You must do the sniffing test before the wind tunnel test, to not contaminate the smell with the wind. Please be more rigorous and serious with your testing.
For me personally, this lens is ideal, most of the stuff I shoot with lenses is high up in the mountains so having 300mm instead of just 200mm (from normal 70-200, or the 180 from the Tamron 70-180) is far more important than the aperture. Also on these long hikes saving weight is critical so having a smaller and lighter option that has that much reach is perfect. I don't shoot indoor sports at all, occasionally some outdoor stuff but not nearly enough to justify getting a lens for that.
You e helped me decide on my travel kit. It will be a 17-28 and this 70-300. When traveling I’d want the range for landscapes and would frequently shoot at f/8 and beyond anyhow. The range plus the weight plus the coloring with Tamron is superb.
I think for deeper space astrophotography this lens also suits well, since deep space astro needs trackers and stacking hundreds of images anyway, so aperture becomes not as important, but lightness and reach is important. For deep space astro photography beginner even with something like move shoot move tracker this would work well since it's so light and reach is quite decent.
I'm supprised you would say this. If you have a faster lens you require fewer photos to stack. For the same SNR (signal to noise ratio) you'd need 4 times more images with an f/5.6 lens than an f/2.8 lens. That's a pretty big difference to me. I think actual resolving power and light gathering are the two important factors for astrophotography, IMHO.
11:32 his recommendation to get the 180/2.8 doesn’t apply to landscape photographers or travel togs. For travel this would pair well with a compact 50/1.4 for short DOF in eg portraits.
There is a Nikon lens 70-300 f4.5-6.3 for f mount, you can adapt that if you want, because we don't know when Nikon is going to release good lenses let alone cheap lenses
Thing is, 7c ibis is worse, than other bodys. 7c is smaller camera and they had to made completely new ibis to fit inside that body, smaller size compromise the stabilisation effect.
The imperial thing comes from those guys who live on an island in Europe and don't want to be part of Europe. They also drive at the wrong side of the road :)
Ah! I have a 28-75 and want more reach for landscapes primarily. It would be nice if it could double for portraits too as I do about half and half landscapes (not wildlife) and kids/portraits/candid shots. Trying to figure out -- sell the 28-75 and just grab a 28-200 and 85/1.8 for portraits? Or keep 28-75, grab 70-300 for outdoors and then an 85/1.8 (eventually) for portraits? Hmm.
Depends on your needs for convenience and reach. I have the 28-200 and a 85/1.8. They make the perfect combination for my needs. I like to do Hiking/travel and portrait photography, primarily. In the 28-75mm range, this lens stays between f2.8 and f4 and focuses really well, even in low light. The compression you get between 70-200 is solid, but if you are looking for true separation from background for portraits, you'd need that faster prime lens. Of course, f5.6 has never bother me for taking pictures of flowers or birds, so for most trips I only carry one lens, the 28-200.
Jared could you do a proper review of the 28-200 f2.8-5.6 (i don't remember seeing one)? Is is worth it? Super zoom are usually bad... I'm considering it with the addition of the Sigma 14-24 f2.8 as a two lens travel kit (when the Covid situation will be over). By the way wouldn't the Sigma 100-400 be a better alternative to this Tamron 70-300? The Sigma is very well built, has excellent OSS and image quality in my opinion.
If you wanna grow as a photographer, have a look at Tamron 70-180 f/2.8, smile and say NOPE and wait for Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 that is hopefully coming soon. But if you want to shoot outdoor, wait for tamron's release 200-400 f/4 that is already pattented. :-D
The thing is that Sigma is nowhere to be seen and we don't know the performance. It was announced long time ago and if sb wants to buy tele zoom lens they can choose between 70-200gm or 70-180.
yep wait for sigma at worst it will drop the price of the tamron 70-180mm also ,art wins though better than gm and tamron also lighter than gm and wallet
Perfect video as always!Btw. (For especially beginners with FF- yet not sure what mm you really will need etcetc) What about Sony 24-240mm 3.5-6.3 OSS?Sorry, but I just love this lens! for me( a7rii)is it very very underestimated lens,but why? Not so expensive for original Sony ,stabilisation, not so heavy(780g- for 10x zoom!), the range is ideal for almost everything you need from in door family photo + video to a liitle wild(especially for me 24 better than 28mm), in crop mode i can go to 360mm 4k video( summary ff+crop= 24-360 with one lens!!!) and 18 mpx photo( 26mpx on A7RIV!!!),dust and moist resistance , 0.27x magnif.- not macro but not too bad, love sharpness,no CA, and 3,5-6.3 seem not so good but, hmm 24-101 mm is in range 3.5-5.6 and only the rest to 240 is 6.3!, try to think deeper about all of this, do you know any other similar lens on market?!;-) btw. At least in jpeg better sph.aber.( or should i say zero maybe better) in 24mm than 24mm on my expensive 2470/ 2.8 GM!!!Good light and sorry for my poor english !
