A bit difference in price differential in Australia. You can get the Sony 70-200 GM II for $3057, where the cheapest I can find the Tamron G2 is $2098. So that makes the Tamron G2 much less exciting here compared to the Sony, as Sony has no frame limit, can use teleconverters and is still going to be a bit better lens. The prices you quote for over there put it at about 42% of the GM II's price, but here it's 68%.
The Sony 70-200 GM also let's you use their teleconverters. The 2x version turns the 70-200 f/2.8 into a very capable 140-400 f/5.6. It's cheaper than buying two lenses, but mainly it saves you loads of space in your camera bag.
I would like to know more about the Westcott wrinkle-resistant backdrop. It is more expensive than many full frame cameras. Its wrinkle reistance better be good!
Thanks for all the input! Wow, internet is such a great place 🤣🤣 Soo, I got mine a few days back and there are already two dust specks under the front element... Hum... We'll see how it goes.
@@RCGJR_ it's not a problem at all in pictures. Even my G1, with tons of dust inside, there was no incidence whatsoever on the pictures. But of course, it doesn't inspire confidence.
Looks like a great value. But also keep in mind that one of the advantages of first-party lenses is the acceptance of teleconverters. Could be a factor for some buyers out there.
@@caleb-snaps Well this lens is for Sony E-Mount and the Sony 70-200 does accept teleconverters and is a big advantage if you travel light and want more reach by quickly putting on a teleconverter.
you answeren all my questions, thank you! just wondering how you would compare it with tamron 35-150. i currently own this lens and love it! I am just missing some range for horse sport photography
Rather annoying that the Nikon 70-180 "G1" came out a few months before the Tamron 70-180 G2. I'd be a customer for a G2 as a lighter/smaller alternative for travel to my huge Nikon 70-200, but I will not buy a G1 when it would be a noticeable downgrade. I still vastly prefer internal zoom for action work, so I wouldn't sell the 70-200.
Nikon's Tamron 28-75 G1 is also out before E-mount's G2.....that speaks a lot. However, Nikon's G1 takes teleconverters....so it's ok in my book(MSRP isn't
How would it turn out in a Sony A6xxx? I'm thinking about the new 70-180 G2 and the sigma 70-200 2.8 that comes out next month. Thank you very much and health 😎
It's funny how they announced the 70-180 to Nikon , then a month later (or so? ) the improved G2 to Sony ... (Yes Tamron is owned Sony to some extent , but still a bit of a sand in the eye)
I'd still pick a used / nearly new original GM over the Tamron. If it starts raining, snowing or is windy and dusty I'd be looking to put away the Tamron because if the telescoping zoom. I also care about build quality and materials (metal>plastic) more than weight. I like having the option of adding teleconverters. I like using proper manual focus with real manual override. I prefer an auto/manual focus switch over a zoom lock. I don't like the placement of the focus ring on the Tamron being so close to the camera. I prefer three focus hold buttons over just one. I like having a tripod collar. I prefer the GM's three image stabilization modes over Tamron's VC. Even the GM's lens hood is far superior.
Tripod collar could be replaced by ATOLL-like mounts, teleconverters probably need to be updated to become usable again (I did not see a positive report about them in years), many people avoid snow or dust only because it is unpleasant for people to work in such conditions in the first place, so while these are valid points, it's hard to consider GM1 with alternatives like 80% of features/quality for 50% of price tag or 150% for 130% - I have only now noticed how much GM1 lost in value, initially the price was set to ~15% of difference, I think.
@@marcinmrzyglocki by all reviews I've seen the 1.4x makes a very useful 280mm F4 and retains nearly all of the autofocus abilities. On the GM2 the 2x is supposed to be very good too. 1.4x may only be an extra 80mm on the GM but compared to the Tamron it's 100mm more reach. I forgot to mention (others have here in the comments) the GM lens is also parfocal making zooming and tracking subjects whilst zooming considerably easier. You can find the 70-200mm GM in excellent/nearly new condition for £130 less than the Tamron G2. I'm not even sure an Atoll will fit the Tamron but it also adds 100-170g, won't be perfectly balanced, and isn't nearly as convenient as a built-in system. I think it would be a shame to buy a lens like this and not want to use it unless the weather is perfect.
