Hawkeye055 Loc: Nottingham UK

Hi Sony guys.


I have the a77ii and mainly shoot wildlife & BIF and looking to purchase a new lens. I'm undecided at the moment to either up-grade from my Sony 70-400mm G lens to the 70-400mm G ii or to go for the Tamron 150 - 600mm and keep the mark i.


If I up-graded to the 70-400mm ii it would cost in the region of £600 (UK Sterling) or I will keep my lens and purchase the Tamron 150 - 600mm which will cost about £900.


I have read a few reviews on both the lens and still undecided?


Any advise would be appreciated.


Thanks

Kev

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

^^^Kev, I have a friend that traded in his copy of the 70-400mm G for the new 70-400mm GII.

He SWEARS that there is VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE between the two. That the new nano coatings don't improve image quality but that the new SSM actually IS faster and slightly more accurate in focusing the lens. Overall he is happy with his purchase, and even likes the standard cream lens color on the GII as opposed to the Konica Minolta silver on the GI.

EITHER lens will outscore the Tamron and the new Sigma in terms of image quality (resolution, distortion, etc.) at given focal lengths... but of course, neither of the Sony's will have the same reach.

My opinion? Well, since you have the 70-400mm G, you should really determine if the extra reach at somewhat lesser image quality would be a worthwhile tradeoff for you.

I'm going to TRY to do a side by side comparison before I buy the GII or the Tamron for half the price. ;)

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

What you have now is very good. So, if it is the extra reach you want, go for the longer lens. From what I have seen with people who know how to use it, that longer lens does a pretty good job.

Hawkeye055 Loc: Nottingham UK

Hi CHOLLY.

Thanks for the reply and that's very interesting that he finds very little difference between the lens, that was my worry. I did read that the AF was an improvement which would help with BIF and would certainly help me! The extra 200mm would also be good and it seems that the IQ is also not bad at the 600mm range. I will need to make a decision soon as in the UK Sony are giving cask back of £200 until the 25th Jan 15. Either way I will be keeping the Sony Lens whether its the mark 1 or 2.

Thanks for replying.

Kev

Hawkeye055 Loc: Nottingham UK

Hi tainkc.

Thanks for replying. I must admit that I do get some good photos with the mark 1. I was looking for an improvement for BIF but it does seem an expensive up-grade if there is very little difference between the 2 lens as CHOLLY mentions. The Tamron did take my eye regarding the price and the reviews, there is also the benefit of the extra reach but I don't know of anyone who has used the Tamron.

Thanks again for your reply.

Kev

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Kev, it would be GREAT if you could do a side-by-side comparison.... that way you would be able to determine for yourself if the focus speed and accuracy of the Tamron is comparable to the Sony G's.

You could also see how it works on YOUR camera, and whether the image quality is good enough for your needs.

I'll admit; the price of the Tamron is HARD to ignore. :D

prayingmantis

Hi Hawkeye, Let me tell you just how good the Sony 70-400mm version 1 is. I purchased new the Sony 300mm f2.8 brand new about 3 years ago for $6300. The newer nanocoated version sells for $7500 which is a steeper price than Nikon or Canons best 300mm f2.8. I used that lens for a couple years with a Sony A900 and had excellent results. I also used it on my A77 (first version) and had great results. After shooting the biggest rodeo in the US in Cheyenne I decided I need a zoom lens. I read lots of user reviews of the 70-400 lens and the verdict was unanimous that the lens is one of the best lenses that Sony makes and is sharp at 400mm as well as shorter focal lengths. So I purchased the zoom on ebay in near new condition for $1250. I compared image quality of the 300mm f2.8 lens with the same focal length and aperture using the zoom on my Sony A99 (full frame) camera and found negligible difference in IQ. The big difference then is the loss of speed, being able to shoot f2.8 versus f5.6. During the period of time that I used the 300mm f2.8 lens I rarely shot it wide open, usually around f5.6 for greater depth of field. So I sold the 300mm f2.8 and have kept and used the zoom. With the money from the sale of the f2.8 I was able to pay for the 70-400mm G lens, the Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.4 lens ($1500) and the Sigma Art lens 35mm f1.4 ($900). Imagine that, selling one 300mm lens and trading in on a 70-400mm excellent lens and two of the very finest prime lenses with focal lengths of 35mm and 50mm, both of the latter being f1.4.
With regard to the nanocoating on the newer version of the zoom as well as the nanocoating on the most recent version of the 300mm f2.8, that coating has a visible effect on IQ only with regards to flare. If you use your lens hood and don't shoot into the sun you will not see a difference with the nanocoated versus the older coating. When the effect of the nanocoating is seen as in flare provoking situations the improvement is seen as increased contrast and less evidence of a secondary reflection, i.e less likely to see the bright spot typically seen when shooting at or near the sun.
I doubt the Tamron lens when shot at 400mm can compare to the Sony zoom and of course you cant shoot birds in flight at 600mm on a crop sensor camera which is an equivalent focal length of 900mm on a full frame camera. Its just not possible unless you are exceptionally steady, perhaps an expert marksman.

