50-300 or 50-400 Tamron?

[Snapshot]

Okay, I got myself the 17-50 Tamron when it went on sale for $500 on Woot!

Now I want to buy a complimentary zoom that reaches the upper focal lengths. I'm considering the new 50-300 Tamron, or the 50-400 Tamron.

I'm loving the close-up wildlife photography I see at 400mm. But it's definitely a heavier lens.

Currently I have a Sony 24-105, a Rokinon 14mm, a Tamron 17-50 and a Tamron 28-200.

I'm just interested in opinions, with a little bit of rationale. Thanks.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I'm liking the idea of the 50-300 more and more every time I see the specs. Better minimum focusing distance than my Tamron 70-300 AND it has vibration compensation. Gonna trade in soon.

 

[Richard A]

What body do you have? I got a Tamron 50-400 with my A7RV last year. It’s the biggest lens I have ever owned. I haven’t had a chance to use it as much as I would have liked yet (along with all my new gear) but results so far have been really pleasing. I was recommended the Tamron by users when I was doing research into what body to buy. It also has good reviews. I guess the 50-300 is more or less a smaller version. If you’re interested, you can find some results in my gallery.

 

[davidzvi]

What camera are you shooting and how into close-up wildlife photography are you?

I enjoy being able to catch wildlife when I'm out if I happen to have a telephoto with me. But the likelihood of me carrying the 50-400 just in case? Not very likely. And an intentional outing? The answer would be rarely.

So for me, the smaller the better, the more likely I am to carry it around with me.

 

[TerryL]

I'm liking the idea of the 50-300 more and more every time I see the specs. Better minimum focusing distance than my Tamron 70-300 AND it has vibration compensation. Gonna trade in soon.

Where do you make your lens trades Chris? I have some lens trades I would like to make too, and we’re both in the USA.

 

[Snapshot]

What body do you have?

I have an a7R III. I just bought the battery grip, and it's a lot bigger and heavier than I thought it would be. It would certainly handle the 50-400, but it would be a beast. It would be monopod time probably, although it wouldn't have the lens ring mount. I think the 50-300 is sounding better, just for compactness, and likelihood of use.

 

[Richard A]

I have the grip for my camera also. The good thing with that is you can fit it or remove it depending on the situation. I’m finding now that I have it fitted most of the time. I bought a good tripod collar on Amazon. Also, I don’t like monopods. It’s tripod or hand held.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Where do you make your lens trades Chris? I have some lens trades I would like to make too, and we’re both in the USA.

I have used MPB and KEH, it just depends on who has the used lens I want to trade in for.
In this case though, the Tamron 50-300 is too new and won't be available at either retailer. So I'm considering either trading in for a check (KEH/MPB), or attempt a local private sale. Option 3, trade into Adorama and used the dollar value as store credit towards a brand new lens.

Sorry Jeff, didn't mean to take over your thread. Carry on.

 

[TerryL]

I live Adorama. I use their print service Printque. They are great.

 

[BrianN]

Okay, I got myself the 17-50 Tamron when it went on sale for $500 on Woot!

Now I want to buy a complimentary zoom that reaches the upper focal lengths. I'm considering the new 50-300 Tamron, or the 50-400 Tamron.

I'm loving the close-up wildlife photography I see at 400mm. But it's definitely a heavier lens.

Currently I have a Sony 24-105, a Rokinon 14mm, a Tamron 17-50 and a Tamron 28-200.

I'm just interested in opinions, with a little bit of rationale. Thanks.

I have the 50-400mm, I like the extra reach if needed using the crop function or on post processing.... personally the more reach the better.

This is at 400mm for example.

 

[iamdlewis]

300mm isn't long enough for wildlife. 400mm is really the minimum you want.

This is uncropped at 400mm with an A1, so your image would be smaller at 400 and another ~1/4th smaller at 300mm.

• ILCE-1
• Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS (SEL100400GM)
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 320

If you really want to do wildlife you need to look into the lens that hit 600mm. It is ok to have a gap in coverage range especially once you get beyond 100mm.

 

[Snapshot]

300mm isn't long enough for wildlife. 400mm is really the minimum you want.

If you really want to do wildlife you need to look into the lens that hit 600mm. It is ok to have a gap in coverage range especially once you get beyond 100mm.

Hmm. I did buy the 50-300. Maybe it's time for a teleconverter.

 

[iamdlewis]

Hmm. I did buy the 50-300. Maybe it's time for a teleconverter.

The only teleconverters for e-mount are only Sony ones and they only work with the 70-200 G/GM I/II, 100-400GM, 200-600G, 300GM, 400GM and 600GM.