@@Pablomache I have been using ATOLL and it's possible to balance it well using an extra plate, but convenience is a fair point - screwing in and adjusting ATOLL is a bit of hassle, though it allows to use unique 35-150mm at the same time. I'm at the limit of AF abilities of Tamron's G1 and I get an increased interest in internal zoom and a bit of an additional reach compared to 35-150mm, so I think that I might jump over Tamron's G2 straight to GM2, assuming funds will allow for such an upgrade. Could anyone suggest Tamron releasing something like 100-300mm F2.8?
@@Pablomache I have got an impression about teleconverters that they give about the same quality and parameters as APS-C mode, so I'm not pressed, especially as current lenses cover my shooting range well enough without extensions, not to mention all of them don't allow TCs for a chance of even considering/testing them.
@@Pablomache Whoever said you can't use Tamron lenses in inclement weather? I've used mine backpacking for several days in the mountains of Idaho, Patagonia and Alaska in wind gusts conditions, snow and pouring rain.
Yes but somehow the Nikon model can focus close like the G2 but is this mean the Nikon model is not good to buy now as a new model with stabilisation like the G2 will be coming soon?
I followed you guys for years and watch you grow but this is not your best review. No fast moving subjects , people will want this for sport as well as portraits. Also no test of the VR performance. On a separate note your pod cast gets better ever week
I own the old version and the only complains I had with this lens was and is the horrible surface quality of the plastics and some focus issues on older cameras. One sharp look at it and there is a new scratch on the lens body. As an event photographer who is changing lenses all the time, the Tamron looked worse after a half year than lenses I used for 8 years. I don't know if a VC was really needed as even the old version was perfectly stable even on older A7RIII bodies. With newer models like the A7IV there are no shaky images at 180mm even at really slow shutter speeds of 1/25s etc. So I don't really get it, why you make the lens slightly bigger and heavier for an OIS. Even the A7s III IBIS runs perfect at videos without an OIS. Btw please guys get rid of this "Plena"-bs. The Noct was something sutpidly speacial, but the Plena is just a completly normal lens. It makes no sense.
As someone who bought into the Nikon Z line; this gets me so upset. We get the older version of everything.. Tamron launches the new G2 while Nikon launches the G1..
Well, Nikon needs to resolve their financial problems somehow, while at the same time wasting money on showboating (Noct anyone?). So obviously they have to cut some corners.
@@rodd1000 Sony doesn't have better glass.. But nikon use to have for their F mount, the best lineup, now it's crap. The 4 most used lenses by me, nikon mirrorless has none. 28mm f1. 8g 65mm f2. 8 micro 105mm f2DC 180mm f2. 8D And they refuse to give us an ftz adapter that will do screw drive. They want us to buy new glass and I get it, but their lineup has a million holes, so until then, I want to use my old lenses. I won't go Sony either because you are basically a beta tester, and when they work out tuff kinks, they don't update the firmware, they tell you to buy a new body. Tamron 20-40mm f2. 8 if it comes to nikon mount I'll stick with nikon. Nikon has NO zoom that starts at 20mm.. Which is the widest I want to go.. Sony has 20-70, Panasonic has 20-60, Tamron has 20-40. So while I currently shoot all nikon, they are a disappointment
Dear Chris and Jordan, I understand the need of making money, especially when the views and subs counts are smaller from back in the day. But seeing you two having two adds in one video feels arkward. Its just not your style „… and btw we us this backdrop, tripod, light whatever.“ I dont mind having more YT adds before or even within, but you two guys acting it… i dont know.
02:21 having to hook up the lens to a proprietary app to reassign function buttons is "very handy"??? I love the idea of assigning functions via software, but a having to install a separate app for every gizmo that offers this is NOT an appealing future. How about a nice, simple embedded Web server accessible from any browser, or (for the real hardcores) a text-editable plist?
