28-200 to pair its with my 17-28 for a light travel package. This lens gives me more reach at the cost of more weight. On a trip to Colorado back in April, I used the 17-28 and the 70-300 for almost 95% of the images I shot. I used the 70-180 for a few images and did not use the 28-75 at all. You have used the 28-200 and the 50-400. What would you choose for the ultimate 2-lens travel set up 17-28+ 28-200 or 17-28+50-400? Thanks.
For the ultimate travel setup I’d definitely go with the 18-28 and 50-400 for the max versatility. To be honest I’m kind of in the same boat. Looking at selling a few of my lenses and just having this one and a 17-28 or 16-35
@@JakeSloan Thank you Jake. Tamron is not making it any easier for us! Their lenses are so good, we as Sony shooters are fortunate to have choices. I was really impressed with the 70-300. I owned the SP version in my Canon days and it delivered a few five-star images for my client shoots. It is not a "pro" lens but you would not know from the results. From your results and a few other early reviews, I think the 50-400 is a worthy if not better replacement for the 70-300. I am with you, I think the 17-28 and the 50-400 are the ultimate combo. Love your videos. Thank you for sharing your time and talent with us.
@@boristahmasian9604 I have the Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 and am thinking of pairing this with it. I can do a bit of video, even in supper 35 with the 20-40mm and I like the 70-180mm f2.8 for the 2.8, but it doesn't have VC. Some say that you don't need it, but stabilization, I think is more important for zoom lenses. I would consider the 35-150mm even though it is extra money, if it had VC. Now, for a bit more, I can have the 20-400 mm (with 20-60 [with the super 35 for video]) for travel!
@@GuitarRJP I ended up buying the 50-400. I have already sold my 70-300 and in the process of selling the 150-500. This is some month later after the initial comment I made here. I had a chance to shoot with the new 17-50 for a few days and boy do I like it! The only obvious shortcoming is the f4 for the times that light is low. For landscape and general photography in decent light the 17-50 is incredibly versatile lens. Now, I am torn between getting the 20-40 or the 17-50 once I let my 17-28 go.
Thanks!
Welcome!
Excellent video and info. Thanks for sharing. The Tamron lens is a great option and 1/2 the price of the Sony lens 50-400.
Agreed!
That would be hard as Sony don’t make a 50-400 lens.
The only complaint I have here is the concept of snow in September 😫😫😫
Agreed!!!
I am really interested into this as I have 16-35. Than get some brigth 85mm and perfect setup
Also its awesome for crash zoom. Probably solely lens to do it o mirrorless
Agreed
There are 2 stabilization modes. What is the difference between them, when each of them should be used?
the standard mode work well for most things the mode 2 is better for panning shots
No issues with dust getting inside Tamron lenses? Have you tried the 70-180? It's a lens I love but the dust issue is ridiculous...
none for me
@@JakeSloan hmm, maybe I got a bad batch... No issue at all with the 28-75 and 28-75G2,as well as the 17-28. But the issue comes up quite often for the 70-180
I love it
Thanks me too!
Whats your gut feel about this or the 150-500?
I like this more, it's smaller and lighter plus having the 50mm makes it a lot more useful in most situations
Would you recommend this or Tamron 70-300, 100-400 when paired with a 24-105 G Lens?
I would actually pair this lens with the 20-40 tamron, which makes a fantastic 2 lens setup, to pair with the 24-105 I'd go with the 100-400
@@JakeSloan thanks for getting back to me I think that might be the best way forward thank you, lastly a friend drew my attention to the 150-500 do you know much about that lens?
Astonishing Tamron lenses have no focus breathing when all Sony lenses have except the old ones like 35 f1.8 and 24-105 f4 that have no focus breathing but these last two have only one motor.
My opinion is Sony dual motor is not good, single motor seems better.
Tamron have single motor.
yeah Tamron has some fantastic optical designs
Interesting
Thanks