SONY A6400 - Choice of zoom lens

[cognoscentum]

Hello guys!

I'm new to this forum (amateur) and a fairly new owner (since Jan. 23) of the Sony Alpha 6400.

Today I have the standard Sony kit lens that came with it + 17-70 mm Tamron lens which Im really happy with for everyday use/travelling and such.

However, I'm now looking into a lens with longer reach - typically for wildlife photography and such.

In regards to this I've been looking on several lenses, but I think I've narrowed myself down to the the following two options (unless someone has some great options they recommend in particular):

 

1. Sony E 70-350 mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS: I can get this for a reduced price now to 830 USD (in Scandinavia).

2. Tamron 18-300 mm F3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD: Also reduceded price at 630 USD - so 200 USD cheaper than the Sony lens.

 

Both of them have stabilizer as from what I can see - which is a must imo since the A6400 doesn't have an in body image stabilization.

I've read many test, and they have both their forces. From what I understand, Sony has the superior quality when it comes to photo quality/crispness at around 300 mm.

But the Tamron is more versatile given the range, and with a wider focus area (I do take a lot of landscape photos too) + its considerably cheaper.

 

From what I understand, both of them are mediocre in their performance in low light? Anyone with experience in this regard?

With my setup from before, what would you guys recommend out of these two alternatives? User experiences?

If there are suggestions for other options in this price range that you personally think is better, I'm open to suggestions.

 

PS! I will probably not be using a tripod a lot, mostly handheld (I have a steady hand ). 95 % of the time it will be used for still photography. So using it for video will be rare.

 

Cheers!

 

 

Edited August 10, 2023 by cognoscentum
Update

[thebeardedgroundsman]

Without having used either, I would go for the Sony lens because I believe that zooms with an extended range, like the Tampon must compromise image quality far more than zooms with a regular, well tested, range.

If, as you mention, the quality is compromised at the lower end, and you like taking landscapes - I would keep the Tampon zoom you already have for those shots. - the joy of interchangeable lens cameras is that you can do just that, and keep the quality throughout the range you want to use.

But I am happy to be corrected by those who have used the lenses you mention.

[FunWithCameras]

One of the things to consider is that designing a zoom lens is an exercise in balance. Most particularly, balancing image quality against zoom range (and price!). The larger the ratio between the shortest focal length and the longest focal length, the more difficult it is to maintain good image quality. You may have noticed that the pro zoom lenses hover around 3:1 (24-70, 70-200, even the 200-600). The semi-pro / enthusiast zooms might go out to 4:1 or 5:1. Once you go much higher you are getting into super-zoom territory: 10:1, even 20:1. Super-zooms do appear on cameras like handicam video recorders, because HD video is not high resolution imagery - roughly 2Mpixel. 

I have seen the 70-350mm. Its zoom ratio is 5:1. It’s quite a decent lens, too.

I have not seen the 18-300, but I would be concerned about image quality based solely on its extreme zoom ratio (over 16:1). Just like the bearded groundsman said. BTW: please do not take offence - auto-correct has the bad habit of “correcting” Tamron to Tampon 😞

If you insist on a one lens approach, I have seen some people saying good things about a 28-200mm lens (I think it’s also a Tamron). The Sony 24-240mm was introduced for use on a video camera, and I would not recommend it for shooting stills.

I’d suggest using two lenses. I have the 20-70mm f/4, and it is a very good lens. I pair it with a 70-200, but using a 70-300 or even 70-350 would be reasonable. I’m mostly familiar with full frame lenses, and I imagine there are smaller APS-C lenses.

 

[cognoscentum]

Thanks for both replies so far.

Just for the info, I intens to keep both my lenses (kit + 17-70 mm) for now.

So the lens I plan to buy now is not a replacement for anything, but in addition.

Is the Sony lens worth 200 USD more?? It probably is a better lens, but less versatile...

People around that have used them both seems to have mixed feelings which is the better one though...

[Pieter]

I only own the Sony 70-350 so can't comment on the Tamron 18-300 by personal opinion, but the 70-350 is really sharp in my experience. From what I can find online, everyone pretty much agrees that the Sony has considerably better image quality at the long end than the Tamron. Is it worth 200 USD more? Only you can tell as we don't know your financial situation and the value you put into image quality and the convenience of a superzoom versus having to swap lenses at 70mm.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4644338

[cognoscentum]

Thanks Pieter for your comment, appreciate it.

Well, about the 200 USD extra was "objectively" speaking. If the SONY lens is way better, I wouldn't care about the extra cost.

 

[cognoscentum]

The link you provided, I did read through this earlier. And it concerns me when some of the users say you can't get steady shots at the full range of zoom, quote:

 

I can report that the 70-350 provides very sharp images on my a6600.   BUT without the IBIS I have on the a6600 you would need to shoot it at speeds in excess of 1/500, even allowing for the in-less OSS (I think - I didn't make the A-mount to E-mount jump until I could have IBIS since it had been so valuable on the A55/77ii bodies I previously owned).

There is at least one company (iShoot) who make a tripod collar to fir the 70-350, so shooting hand-held won't be forced on you by the camera.

 

I have the A6400 body, with no IBIS...

 

The downside of the Sony is subpar stabilisation. It not influence my wildlife shots, where I use min 1/500 anyway, but landscape and semi-close-up photos need to be done with great care at 1/125, better at 1/250 when using 350mm.

 

Sounds a bit concerning in regards to the mentioned downside.

Edited August 11, 2023 by cognoscentum

[Pieter]

For long lenses, sensor-based image stabilization is inferior to optical image stabilization anyway, so most of the stabilization is done by the lens. I have not experienced any issues with blurry shots at long range, but I tend to use 1/500 sec or faster shutter speeds at long range. I do have a (stabilized) A6500 but for this lens I don't feel like it makes much of a difference compared to my old (non-stabilized) A6000.

The last post in this thread sums up the answer to your questions quite well:

For what it is worth I own both lenses and each has its advantages.  But the 70-350mm has much sharper image quality at the long end.  The tamron is a bit soft. Indeed, once I push the tamron past 200-250mm, it starts to really show the softness compared to the Sony.  I love my tamron 18-300 and have no regrets buying it because it is an awesome all-in-one zoom with spectacular range. That said, if I am bringing a camera bag with a few lenses, I'll take the sony 70-350 (and tamron 17-70 and 11-20mm lenses) and leave the 18-300 at home.

Dustin Abbot did a (rather unscientific) test on the stabilizer with the 70-350 mounted on an A6400 and found it to give about 6 stops of performance, which is quite good actually. He even put in his Pros list 'very effective stabilizer'.

https://dustinabbott.net/2022/05/sony-e-70-350mm-f4-5-6-3-g-oss-review/

OpticalLimits is usually has a bit more scientific in their approach and rated it at 3-4 stops, which is still quite ok:

https://www.opticallimits.com/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/1091-sony70350f4563

The only reference I can find with regard to poor OSS performance of this lens is by Ken Rockwell. Personally, I don't hold his clownesque reviews in high regard.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Pieter

[cognoscentum]

Thanks for the good insight Pieter, appreciate it.

I feel one step closer to the Sony lens now.