Tamron 150-600 G2 (a022) vs Sony SAL70400: As I mentioned in a previous post, I rented these two lenses, an a7R II and the Sony adapter from lens rentals dot com (good vendor...

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

As I mentioned in a previous post, I rented these two lenses, an a7R II and the Sony adapter from lens rentals dot com (good vendor experience).

This will be a brief, preliminary "report" just in case anyone might want to know what I found or experienced. My conclusions won't necessarily match those of others reported in UHH and that's OK because different users have different needs and wants.

Firstly, this is a dumb comparison because you can't really compare 400 mm to 600 mm fairly. It's also not fair because the Sony lens with the LA-EA3 adapter on the Sony camera works pretty well. But I was using the Tamron in Nikon mount via a Metabones "dumb" adapter so I could not stop it down or auto-focus it. Very unfair.

For me, the Tamron is just too big and heavy. It's 18 oz heavier and quite a bit longer, too. The balance is different as well. When the Sony is extended it's light at the end but the Tamron is just heavy. On a monopod this is no problem but I quickly discovered that carrying the camera, lens and monopod was unpleasant. I have seen many people who seem to handle it well but I can't. Of course I would like the longest, fastest lens and have it weigh less than a pound but that is not going to happen in my time frame.

Put simply, in my case, I can hand-hold the Sony but not the Tamron. Or at least not for long.

So, what about if the Tamron would take better pictures? It's a moot point because it doesn't. I've seen posts even today that suggest that the Tamron takes equal or better pictures and perhaps if used to its full abilities it would but I was not able to find that out. I did take some still life comparison shots in which the Tamron did very well but in the field, I could not get razor sharp pictures and with the Sony I could - easily. Maybe it's a sample of one and not representative. Maybe with autofocus it would do better. But I took a lot of care and used focus magnification and the results were not good. My wife's critical eye agrees with mine, by the way. Since in my "still live" tests the Tamron is as good, I don't think the individual sample is the problem.

I spent the entire day's shooting today with the Sony using only autofocus and it did very well. When I use it on manual, focus magnification it can solve a problem with tree branches and such but won't be any sharper. I've tried that quite a bit.

Both lenses are getting their stabilization from the camera alone. The Tamron has stabilization in the Nikon model, but with my adapter, it doesn't happen.

I considered the Canon 100-400 g2 with an adapter but after getting some advice from B&H decided that a single-brand solution would offer fewer potential problems. I don't know if the Canon and the Sony are exactly equal but they are very close in price and IQ based on my reading.

If a picture is not critically sharp, having a 50% larger image doesn't make it better. So for me, zooming the Sony's sharper image is the better answer.

Tomorrow I will try to compare my a6000 to the rented a7R II with the same lens. Since for birds I need about 1/1600 second, stabilization will hopefully not be an issue.

This doesn't really prove anything to anyone but me, but I offer it just in case it has value to other UHHers.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

a6k wrote:

As I mentioned in a previous post, I rented these two lenses, an a7R II and the Sony adapter from lens rentals dot com (good vendor experience).

This will be a brief, preliminary "report" just in case anyone might want to know what I found or experienced. My conclusions won't necessarily match those of others reported in UHH and that's OK because different users have different needs and wants.

Firstly, this is a dumb comparison because you can't really compare 400 mm to 600 mm fairly. It's also not fair because the Sony lens with the LA-EA3 adapter on the Sony camera works pretty well. But I was using the Tamron in Nikon mount via a Metabones "dumb" adapter so I could not stop it down or auto-focus it. Very unfair.

For me, the Tamron is just too big and heavy. It's 18 oz heavier and quite a bit longer, too. The balance is different as well. When the Sony is extended it's light at the end but the Tamron is just heavy. On a monopod this is no problem but I quickly discovered that carrying the camera, lens and monopod was unpleasant. I have seen many people who seem to handle it well but I can't. Of course I would like the longest, fastest lens and have it weigh less than a pound but that is not going to happen in my time frame.

Put simply, in my case, I can hand-hold the Sony but not the Tamron. Or at least not for long.

