Medium Telephoto Comparison Chart

[MrFotoFool]

I just made this reference guide for personal comparisons. (I currently use Nikon DSLR for my medium and short lenses, but am toying with changing to Sony). I am posting it here just in case it is helpful to anyone else. Please note I chose the lenses based on MY perceived needs, so it is not necessarily comprehensive. Please don't post to tell me I missed the Samyang 135 or that there are other focal lengths like 105 or 85 or there are similar lenses in manual focus. If no one finds this helpful for their needs, fine, I just decided to post it in case. One thing I did find suprising is the Zeiss 135 that has optical stabilization but no switch on the lens to turn it off (which apparently is done in the menu). Prices are in USA dollars (and sizes are in USA inches).

for comparison, Nikon 70-200 f2.8E
weight 3.15lb (1430g)


Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM ii $2,798
with tripod collar, with image stabilization
weight 2.3lb (1045g), size 3.46”w x 7.87”l
internal zoom, filter 77mm
accepts teleconverter
(heavier version 1 available for $1,998)


Sony 70-200 f4 G $1,498
with tripod collar, with image stabilization
weight 1.85lb (840g), size 3.15”w x 6.89”l
internal zoom, filter 72mm
accepts teleconverter


Tamron 70-180 f2.8 Di iii $1,199
no tripod collar, no image stabilization
weight 1.78lb (810g), size 3.19”w X 5.87”l (not extended)
external zoom, filter 67mm
no teleconverter


Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 Di iii $1,899 (not yet available)
no tripod collar, no image stabilization
weight 2.57lb (1165g), size 3.5”w x 6.2”l (not extended)
external zoom, filter 82mm
no teleconverter


Sony 100-400 f4.5-5.6 GM $2,498
with tripod collar, with image stabilization
weight 3.1lb (1395g), size 3.7”w x 8.07”l (not extended)
external zoom, filter 77mm
accepts teleconverter


Sony 70-300 f4.5-5.6 G $1,273
no tripod collar, with image stabilization
weight 1.88lb (854g), size 3.31”w x 5.65”l (not extended)
external zoom, filter 72mm
no teleconverter


Sigma 135 f1.8 DG Art $1,399
no tripod collar, no image stabilization
weight 2.5lb (1130g), size 3.6”w x 4.52”;
not a zoom, filter 82mm
no teleconverter


Zeiss 135 f2.8 Batis $1,749
no tripod collar, with image stabilization (on/off in menu, no lens switch)
weight 1.35lb (614g), size 3.86”w x 4.72”l
not a zoom, filter 67mm
no teleconverter


Sony 135 f1.8 GM $2,098
no tripod collar, no image stabilization
weight 2.09lb (950g), size 3.52”w x 5”l
not a zoom, filter 82mm
no teleconverter

 

[Clix Pix]

I have both the 100-400mm GM and the 135mm f/1.8 M prime -- excellent lenses, both of them and well worth the expense (IMHO). I find that the 100-400mm is very good, not an issue of too much light loss or quality of image when also putting the 1.4x TC on it as well. I use the 100-400 very frequently, as it is the lens which accompanies me on walks around the neighborhood and on excursions. I consider it one of my top two favorite lenses, the other being the 90mm macro. I also have the much larger and heavier 200-600mm, which is also an excellent lens but for me that one is really best used n the tripod.

I love the 135mm f/1.8, too, but don't use it as often. I bought it the day in 2019 that I was making the big switch from Nikon to Sony because I particularly wanted a medium-tele length but also a fast prime and this one fit the bill and had excellent reviews. If I could have only one of these two lenses, the 100-400mm GM would win hands-down, no question about it.