@@simonmaduxx6777there is more to a lens than it's aperture. I know some f/4 lens have not the greatest build but the Sony 70-200mm f/4 is very well built and have much to offer with features. Not everyone wants to always shoot wide open at f/2.8. A good question would be is the Tamron as sharp or shaper at f/2.8 or stopped down at f/4 to the Sony. Although I would argue that sharpness is not everything either but it could really show the aspect of build quality between the two. I think it would be a good comparison.
I'd be curious to know. I actually did buy the F4 GII and I love the compact size and the "Macro" through out the range. outside of pure DOF the F4 hasn't been an issue and if you are using it to shoot close range shot its DOF being a tele is still plenty shallow at F4, and its very sharp at F4...
@@simonmaduxx6777 of course there is reason to compare. 1 stop doesn't throw it into a completely different ballpark 😂. Those 2 are the only compact telephoto zoom lenses we have and they have different pros and cons.
Concentrated piece of constant whining about weather. But the Tamron is seriously good. Where is Jordans part? Does the focus breathe? How fast is the AF versus Sony? How many stops for the VC? How good it is?
We had snow on the West coast too; of course we had to climb into the mountains to find it…otherwise sunny and 10! Tamron seems on a run again lately…great lenses and often at much less in terms of cost. Tend to lean more to Sigma, but both are such great options.
@@sgporkwhy would it not be a fair comparison? Lol, 2.8 vs 4 is just a stop of light and that is not a light of light loss, especially with modern sensors. In most situations, it can easily be made up by your iso or shutter speed with the stabilization. OP, to answer your question as best as I can, the Sony is probably a little better built and sealed, also you get more customizable buttons and switches on the body of the lens, and your frame rate is not limited to 15fps, so if you’re using an A1 or A9 series of camera, that’s a huge benefit… not so much on the a7 series. Also, many reviewers such as Tony and Chelsea, and Chris and Jordan have stated that it was sharper than the 70-200 2.8 GM II so it will probably be sharper than this Tamron and it’s a much better macro lens. The key benefits to the Tamron are that you are getting that 2.8 aperture. So it will be better than the Sony in fast action, low light scenarios, such as in door sports, although you are trading 20mm on the long end vs the Sony (not that big a deal). It’s also not insubstantially cheaper at $1300 vs $1700. And now that you’re getting VC the reasons to jump up to the Sony are less justified for an almost 30% price increase. My recommendation, if you have, or plan on having an A1 or A9, get the Sony. The max aperture is not worth the loss in frame rate for action scenarios, but really, I would recommend you save your money and get the 2.8 instead of the 4 for a no compromise, high quality option. You should be ponying up for the high end glass if you have these bodies anyways. If you have any of the a7 or apsc bodies, it really just depends on your needs. I don’t think you can go wrong with either. Personally, I think the Sony will just flat out be a better lens if you don’t NEED 2.8 aperture (like in scenarios I mentioned earlier), but the point of the Tamron, or any 3rd party lens, is not really to be better than their 1st party counterparts, and is instead to represent an absolute value over what 1st party has to offer. Which the Tamron absolutely does. Cheers! And happy shopping!
@@sgpork I'd beg to differ. The Sony F4 macro has been out for a while, meaning it won't be too hard to find a unit for a little more money than this newer Tamron. And seeing as the Sony gives you macro capabilities, an extra 20mm at the long end, the ability to use teleconverters AND full shooting speed on newer Sony bodies, the extra cost might be worth it over the Tamron.
@@questioneverything680 thank you for the reply. Fair points towards both the Sony and Tamron. Still in a debacle, but leaning more towards the Sony day by day as I do mostly street and travel photography. Thank you again!
@@BenjaminChooStreetPhotography that's why. Just like you mention. They are different lens altogether. So that is not a fair/right comparison. Unless this tamron is F4 too. So.. if 1 needs F2.8... the f4 just wont do it. however only unless people buy this F2.8 but only shoot at f4.. then you can compare it with the f4 sony.. But nobody buy F2.8 to only shoot at f4.. hardly. so.. price/size/weight aside.. is F2.8 more important for the user or the marco capability is more important to the user.. these.. only the user themself knows better.
