Is OSS useful anymore on the A7RV?

[Sony captive]

Just upgraded to the A7RV.  I want to get a long telephoto, as I currently only have the Tamron 70-300 which is not OSS.  As we know, the IBIS in the A7RV is much better, and I can verify this, but I also cant see any improvement in stabilization with a OSS lens.  My only OSS lens is the Sony 24-105.  For fun, I compared my ability to hand-hold at 100 on this lens with the same angle on the Tamron.  I was able to consistently hand hold shots at 1/15 on both lenses, but no slower.  This makes me wonder if a big OSS telephoto is really worth it, or just adding unneeded weight?  Sony does not allow you to turn off the OSS on the lens or body independently.  Any comments?  

[FunWithCameras]

IBIS is most effective on shorter focal lengths - you need it in the lens for longer. Not sure whether the breakpoint is - might be between 100-200mm, at a guess.

I would be very wary about drawing conclusions about OSS based on the 24-105mm.

[Sony captive]

14 hours ago, FunWithCameras said:

IBIS is most effective on shorter focal lengths - you need it in the lens for longer. Not sure whether the breakpoint is - might be between 100-200mm, at a guess.

I would be very wary about drawing conclusions about OSS based on the 24-105mm.

Thanks.  I ordered the Tamron 50-400.  I’ll report back on how it compares to the non oss tamy 

[Sony captive]

So I’ve tested the OSS Tamron 50-400 vs the nonOSS Tamron 70-300, both set at 300mm, aperature 6.3, 1/100s, auto ISO.   Despite the rave reviews of the new lens, I have to say that the smaller non OSS performed better.  1/100s was the limit of my hand hold shots, and here the small lens has lower ISO and richer colour.  Not sure I will be keeping the new lens.   I also feel that the IBIS and OSS are not effectively working together on this combination.

[Pieter]

ISO should not significantly be related to the lens used: both were shot at F/6.3 so T-value should be like 7-ish for both lenses. Did you try them outdoors? In that case, slight variations in cloudiness are likely the cause for higher ISO and more muted colors with the 50-400.

If you already have a 70-300 you're happy with, I wouldn't bother with a 50-400: the gain in focal length at the long end is quite marginal and the lens is much bigger than the 70-300. If anything, I'd consider the Tamron 150-500 as it's only slightly bigger than the 50-400 and does give a significant boost in reach compared to the 70-300.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#883.937,883.1106,883.977,ha,t

Edited August 31, 2023 by Pieter

[Sony captive]

I’ve just shot a series of perfect shots at 300mm hand held at 1/10s on my Tamron lens with no oss.  I can’t get anywhere close to this with a lens having OSS.  Same thing at 100 with my Sony 24-105.   I am beginning to wonder whether I have a faulty camera that does not work properly with OSS. Yet the camera is so perfect with lenses that do not have OSS, so there is no problem with the IBIS.   Is anyone else having this experience? I find it very frustrating that Sony does not allow you to turn off OSS and leave ibis on, or vice versa. I’m almost wondering if they’ve done this on purpose so that nobody notices that ibis and OSS don’t work properly together. But I would love to hear from others on this topic, because if my camera is faulty, I need to get it fixed.

[FunWithCameras]

OSS only handles two of five axes, while IBIS handles the other three. You can read up on how it works.

is it possible that the lighter weight of your 70-300 is the reason you got steadier images? It’s a lot easier to hold a lighter weight lens steady.

Are you basing your conclusions on a single OSS lens? It’s possible that the OSS in that lens is not performing at its best.

[Sony captive]

Thanks.   I finally returned my 50-400.  Maybe I’ll find one locally that I can test.  For now I am going to just enjoy the lightness of the 70-300 until I find a longer hand holdable lens that is a significant enough improvement.    Although now I am missing the good macro I had on the 50-400.