Hello guys!

My current go to setup is an A6400 with Tamron 17-70 and Sony 70-350. This cover most of my needs in daily photo life when it comes to landscape -and nature photography.

These days I shoot a lot of wildlife, and I do miss getting closer to a few objects sometimes - like butterflies and flowers. Especially when I've only brought my 70-350 along.

SO, I'm now considering selling both my current Tamron and my current Sony lens, and get a Tamron 18-300 for everyday shooting and travel.

What do you think about that? I want to bring as less equipment with me as possible when Im out and about, and I now I would compromise a bit with this.

BUT, in addition I'm also looking for a telelens to get that better reach for birding etc. Im looking mainly on 3 options now for this matter - all of the with pretty good reviews around:

 

- Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD: Lighter with its 1,7 kg. A bit less reach than the other two options. Price: 1350 USD. I believe it has a faster af than the Sigma?

- Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports: Heavy at 2,1 kg. Price: 1550 USD (1100 USD used). Slow AF.

- Sony FE 200-600mm F/5,6-6,3 G OSS: Internal zoom. Also 2,1 kg. Price: 1850 USD. Fast AF. Pricy.

 

Thoughts/recommendations? Other things to think about?

Some additional options for my APS-C setup. I prefer as light setup up as possible, given I get the reach needed for most situations. I do a lot of hiking, and I worry that a 2 kg ++ lens probably would sit a lot in the cabinet.

- Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS with 1.4 teleconverter. 1,4 kg. Pricey, but more versatile combo at around 3150 USD with the TC. Can get a used combo for around 1850 USD.

- Sony FE 70-200mm f/2,8 GM OSS II with 2.0 TC. Great in low light, versatile, and only just over 1 kg without the TC. Might not get the reach I would like in some cases. Very pricey at around 3450 USD. Can get a used combo for around 2600 USD.

Looking forward to some insights from other users/photographers. Thanks.

18 hours ago, cognoscentum said:

I do miss getting closer to a few objects sometimes - like butterflies and flowers.

By getting closer you mean to physically be able to put your camera closer to the subject and/or to get it framed larger? With flowers, a macro lens will help you much more than a tele lens to get it framed larger. If you want a quick and cheap fix, get some macro extension rings to use with your 17-70 and see if that covers your needs.

18 hours ago, cognoscentum said:

What do you think about that? I want to bring as less equipment with me as possible when Im out and about

Honestly, I would just stick to what you have. 350 mm vs 400 or even 500 mm isn't a world of difference but these fullframe lenses are a whole lot larger and heavier than your current kit. Like you said: they might just end up gathering dust in your cabinet. Exchanging the 17-70 plus 70-350 for the Tamron 18-300 might be sensible but you'll sacrifice a lot of aperture speed and optical quality.

If you shoot jpeg: try using clear image zoom for a bit: 1.7x clear image zoom at 350 mm gives comparable framing to a 600 mm lens. See if that's worth it to you, if only to get an idea of what you're investing in. Don’t be too affraid to crop a bit in post either.

1 hour ago, Pieter said:

closer to the subject and/or to get it framed larger?

Yes to both. Im willing to compromise a bit IF I was to change the two mentioned lenses with the Tamron 18-300.

1 hour ago, Pieter said:

If you shoot jpeg: try using clear image zoom for a bit: 1.7x clear image zoom at 350 mm gives comparable framing to a 600 mm lens. See if that's worth it to you, if only to get an idea of what you're investing in.

This is interesting. Ive never tried out that. Might be worth to experiment with to get an idea like you say. I shoot in combine jpeg and raw mode.

If I am to buy one of the other mentioned tele lenses, Im currently leaning towards the Tamron 150-500.

Then try your 70-350 a bit at 350mm with 1.4x clear image zoom to see what 500mm looks like compared to 350. Unfortunately, clear image zoom doesn't work when shooting RAW so for the try-out you should set JPEG only.

The Tamron 150-500 is substantially larger than the Sony 70-350 so you'll have to be willing to carry that bulk.

 

I agree with Pieter, all the other options are bulky and heavy, making everything that is more than a few hundred meters (or yards) away from the car park less photogenic  . That was my experience when I was younger and hiking. I bought a Nikon 300mm 2.8, which was the non plus ultra in terms of telephoto lenses (lot of talking in the internet at the time), just to discover that I was not using it on the field, bringing my 75-300 mm or even the 70-210mm, smaller and lighter, and eventually using the extra room and space for a small tripod, which improved the quality of my mountain landscape shots much, much more than a state of the art lens could do. Today I am travelling with the 55-210mm, more than adequate for my telephoto needs. I should had learnt from Galen Rowell's experience at the time.

That said, if weight is a concern (and also lens changing in the field, if you swap lenses in a dusty environment and get some dust on the sensor, then all your following images will need dust spot removal), I will go for the Tamron, all in one solution, provided that the quality is enough for my needs (sorry, I don't know this lens). All the other options are better in quality but bulky and, unless you need a lot of extra reach that you cannot achieve by cropping the image later, not that much different from your current 70-350mm. Keeping in mind that such lenses are nearly impossible to manage by hand at the maximum focal length. Another option, if you need absolutely extra reach, is a mirror lens. Manual and fixed aperture, but very lightweight for the focal length.