Does it have the focus issues when zooming like previous Tamron E-mount glass? The first generation of this lens, as well as every Tamron zoom I've tested, loses focus completely when zooming while focusing. The GM lenses stay on target, so it's not a camera issue, but a lens issue. I don't see reviewers talking about this and I don't know why.
Parfocal means a lens will stay in focus even after you zoom a lens to a different focal-length. Most lenses and including this lens will lose focus after you zoom. Utilizing continuous-autofocus while zooming an inexpensive lens will mitigate some of what you are seeing.
In my experience first 70-180mm actually has a snappy AF when zooming: even though at 10fps out-of-focus shots happen, this affects about one frame at a time and is not very noticeable compared to 24-105mm, which goes into panic mode on focal length changes, completely ruining the image.
@@spanuehspanueh7216 The issue isn't that the lens isn't perfectly parfocal (the GMs aren't either). I'm not talking about the lens shifting or not shifting the manual focus one has set slightly on a stationary target while zooming, which is usually what videographers mean when they say parfocal. What I'm talking about is the system going into complete panic mode when zooming *while continuous af tracking is engaged*. The scenario is this: I'm at 180mm, in af-c and tracking, af locked on the eyes of the subject. I'm holding down af on. Now, while keeping af engaged (static subject) I zoom to 150mm. The GM will lose focus for a split second and very slightly, if at all, then snap into focus again. It's there, but barely noticeable (and only during big zooms). The Tamrons I've tested will go completely out of focus and it'll take them a second or more to get back on track. Basically zooming acts as if I've simultaneously turned the focus ring. It's not like the lens goes to the tip of the nose rather than the eyes, as in it's not perfectly parfocal - the image goes completely blurry while zooming because focus shifts by like several feet.
For me the 35-150 is unusable. to heavy, to big. I would largely take this! and if I need some wide angle I would just take a real wide angle prime like a sony 20mm and it still would be far lighter and probably even cheaper
I shot with the Nikon 70-180mm f2.8 G1 and did a great job. I like the fact that the G2 has image stabalisation and would be better overall image quality. I hope Tamron has it available for Nikon soon.
Why get this lens instead of the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8? Almost as much zoom, but much wider focal length, better aperture, manual focus select switch, most of the same features..?
Something I like about this lens in addition to being less than half the price of the Sony, is that it's more compact and doesn't have a built-in tripod collar, making it more appropriate for day to day hobbyist style usage. I would never use this lens on a tripod so the more compact build is definitely a feature. There are not many full frame lenses like it.
There are many more plastic (light weight) full frame lenses than those made using metal. The built in tripod collar on the GM's takes three seconds to remove and can be done whilst the lens is attached to the camera. The Tamron is half the price of the GM2 but only £200-£300 less than the GM1. You can even find the GM1 used/like new for £100-£200 less than the Tamron. When considering day to day use you also need to consider the day to day weather and that's where the GM lenses are more usable because of their internal zoom. There are not many full frame lenses like the GM's.
@@Pablomache Let's recap. I said there are not many lenses like the Tamron and you listed ONE last-gen lens. Got any others? The GM1, I might add, at 1480 grams is a MASSIVE 75% heavier than the Tamron and retails for 50% more money. Have fun shooting that one-handed. A bit apples to oranges to list a used price of one lens vs MSRP of the other.
@@thehotdoglover anyway back to my point... the plastic Tamron is made like every other budget/alternative lens so pointless listing hundreds of lenses. I wasn't saying the GM is like the Tamron, and I even said there aren't many lenses like the metal, parfocal, internal zooming, manual focusing GM's. I also compared new prices and only pointed out used prices as it was even cheaper than the Tamron. Have fun holding your plastic telescoping lens in one hand, whilst waiting at home for the perfect weather to go outside and use it.
@@Pablomache What's wrong with plastic lenses? The Tamron 70-180 is very light and very nice when, in my case, I like to take my camera backpacking for several days. Also these Tamrons are weather sealed. I've taken them backpacking all the time in inclement weather from Patagonia to Alaska. Also, this Tamron is much sharper than the Sony 70-200 GM1.