Thanks for the video, I use my A7C to shoot video all the time. I was surprised at how shaky the video was with the Tamron. I know the Sony 70-300 is quite pricy, do you think there would be a lot of image degradation if I used the Sony SEL 70-350? I know its for APC, so camera has to go into crop mode.
Excellent review. I like how you pointed out that this lens has attributes that make it right for some and not others. Another reviewer may say it stinks because it doesn't suit their style. Putting yourself in your audience's shoes rather than tooting your own horn. Ahh, mixed metaphors.
It’s a misunderstanding that Americans never converted to metric. That’s factually incorrect. More accurately, we never _fully_ converted to metric. Milk is in gallons but soda is in liters - at least the big bottles. All medicine is metric (g/mg). Electricity is metric (kW or kWh). Most scientific work is metric. Automotive torque is metric (nm) although speed is still customary. Also, that’s what it is called - US Customary - not imperial. British Imperial is slightly different. I do agree we should have converted along with everyone else.
the way I see it is if you're already spending 550 there's no point to not just spend the extra 100. and like you said if you have a crop sensor it'll end up being 300 mm instead of 200 anyways. no brainer
I still have mine. Great lens. So how come did Tamron have dared delivering zn f6.3 of something they know how to do in f5.6 is something that I don't get... F6.3 is pretty slow for nowadays standard.
This is incorrect. tell me again why outdoors with the light not changing I should let the camera bounce around with the ISO? If I am photographing a dark skin player or someone with a dark shirt, why should the ISO BOOST higher....it shouldn't. It's a bad move to set auto ISO. But Jared, you can set limits on the auto ISO. So what, I'm not going to say, 100 min, 400 max, that makes no sense. This is not a situation for Auto ISO. Feel free to start making videos about it and show why it's better and maybe people will learn from it.
@@froknowsphoto Using Auto ISO is kind of a de facto in wildlife photography (I don't know that much about sports photography), so there is lot of information about using it already - no need for any more tutorial videos. It's a really practical setting to use for example when zooming with a changing aperture lens in a fast action situation (when having the widest available aperture is desired). And unlike in many sports photography situations in wildlife photography the lighting, subject type and background often chages very rapidly and drastically. But when I'm using this "Manual + Auto ISO" setting I absolutely still want to control the exposure. For that I like to assign EV compensation to one of the easily accessible control wheels (while other two wheels control shutter speed and aperture). I find this easier and faster than controlling ISO directly. I really don't think that there is any one right way of configuring ones camera, but that's what seems to work for me. I don't find ISO that important from a creative point of view - at least compared to aperture and shutter speed. But anyways, I really liked the video, so thanks! 🙂👍🏻
Hi, firstly is not incorrect, just a different method, that's works fine for me! Secondly, setting it up 100min to 400max does make no sense, but 100min to 6400max or whatever you are comfortable with does! I set my exposure compensation +/- to a function button and use it when needed. On a variable aperture lens or any lens works just fine! Give it a go! Enjoy the videos👍
Right now it appears that the price of the 28-200 is about the same or up by $80 bucks while the 70-300mm is down $50-100 making the price difference about $280 or so since this video was made. I think with that difference and my 28-70mm kit lens I'm leaning for the 70-300. Otherwise if I didn't have the kit lens I'd just buy the 28-200 if I'd known in advance and the price was maintained. Speaking from a cost effective angle, of course. Sure the lower aperture would be nice but I'll manage.
For normal shooting with my A7III I have the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and the Sony 70-300 f4.5-5.6. The latter is excellent outdoors and very good indoors if there is a lot of light (stage lights, etc.). I usually set it to f5.6 if I am doing a lot of zooming indoors or do Jared's trick of setting the ISO for 5.6 shooting at max zoom. If a 24-200+mm f2.8 ever comes out I may get it.
Nice review Jared. Thanks. At 100mm+:the lens should have IS even if the body has it. Most of the longer z and rf glass has combined lens IS. How silent is the af for video
@@ItsPinecone_911 I know 😂 I was just having a little joke because you said 1000%. Obviously I know it's a figure of speech and I have no doubt you know there are only 100% but it could kind of work as irony. I'm from England btw and we do think Americans make a bit of a fool of themselves, not that we're much better. I'm sure you're not like that tho!