Hawkeye055 Loc: Nottingham UK

Hi CHOLLY.

That's my other concern as how the camera will work with the Tamron lens. I did read a review that you do lose some of the focus points but it wasn't a real issue as there were so many of them!



Thanks again

Kev.

Hawkeye055 Loc: Nottingham UK

Hi prayingmantis.

Wow, thanks for sharing that information and taking the time to reply. I would love the 300mm f2.8 lens but its a little too expensive for what I use the camera for. The only Zeiss lens that I have is the 16-80mm and is very good for a walk around lens. I think if I went for the Tamron lens I would mainly use it for shooting birds in hides and use the Sony for BIF.

A quick story. I recently went to a talk given by a photographer who was a Canon man through & through and has worked for the BBC in the UK. He does talks all over the UK and also takes small groups on safari in Africa a couple of times a year. Anyway he started off by asking what cameras we had and mostly were Canon and a couple had Sony's. He then said he was invited by a camera company to test their new camera on Safari and was absolutely blown out of the water with what the camera was capable of. He then said that this company will be the world leaders in photography and it will not be in the future as it has already happened with this camera. He said he can't name the company but it has 4 letters in it's name and it's not a Fuji.

Thanks again for your time.

Kev

Carl 383 Loc: Southampton UK

It starts with "S" and ends in "Y" any chance you can give us a clue?

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

Kevin, just look at the titles on the photo gallery. This is how I spotted the Tamron being used.

Tom

prayingmantis

Hawkeye, Interesting story about that UK photographer. I first purchased a Sony DSLR in early 2009. That was the full frame A900 which was the first 24mp DSLR to come out on the market. Currently I shoot with the 36mp A7r with 8 various lenses to choose from, 3 are Carl Zeiss. I am definitely a pixel peeper with the highest standards for image quality which requires thorough reviews of lenses and DSLR body before purchasing. I don't limit myself to Sony lenses and because I can use any manufacturers lenses on the A7r I have purchased and used other manufacturers lenses, those lenses being the best of class. Two of them are the Nikon 200mm f4 macro lens which is an old design from the early 1990's and the Carl Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar f2 with Nikon mount which is undoubtedly the finest macro lens ever made. Using other manufacturers lenses on any Sony mirrorless camera means shooting fully manual as there is no interface between the chosen lens and the camera body using available adapters. That's OK with me as I shoot only manual anyway.
Owning the 36mp Sony A7r offers up an opportunity to shoot full frame or crop sensor format as a menu choice. Because of the ultra-high resolution of the 36mp sensor, when shooting APSC format with the A7r I have an equivalent full frame focal length of 600mm using a 400mm full frame lens. Those images when used for wildlife can make outstanding 20x30 inch enlargements. Of course you can always shoot full frame with the A7r and then crop down the image in editing to an APSC equivalent and get the same resultant file with the same IQ as shooting the A7r in APSC format. For me shooting full frame and cropping down is a better choice as it gives you more room for error in framing the subject. Shooting birds in flight in full frame mode rather than APSC using the A7r will mean a higher frequency of successes in framing the subject.

Hawkeye055 Loc: Nottingham UK

Hi Tom.

Have just done a search for the lens and looked in the Gallery. Wow, some impressive photos & links.

I'm now looking to go for the Tamron and keep the Sony mark 1 and I will then have the best of both worlds.

Never thought about that.

Cheers
Kev

Hawkeye055 Loc: Nottingham UK

Hi prayingmantis.

Thanks for the information, very interesting. I did think about the A7r before I brought the a77ii but I wasn't sure about using it with the 70-400mm lens but obviously it must work well and it also gets very good reviews. The price was also consideration! Its good to hear from someone who uses the camera as my mates who are into photography use Canon. They do admit that they are impressed with the photos that I take (I'm not that good) and one of them is considering selling his equipment and going over to Sony due to the price and also the amount of investment that Sony are doing.

Cheers
Kev

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

Good plan.