So, what about if the Tamron would take better pictures? It's a moot point because it doesn't. I've seen posts even today that suggest that the Tamron takes equal or better pictures and perhaps if used to its full abilities it would but I was not able to find that out. I did take some still life comparison shots in which the Tamron did very well but in the field, I could not get razor sharp pictures and with the Sony I could - easily. Maybe it's a sample of one and not representative. Maybe with autofocus it would do better. But I took a lot of care and used focus magnification and the results were not good. My wife's critical eye agrees with mine, by the way. Since in my "still live" tests the Tamron is as good, I don't think the individual sample is the problem.

I spent the entire day's shooting today with the Sony using only autofocus and it did very well. When I use it on manual, focus magnification it can solve a problem with tree branches and such but won't be any sharper. I've tried that quite a bit.

Both lenses are getting their stabilization from the camera alone. The Tamron has stabilization in the Nikon model, but with my adapter, it doesn't happen.

I considered the Canon 100-400 g2 with an adapter but after getting some advice from B&H decided that a single-brand solution would offer fewer potential problems. I don't know if the Canon and the Sony are exactly equal but they are very close in price and IQ based on my reading.

If a picture is not critically sharp, having a 50% larger image doesn't make it better. So for me, zooming the Sony's sharper image is the better answer.

Tomorrow I will try to compare my a6000 to the rented a7R II with the same lens. Since for birds I need about 1/1600 second, stabilization will hopefully not be an issue.

This doesn't really prove anything to anyone but me, but I offer it just in case it has value to other UHHers.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I rented these ... (show quote)

Based on your last paragraph, I think you are absolutely correct.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

The Sony 70-400mm G I and GII are two of the SHARPEST super telephoto lenses available PERIOD. Their MTF scores are MUCH better at nearly EVERY focal length than the Tamron's. IT also has FEWER issues with distortion, flare, and color fringing.

Additionally, whether SSM I or SSM II (in the GII version) it focuses FASTER than the Tamron using the PDAF system in the LA-EA4 adaptor.

And let's not even talk about construction....

Madman Loc: Gulf Coast, Florida USA

a6k wrote:

As I mentioned in a previous post, I rented these two lenses, an a7R II and the Sony adapter from lens rentals dot com (good vendor experience).

This will be a brief, preliminary "report" just in case anyone might want to know what I found or experienced. My conclusions won't necessarily match those of others reported in UHH and that's OK because different users have different needs and wants.

Firstly, this is a dumb comparison because you can't really compare 400 mm to 600 mm fairly. It's also not fair because the Sony lens with the LA-EA3 adapter on the Sony camera works pretty well. But I was using the Tamron in Nikon mount via a Metabones "dumb" adapter so I could not stop it down or auto-focus it. Very unfair.

For me, the Tamron is just too big and heavy. It's 18 oz heavier and quite a bit longer, too. The balance is different as well. When the Sony is extended it's light at the end but the Tamron is just heavy. On a monopod this is no problem but I quickly discovered that carrying the camera, lens and monopod was unpleasant. I have seen many people who seem to handle it well but I can't. Of course I would like the longest, fastest lens and have it weigh less than a pound but that is not going to happen in my time frame.

Put simply, in my case, I can hand-hold the Sony but not the Tamron. Or at least not for long.

So, what about if the Tamron would take better pictures? It's a moot point because it doesn't. I've seen posts even today that suggest that the Tamron takes equal or better pictures and perhaps if used to its full abilities it would but I was not able to find that out. I did take some still life comparison shots in which the Tamron did very well but in the field, I could not get razor sharp pictures and with the Sony I could - easily. Maybe it's a sample of one and not representative. Maybe with autofocus it would do better. But I took a lot of care and used focus magnification and the results were not good. My wife's critical eye agrees with mine, by the way. Since in my "still live" tests the Tamron is as good, I don't think the individual sample is the problem.

I spent the entire day's shooting today with the Sony using only autofocus and it did very well. When I use it on manual, focus magnification it can solve a problem with tree branches and such but won't be any sharper. I've tried that quite a bit.

