Tamron 50 400 Review: A Fantastic Versatile Lens for Sony 

They are killing the lens game lately

I agree. I’m considering another Tamron zoom for my Sony. I have a 70-180 f2.8, but not sure to get this Tamron on the one that goes to 500 mm.

@@LisaRSArti have a 70-300 very lightweight 545g , the qualityvis fantastic. I would recommend a 50-300 for weight 665g but you get the standard zoom. 70mm is too tight sometime. The 50-400 is best but it is 1100g. However it give you 600mm on a7c and on a7r5, a7cr, you can get crazy zoom and clearzoom x2 on a7c would give me 1200mm.

Excellent!!

You’re welcome

That's a very nice combo of lenses. I own the Tamron 28-200 + Sony 200-600, which works well for me (landscape + wildlife). I guess a wider lens would be nice, but so far I've managed without it. Very interested in this 50-400 for its versatility. With that lens in the bag I could leave the big gun (200-600) at home when shooting landscape. And if it's as sharp as the 28-200 on overlapping focal lengths it's more than sharp enough. Are you happy with the results you get from the 50-400?

agree

Agreed

Awesomen

quite close and with the latest firmware update even better, I need to test against the 200-600

@@JakeSloan I couldn't resist it, bought the 50-400. Have done some quick comparisons with the 28-200 and 200-600. They're all good and I can almost not tell them apart when shooting at shorter distances (5-20m). When shooting at longer distances the bigger lenses seem just a tad sharper. The 28-200 is still perfectly acceptable for my needs. Super happy with them all. Wish the 50-400 was sent with a lens collar though.

@@edc641 would you go this or a 150-500 to pair with a 24-105, Jake recommended a 100-400 but that seems to be Nikon or Canon only

@@OscarPizzasaurus I actually got the Tamron 50-400 a while ago. Absolutely love it. I'll keep the 28-200 as a lightweight option, but I'm using the 50-400 a lot more unless saving weight and space is of importance (multiday hiking with super heavy backpack). If you already own the 24-105 I'd still get the 50-400 over a 100-400 for sure. Why limit yourself to a 4x zoom when you can get the same results with this 8x zoom? 50-400mm is a lot more versatile and has amazing IQ. I can't really answer whether the 50-400 or the 150-500 is the better choice for you. I think it all comes down to what you intend to shoot and how convinient you want your bag and camera to be when you're out in the field handling all your gear. I use my 200-600 for birding only now that I have the 50-400. For birds I want max reach, but for all other occasions the 50-400 is a much better choice in my opinion. The 200-600 is a pain to handle for longer periods, and I'd imagine the 150-500 would be too (even if it's a little lighter). The downside, I think, of the 50-400 is that it has some distortion but that's easily corrected in post and nothing that bothers me at all. There are many reviews on yt and internet and I think I've seen/read them all. All of them recommend this lens. Hope this was helpful. Just ask me if you want to know more. Good luck with your decision! :)

@@edc641 thanks for the info very interesting. I managed to get a killer deal on a 100-400 sigma, kinda thinking 400 is no where near enough but then the only options is a 100-400 or 200-600 sony with teleconverter on either, but then that’s at least another 1-1.5k on top of what I got this sigma for..on an A7Sii I won’t have much room to play with for APSC mode.

I’m pretty happy with it!

yea soft slow wow just great ... bah

Thanks and yeah long zooms are really hard in the wind! I fly with Outbound Heli Adventures over by the Butte but the lodge is a really cool place to hang out

Thanks Paul!

I have yet to use the sony lens, the 50-400 and the 20-40 pair very well though

The GM is definitely better as I say in the video. I haven’t used the sigma though. I found myself using a lot of focal lengths with this

It is!

​@@JakeSloan i have only primes in my arsenal, but i want to add some zooms to it. I never really followed Tamron lenses. My eye was always on native Sony lenses. But now i'm amazed how much really unique lenses in Tamrons lineup! Now i'm thinking what to buy... Tamron 28-200, or 20-40 + 50-400... 28-200 is much cheaper way, and lighter. And i'm amazed that it covers almost all range i need! And the fact that it has 2.8 on wider end is amazing. So i can still use it in darker scenarios. And in crop mode it is 300mm on long end! Crazy versatile! But 50-400 is also very very intriguing! And i'm surprised that it is has a stabilisation! And it's a huge factor in comparison with Sony's stabilised 100-400GM! But 50mm on a wide side of Tamron makes it so much more useful! It's crazy! Tamron 20-40 is also in my wish list, because i always wanted this focal range for a video work. Now i dreaming about 20-50 from Tamron 🙂 I don't know why I am writing all of this to you 🙂 Just a bit of emotions 🙂 Thank you for the videos! ;-) and for the Tamron reviews ;-)