Since last time I've tested out the Clear Image Zoom in my Sony A6400. In most cases it doesn't really do it for me. Too much loss in quality at 300-35mm with the Sony 70-350 lens.

Im now debating whether to get either the 100-400GM or the 200-600G. Id say Im doing close to 50 % bird/wildlife shots, and 50 % landscape when out and about.

 

I can now get a new 200-600 for 1700 USD and the same price for a pre-owned (hardly used, with guarantee) 100-400. If Id chose the the latter I would probably, at know point, buy a 1.4 TC.

 

What I do like with the 100-400 is the form factor, obviously. 200-600 is huge. Internal zoom on the 200-600 is preferable though. I also like the fact that you have the option to use the 100-400 for some macro shots.

 

Image wise, what I've read in tests, there will be some but not huuge difference in image quality at 600mm (on 200-600) compared to 400mm with 1.4 TC (=560mm) on the 100-400GM.

Do anyone have user experience with both these lenses?

1 hour ago, cognoscentum said:

Since last time I've tested out the Clear Image Zoom in my Sony A6400. In most cases it doesn't really do it for me. Too much loss in quality at 300-35mm with the Sony 70-350 lens.

My point for using clear image zoom wasn't to use it for good quality photos but to compare focal length of a 400mm/500mm lens vs 350mm, so you know what to expect in terms of maximum zoom. You'll find that the difference between 350 and 400mm is nothing really. If 350mm isn't enough for you then neither will 400mm be.

Regarding quality: beyond 300-350 mm, many factors start to affect image quality other than just the loss due to upscaling resolution: atmospheric haze, camera shake, high ISO / long exposure times due to small aperture etc all start to hamper image quality. Don't expect a new lens to fix all that for you.

1 hour ago, cognoscentum said:

What I do like with the 100-400 is the form factor, obviously. 200-600 is huge.

Both are huge compared to the 70-350 and honestly I doubt you'll enjoy carrying any of these around after your first 'let's try my new toy'-trip. Just because:

On 7/16/2024 at 9:05 PM, cognoscentum said:

I want to bring as less equipment with me as possible when Im out and about

 

Edited August 30, 20241 yr by Pieter

Good points as always @Pieter

Even so, 100-400 is substantially smaller than the 200-600. I know they are both way heavier than 70-350, and I've come to terms with that. I plan to keep my 70-350.

Im quite sure that if I bought the 100-400GM, it would sit on my camera for a lot of the time. Probably way more than a 2-600.

Would be nice to know if anyone have  experience though with an APS-C camera such as A6400 paired with the 100-400 GM in particular - with 1.4 TC.

Obviously there are lot of factors in play with photography, but I do too much wildlife (mainly birds) photography now to just love with the 70-350. Its limiting.

Correction: ...to just live with the 70-350 😊

Sounds like you thought this through and are willing to carry the extra bulk. All I did was try to manage expectations and save you from disappointment.

If you really need a longer focal length to achieve your goals, clear image zoom is a feature that might help you to determine just how long the focal length should be. Framing at 350mm and 1.6x clear image zoom resembles a 560mm focal length lens. If this is still not enough, buying the 100-400 with 1.4× extender (max focal length = 560mm) just won't cut it. Then you need the 200-600 with 1.4× or 2× extender. So again my advise would be: try it a bit and see at what clear image zoom ratio you like the framing (not the image quality!) with your 70-350 to determine what focal length you need.

I will add to this, separate from the excellent advice given above:

Nothing beats field craft. Using zooms of that length to 'get closer' will end up in disappointment much of the time. Learning to stalk your subject, sit still, and when to just let a shot go because you know it's not going to work out are all critical. When the longest zoom available was 200mm on a 35mm camera, photographers had to know how to get physically close. 

Zooms weren't invented to bring the subject closer, the initial use was to provide variable magnification on a subject at a given distance. Atmospheric interference will come into play, so it's necessary to manage your expectations.

One issue you will run into is light. An f/6.3 lens becomes f/9 with a 1.4 TC and f/11 with a 2X. That's getting into diffraction territory with an APS-C sensor. Lenses that long will also force you to drive your shutter speed higher, which coupled with smaller apertures results in higher ISO. 

I shoot the 200-600 and Tamron 50-400. The 200-600 is what I consider an 'event' lens, or a lens for sitting in a blind. It's too heavy to carry for long periods walking around. The 50-400 is a much better choice for walking/moving, but of course it won't accept a TC so doesn't fit your requirements. 

I think your best bet for good clean shots on the APS-C sensor is the 200-600 with no TC. A 900mm equivalence should be plenty. But, as stated above, you'll need to have the commitment to carry the lens. 

Good luck in whatever you decide.