Both lenses are getting their stabilization from the camera alone. The Tamron has stabilization in the Nikon model, but with my adapter, it doesn't happen.

I considered the Canon 100-400 g2 with an adapter but after getting some advice from B&H decided that a single-brand solution would offer fewer potential problems. I don't know if the Canon and the Sony are exactly equal but they are very close in price and IQ based on my reading.

If a picture is not critically sharp, having a 50% larger image doesn't make it better. So for me, zooming the Sony's sharper image is the better answer.

Tomorrow I will try to compare my a6000 to the rented a7R II with the same lens. Since for birds I need about 1/1600 second, stabilization will hopefully not be an issue.

This doesn't really prove anything to anyone but me, but I offer it just in case it has value to other UHHers.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I rented these ... (show quote)

Unfortunately, your evaluation of the Tamron lens was doomed from the outset. Had you tested the lens designed to mate with the body in use, your opinion of it would likely be much better. I have not had the chance to compare the G2 to my original version, but I'm not dissatisfied with the results from my lens either. Would I like a lighter lens? Absolutely. Would I like a lens that is less rugged? No way. So, despite approaching old age (70 next time around) and worsening arthritis, I still can manage the weight fairly well but can not hold it steady for any length of time. For carrying it about with a tripod, I rest it on my shoulder with the lens resting on my back.

Hope that you succeed in finding the ideal set up for your birding.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

CHOLLY wrote:

The Sony 70-400mm G I and GII are two of the SHARPEST super telephoto lenses available PERIOD. Their MTF scores are MUCH better at nearly EVERY focal length than the Tamron's. IT also has FEWER issues with distortion, flare, and color fringing.

Additionally, whether SSM I or SSM II (in the GII version) it focuses FASTER than the Tamron using the PDAF system in the LA-EA4 adaptor.

And let's not even talk about construction....

Just fyi, I am using the LA-EA3, not 4 and it does PDAF, too. Info only.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Madman wrote:

Unfortunately, your evaluation of the Tamron lens ... (show quote)

Yep, we agree that it was not a fair test. I wanted to use the Sony version of the Tamron but it does not exist yet. I won't bother, though, because for me, the size and weight are too much. The Tamron's optics are good but the Sony's in my personal experience, are meaningfully better. YMMV. Thanks for the kind thoughts. BTW, I'm almost 75 and it hurt my shoulder just carrying it with the monopod.

It's neither a fair nor a scientific test but it's useful for me. Were I anyone reading it I'd hesitate to base any decisions on such a report.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

I'm not sure Tamron would ever do that lens in an E mount. The G2 is available in the A mount... as I'm sure you are aware.

LaoXiang

Thanks for the test ... but if the Tamron wouldn't autofocus and you couldn't hold it steady ... you really just tested yourself, not the lens.

And frankly, you cannot validly compare such different lenses, IMO.

The real issue is whether or not you need the extra reach. If you do, then it is the Nikon 200-550 (excellent, I hear from Nikon shooters) or the Tamron or Sigma, or spend $12,000. If you can get by with 400 mm, there are some super-sharp lenses, apparently the Sony 70-400, and the newest Canon 100-400, for about the price of the Sigma or new Tamron (a few hundred more, actually.) Adding a 1.4 extender might or might not invalidate autofocus depending on your body ... if you need autofocus, that's an issue. If you don't ....

I have the 1st-gen Tamron and find it is not too heavy to hand-hold and it can yield some excellent results. Of course, with that extra fifty percent reach comes an extra fifty percent sensitivity to shaking ... a 100-400 might take sharper pictures in part because it is shorter and shake is magnified less.

All that can be overcome, though. It all depends on whether for what you shoot, a 100-400 gets you what you need.

I think it is clear from your test and others, that it is easier to build a sharp 100-400 (or 70-400) in the $2K range than it is to build a sharp 150-600 in the same price range (or actually several hundred cheaper)... to get the same sharpness in a 600, the weight and/or the price needs to go up sharply.

The various 100-400s are a little more expensive, a little more versatile, and generally a little sharper and better built. But they are designed to be very good telephoto lenses.