@@detectivejonesw lol, I try not to be. I try my best to be professional at everything I do but it is hard for my serveral years of trained ignornce to just disappear.......and Id love to visit England oneday. I hear its beautiful over there.
@@ItsPinecone_911 it has it's good and bad. London and Liverpool are definitely worth a visit 100%. I would love to visit America! I'd love to shoot street photography in New York. Visit the grand canyon. And lots of other things
I get confused by posted focal lengths when dealing with APS-C lenses. Is this "300mm" the amount of zoom we'd see on a full-frame 300mm lens? Or should this advertised "300mm" be multiplied by a crop factor to produce a full frame equivalent?
The focal length is a physical measurement. Regardless of the sensor size, the mm is the same. The only difference is that the same focal length lens will look more zoomed in on an apsc compared to a full frame because of how light works and all that technical stuff. Its why a lot of sports and wildlife photographers use professional crop sensor cameras. To get a bit more zoom at the expense of possibly iso performance and stuff like that
Which one would you recommend to add to an a7iii and a tamron 28-75 2.8, for wildlife among other things. This tamron, or the sigma 100-400? In europe the prices of these two lenses are closer than in the us: 699,- an 989,- Or is the tamron 70-180 that sharp that you can crop 200/300q to get the same range....
I was looking to the same thing with also the sony 24-105 and tamron 70-300 and the tamron 17-28 that i already have. It is just that i won’t have 2.8 after 28mm. The 28-200 is tempting but seems to not have the same contrast than a sony 24-105 and i would have at least one lens with OSS
Absolutely fantastic review and even covering the use-case for which I'm looking to buy this lens: photographing high school football. The only problem is that the shots here were in what looks like late morning sunlight which is a hell of a lot brighter than Friday Night Lights. Nevertheless, lots of useful info as well as comparing/contrasting alternatives to this lens along with WHY those alternatives might be better (eg: shooting indoors, lower light) rather than just saying where this lens isn't at its best.
Thanks for the review. I was looking at this lens for recording while hunting. It has the range but looks like it won't do well in low light situations. Like early morning and late evening. Any recommendations???
Interesting, could't find side by side comparison between this Tamron and Sony 70-350... probably because about same quality results with double price difference.
Ok, I need help deciding, As a hobbyist, I only have the Sony A7IV kit lens and Im looking for a zoom lens to get out of reach subjects. Being a hobbyist, I’m looking for budget lenses under 1000 dollars (don’t want to invest too much). I’m looking at this lens and the one he recommends the 28-200. Im having trouble deciding, what I prioritize is lens sharpness. Any advice would be great advice, Thank you
About your suggestion to use the 28-200 with a7c: I dont have the A7C, I have it with an a6000. And the lens is too big for that body. Very front heavy. With the battery grip it is really good! My point is: perhaps the A7c is heavy enough to feel good with the 28-200. But it can also be too small. I love the lens however.
Other people experience with "fading" of images in your harddrive archive? Returning to my files after a while thing have changed for the worse. It could be a trick The Web Masters arrange, influenced by Dark Forces, to fuck it up for me? I know there are a lot of haters out there, since I'm an outspoken person.
I like that all the tamron lenses ended up with the same filter thread size, but I’m kinda miffed it cost us all 20mm on the 70-180. Stupid lens physics just gimme big ass apertures with same filter size.
Hi Jared!! How are you recording video of the sensor in your camera? For Example: at 9:30 your camera tracks your subject and then takes a photo. How did you get the tracking clip? Thank you so much for your help!
This lense would be great for helicopterspotting! Cause my Sony SEL 55-210mm is way too short. Great to see fast shutterspeed sample images! Cause I shoot helicopters at 1/800 - 1/1000s.
How far were you from subject at longest distance? I’m looking to get a lens as I want to shoot some surfers as my home town is a really good/well known surf spot. Of course I’m going to be pretty far from the subjects, especially at low tide. So what would you suggest if you were on the beach, trying to capture surfers out back? That’ll be the furthest distance. And I’ll be on the rocks with the surfers off parallel to me at higher tides. I only have the 17-28 and 28-70, which I’m really enjoying, but I need something longer, for those further subjects & also to not intrude upon any wildlife etc from time to time. 70-180? 150-500? Or the one on this review? Someone help! I can’t afford them all!
Also, if they have a 67mm filter thread that will be real helpful as I have my 67mm filters already for the lenses I mentioned. (My Initial plan was to get the 70-180, as that seems like the trio of Tamron that goes together and covers a lot?) I just can’t decide what will be best, and it’s a lot of money we’re talking, but rather fork o it the extra if it’s going to be a vital aspect of what I want to do. I think the 70-180? Then get the 150-500 at a later date. Is this a good plan?