For the ultimate travel setup I’d definitely go with the 18-28 and 50-400 for the max versatility. To be honest I’m kind of in the same boat. Looking at selling a few of my lenses and just having this one and a 17-28 or 16-35

@@JakeSloan Thank you Jake. Tamron is not making it any easier for us! Their lenses are so good, we as Sony shooters are fortunate to have choices. I was really impressed with the 70-300. I owned the SP version in my Canon days and it delivered a few five-star images for my client shoots. It is not a "pro" lens but you would not know from the results. From your results and a few other early reviews, I think the 50-400 is a worthy if not better replacement for the 70-300. I am with you, I think the 17-28 and the 50-400 are the ultimate combo. Love your videos. Thank you for sharing your time and talent with us.

@@boristahmasian9604 I have the Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 and am thinking of pairing this with it. I can do a bit of video, even in supper 35 with the 20-40mm and I like the 70-180mm f2.8 for the 2.8, but it doesn't have VC. Some say that you don't need it, but stabilization, I think is more important for zoom lenses. I would consider the 35-150mm even though it is extra money, if it had VC. Now, for a bit more, I can have the 20-400 mm (with 20-60 [with the super 35 for video]) for travel!

@@GuitarRJP I ended up buying the 50-400. I have already sold my 70-300 and in the process of selling the 150-500. This is some month later after the initial comment I made here. I had a chance to shoot with the new 17-50 for a few days and boy do I like it! The only obvious shortcoming is the f4 for the times that light is low. For landscape and general photography in decent light the 17-50 is incredibly versatile lens. Now, I am torn between getting the 20-40 or the 17-50 once I let my 17-28 go.

Thanks for watching!

Totally agree!

Excellent!!

Thank you Doug

I would say between the 50-400 and the 150-500 I’d lean toward the 150-500 as it has slightly better image quality. I haven’t used the sigma so I can’t comment on it

I'm an early adopter of the Sigma 100-400 for Sony. I haven't used the Tamron 50-400mm, but from what I understand it is better than the Sigma in almost every respect: wider focal lengths, better minimum focusing distance, superior (or at least equal) image quality, lighter weight, and more customisable. Relatively slow AF speeds seem to be a shared weakness between both the Sigma 100-400 and Tamron 50-400. I can no longer recommend the Sigma 100-400 now that the Tamron 50-400 is on the market, unless the savings are absolutely essential. The Tamron 150-500 is substantially heavier than all the other options, and puts it closer in class to the Sony 200-600. I haven't used the 150-500, but what I've seen suggests that it has faster AF than the 50-400mm, but probably not to the level of the 200-600mm (which also has better image quality).

Agreed and thanks for watching

I use the 28-200 all the time. Pretty much the only time I switch lenses is when I shoot birds and let the Sony 200-600 do the job. A lot of reviews says the 28-200 is very good for being a super zoom. I think it's more than that. Still interested in the 50-400 for that extra reach. But I'll probably never sell the 28-200. It's too versatile and easy to carry.

I saw!! I can’t wait to see those lenses

Thanks I hope so too!

Right?

it's very close I would say the 150-500 has the edge by just a little bit

you're welcome

Agreed

none for me

@@JakeSloan hmm, maybe I got a bad batch... No issue at all with the 28-75 and 28-75G2,as well as the 17-28. But the issue comes up quite often for the 70-180

I like this more, it's smaller and lighter plus having the 50mm makes it a lot more useful in most situations

the standard mode work well for most things the mode 2 is better for panning shots

I would actually pair this lens with the 20-40 tamron, which makes a fantastic 2 lens setup, to pair with the 24-105 I'd go with the 100-400

@@JakeSloan thanks for getting back to me I think that might be the best way forward thank you, lastly a friend drew my attention to the 150-500 do you know much about that lens?

Welcome!

Agreed!

That would be hard as Sony don’t make a 50-400 lens.

Agreed!!!

Thanks me too!

yeah Tamron has some fantastic optical designs