The Tamron and Sigma are designed to be budget super-teles, for people who want the extra reach but cannot afford the pro-level 200-500s, or the ones with the built-in extenders and such---the really sharp, really heavy, really expensive long lenses.

You can meet your needs with the 70-400 .... so it is a much better deal for you. There are times when I want that extra reach ... but I have a tiny budget ... so I make the Tamron work for me.

Glad you found the right gear for you.

pahtspix

I've been shooting since 1976, and doing wildlife for about 4-5 years. I recently purchased a Nikon D500 along with a Nikon mount Tamron 150-600mm G2, and I couldn't be happier with the sharp real-world results I'm seeing on far away small birds..I was shooting with a Nikon D7000 and an older Tokina 400mm prime which was very sharp, but had slow AF, and didn't give me the crop-sensor reach I needed for birding. I sent my D7000 to Life Pixel for conversion to a 720 nm Infrared camera ( My 3rd IR conversion!) .I just turned 73, and this Nikon/Tamron combo was a marriage made in heaven for me..Whether being hand-held for short periods, or on a monopod or gimble-equipped tripod. Tamron listened to their followers on some of the deficiencies of their decent, but not perfect G1 version of this 150-600, and made the G2 near perfect IMHO

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

a6k wrote:

As I mentioned in a previous post, I rented these two lenses, an a7R II and the Sony adapter from lens rentals dot com (good vendor experience).

This will be a brief, preliminary "report" just in case anyone might want to know what I found or experienced. My conclusions won't necessarily match those of others reported in UHH and that's OK because different users have different needs and wants.

Firstly, this is a dumb comparison because you can't really compare 400 mm to 600 mm fairly. It's also not fair because the Sony lens with the LA-EA3 adapter on the Sony camera works pretty well. But I was using the Tamron in Nikon mount via a Metabones "dumb" adapter so I could not stop it down or auto-focus it. Very unfair.

For me, the Tamron is just too big and heavy. It's 18 oz heavier and quite a bit longer, too. The balance is different as well. When the Sony is extended it's light at the end but the Tamron is just heavy. On a monopod this is no problem but I quickly discovered that carrying the camera, lens and monopod was unpleasant. I have seen many people who seem to handle it well but I can't. Of course I would like the longest, fastest lens and have it weigh less than a pound but that is not going to happen in my time frame.

Put simply, in my case, I can hand-hold the Sony but not the Tamron. Or at least not for long.

So, what about if the Tamron would take better pictures? It's a moot point because it doesn't. I've seen posts even today that suggest that the Tamron takes equal or better pictures and perhaps if used to its full abilities it would but I was not able to find that out. I did take some still life comparison shots in which the Tamron did very well but in the field, I could not get razor sharp pictures and with the Sony I could - easily. Maybe it's a sample of one and not representative. Maybe with autofocus it would do better. But I took a lot of care and used focus magnification and the results were not good. My wife's critical eye agrees with mine, by the way. Since in my "still live" tests the Tamron is as good, I don't think the individual sample is the problem.

I spent the entire day's shooting today with the Sony using only autofocus and it did very well. When I use it on manual, focus magnification it can solve a problem with tree branches and such but won't be any sharper. I've tried that quite a bit.

Both lenses are getting their stabilization from the camera alone. The Tamron has stabilization in the Nikon model, but with my adapter, it doesn't happen.

I considered the Canon 100-400 g2 with an adapter but after getting some advice from B&H decided that a single-brand solution would offer fewer potential problems. I don't know if the Canon and the Sony are exactly equal but they are very close in price and IQ based on my reading.

If a picture is not critically sharp, having a 50% larger image doesn't make it better. So for me, zooming the Sony's sharper image is the better answer.

Tomorrow I will try to compare my a6000 to the rented a7R II with the same lens. Since for birds I need about 1/1600 second, stabilization will hopefully not be an issue.

This doesn't really prove anything to anyone but me, but I offer it just in case it has value to other UHHers.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I rented these ... (show quote)

It is not a contest, Sony wins hands down in build, quality of products used in the manufacturing, electronics, quality of the glass and yes, IQ too.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Yep...

tropics68 Loc: Georgia

billnikon wrote:

It is not a contest, Sony wins hands down in build, quality of products used in the manufacturing, electronics, quality of the glass and yes, IQ too.

And only double the denaro to boot!

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

But WELL worth it...

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

CHOLLY wrote:

I'm not sure Tamron would ever do that lens in an E mount. The G2 is available in the A mount... as I'm sure you are aware.

Yes, the A mount version has been announced but no date for its release has been given and thus I used what was available in order to do the test while the other parts were available and while I am in a great birding area.

jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

a6k wrote:

As I mentioned in a previous post, I rented these two lenses, an a7R II and the Sony adapter from lens rentals dot com (good vendor experience).

This will be a brief, preliminary "report" just in case anyone might want to know what I found or experienced. My conclusions won't necessarily match those of others reported in UHH and that's OK because different users have different needs and wants.

Firstly, this is a dumb comparison because you can't really compare 400 mm to 600 mm fairly. It's also not fair because the Sony lens with the LA-EA3 adapter on the Sony camera works pretty well. But I was using the Tamron in Nikon mount via a Metabones "dumb" adapter so I could not stop it down or auto-focus it. Very unfair.

For me, the Tamron is just too big and heavy. It's 18 oz heavier and quite a bit longer, too. The balance is different as well. When the Sony is extended it's light at the end but the Tamron is just heavy. On a monopod this is no problem but I quickly discovered that carrying the camera, lens and monopod was unpleasant. I have seen many people who seem to handle it well but I can't. Of course I would like the longest, fastest lens and have it weigh less than a pound but that is not going to happen in my time frame.

Put simply, in my case, I can hand-hold the Sony but not the Tamron. Or at least not for long.

So, what about if the Tamron would take better pictures? It's a moot point because it doesn't. I've seen posts even today that suggest that the Tamron takes equal or better pictures and perhaps if used to its full abilities it would but I was not able to find that out. I did take some still life comparison shots in which the Tamron did very well but in the field, I could not get razor sharp pictures and with the Sony I could - easily. Maybe it's a sample of one and not representative. Maybe with autofocus it would do better. But I took a lot of care and used focus magnification and the results were not good. My wife's critical eye agrees with mine, by the way. Since in my "still live" tests the Tamron is as good, I don't think the individual sample is the problem.

I spent the entire day's shooting today with the Sony using only autofocus and it did very well. When I use it on manual, focus magnification it can solve a problem with tree branches and such but won't be any sharper. I've tried that quite a bit.

Both lenses are getting their stabilization from the camera alone. The Tamron has stabilization in the Nikon model, but with my adapter, it doesn't happen.

I considered the Canon 100-400 g2 with an adapter but after getting some advice from B&H decided that a single-brand solution would offer fewer potential problems. I don't know if the Canon and the Sony are exactly equal but they are very close in price and IQ based on my reading.

If a picture is not critically sharp, having a 50% larger image doesn't make it better. So for me, zooming the Sony's sharper image is the better answer.

Tomorrow I will try to compare my a6000 to the rented a7R II with the same lens. Since for birds I need about 1/1600 second, stabilization will hopefully not be an issue.

This doesn't really prove anything to anyone but me, but I offer it just in case it has value to other UHHers.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I rented these ... (show quote)

I have concluded that there is no good option for Sony mirrorless cameras for long focal length lenses for wildlife. The A6xxx with the Sony 70-300mm lens gives you an efov of a 450mm lens. I have tried that combo and it focus fast and I get sharp pictures, but the reach wasn't long enough for me. I am not willing to accept the slower focusing of adapted lenses so I bought a Nikon D500 and the Tamron 150-600mm G2 to handle BIF and other wildlife. If you have a problem with lens weight, there are several options: Nikon 1 V2 or V3 with the 70-300mm lens (less than 2 lb.); MFT with 100-400mm lens (less than 3.5 lb.); D500 with the Tamron 150-600mm G2 (about 6 lb.) plus a tripod and gimbal (or buy some 10 lb. weights and build up your arm strength).