Tamron 70-300mm Di III RXD vs Sony 70-300mm OSS : Review & Comparison
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июл 2024
- Tamron vs Sony: My comparison of the new Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III RXD lens with the Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS. As usual, this review looks at the resolution and sharpness of these lenses, as well as their build quality and performance for shooting action and for general use.
Tamron's 70-300mm follows a long tradition of great Tamron 70-300mm lenses; for the past decade, I often recommended that people buy the Tamron 70-300mm EF mount lens rather than the native Canon because the Tamron was actually a better lens, though Canon did finally release an updated version.
Sony's 70-300mm is also a good lens, and more importantly, it has image stabilization. If you're not shooting with a body with built-in image stabilization, then this is a very important feature: so if you're using a Sony a6400 or a6100, it might be wise to spend the extra money on the Sony, regardless of minor differences in resolution.
Read the full review on my website: www.lightandmatter.org/?p=23660
Index
0:00 Index
0:45 Basic Body Differences
2:18 70mm Side by Side Res. Test
4:14 300mm Side by Side Res. Test
5:55 Resolution Summary
6:12 Action with Sony Lens
6:55 Action with Tamron Lens
8:30 Wildlife Photography
9:55 General Shooting & Landscape
11:58 Conclusion
#lensreview #TamronUSA #Sony @tamronpr @ImagingbySony
== MUSIC ==
Most of the music in this video came from Monstercat, but one piece (AmbientSpace) came from Hooksounds. Thanks for the great music, Hooksounds!
www.hooksounds.com/ref/jmatth... 
Наука
Thanks for the review! This is just what I needed as very few reviewers take into consideration the focus tracking capability.
Very pleased with my Tamron 70-300 on A7III. No complaints for the price
I bought the Tamron with the recent rebate and so far am very happy with it. If it's of any help to other users, I've shot a D500 with the 70-300mm A-FP and 50mm 1.8g. Moving up to Sony FF and with this lens, I see better sharpness then either of those combinations. I've also had the previous 70-300mm Tamron SP for Nikon. It does have image stabilization but wasn't as sharp, slower to focus and noticeably bigger.
I've always referred to 70-300mm as zoo lenses. Great for those few times a year you go outdoors and need some reach. I've taken a few portrait shots with this up to around 200 and am also very satisfied with the center resolution and back lit performance. It also tracks my pets around quite easily. If your someone who has the occassional use for longer focal lengths but doesn't want to commit to a prime or pricier zoom, this is definitely worth a try IMO. Thanks.
Would you recommend this lenses for wildlife photography AND videography? And another question for ya, is the Sony a6400 a good pair with this? Or is their another affordable camera you would recommend, like the Sony Zve10 that has image stabilization because I plan on shooting a lot of videos.
Thank you for this comparison and greetings from Chile 🇨🇱 🙋♂️!!! I like your channel very much always watch your videos 👍
Excellent review! Thanks
My Tamron 70-300 arrived last week and I’ve been considering exchanging it for the Sony. Your comparison helped me decide to keep the Tamron and save the $500. Thanks for this comparison 👍
Glad it was helpful :-) Enjoy your new lens!
If you find a good Sony lens on sale for about 700-800 dollars like I did, it's then a much tougher decision, so I finally went for the Sony for a couple of 100 dollars more.
This review was perfect, thank you
Very very helpful, thanks
I just ordered the Tamron. Looking forward to shoot with it. Fellow Seattle photographer here and a new sub.
Incredible review with beautiful samples.
Could be very interesting to see similar comparison between this Tamron and Sony 70-350mm, for some reason could't find any...
Thank you
The 70-350 is for ASP-C so it's not comparable to a full frame lens. That's why.
Great review. I have had Sigma and Tamron lenses for many years.
just what i need thanx !
Grate review! How about comparison with Tamron 70-300 and Sony 70-200 F4? What will be better in terms of image quality? I know that one is longer But only image quality is important to me. Thanks
Great review! Thanks so much! Was curious if you remember what your ISO threshold was for those sunset/twilight shots of the lighthouse?
Usually for landscape work, I don't like to shoot above 1600... let me check my archive though. Yep, I went as high as 1600, then decided to call it quits. Of course, I could have used 3200+ and noise reduction and probably still gotten something usable, but then there are issues with loss of detail and fine textures, etc, so I prefer not to.
Thanks for your review! I was curious, did you try comparing the video autofocus between the two, and how well they track a subject when shooting video?
Only very slightly... I don't shoot much video in general. In my minimal experience with it, there were no significant differences.
@@MatthewGore Thank you for your feedback!
awesome review
Thanks Carlo!
Great review. Do you think the tamron is a good option for motorsports paired with A9, handheld? Panning shots?
Yes, I think that is should be great for motorsports! Or at least, it should be just as good as any other lens of this type... you'll still have to deal with the relatively small apertures, but if you're planning on panning, that should not be a problem.
Thanks sir!!!!
I have the Tamron. It's a pretty good lens. If is, of course, a walking compromise but that's ok. It's a travel lens and I pair it with my A7C for a lightweight super zoom. It goes well with my 28-70 lens.
You've made me feel better about my purchase. I just got the Tamron a couple days ago. Have always been a little nervous about tamron, and whether or not it's going to hold up for a decade or two.
I'm glad to say that I've never had any trouble with durability with any of my Tamron lenses, though in this case, you could buy the Tamron, run it into the ground, buy another one... and still have saved money over buying the Sony.
So looks like I don't have to worry about my Sony 70-300 being significantly less sharp on my 12.2 mp a7s...
The stabilization is definitely too much to give up, with a camera that lacks IBIS. I do think that if I had a newer camera, though, the price and weight would be massive deal-breakers for me, even if sharpness doesn't really matter since it's close enough that you have to pixel-peep with a 42 mp camera to see any real difference.
Exactly!
I had the Tamron for a few days on my Sony a7rii. At the longer end, I really had to crank up the shutter speed to get a good sharp image. However, I now have a mint copy of the Sony 70-300, I got for about 700 dollars. The stabilization in the lens seems to work better than the one in the camera, so I am much happier with the Sony lens than the Tamron. Plus, I love the focus button on the side of the lens for eye focus. Just my two cents.
Interesting! I do believe that Sony made some upgrades in the IBIS between the rii and riii, but it may also be differences in our shooting styles... I didn't notice a significant difference there. And of course, with newer camera models, no button is necessary for eye AF, but that will be a good thing for people to remember if they're buying for a previous model camera. Thanks :-)
@@MatthewGore Since I did have the opportunity to play around with the Tamron a bit, I was able to make a comparison on my old Sony A7rii. But like you said, it may just be a difference in shooting style and what the lens is used for. I use the Sony more for outdoor event photography. In Southern California, it's mostly sunny and hot, so the Sony lens works better for me. But when I did use the Tamron, it was till very sharp. I was able to buy a mint copy of the Sony lens for about 700 dollars, but if I would have had to spend more, I would have opted for the Tamron then.
Sir a have sony a7riii with 50m 1.8 lense.. which best lense for travling superzoom click photo for natur and faimly photography...tamron 28.200.tamron 70.300? What you think our advice😮
I have an A7 ii and I was wondering whether Tamron 70-300 is the way to go. I shoot landscapes and mostly handheld.
Second option is the Sigma 100-400, but its 2x the price. So buy the Tamron or save up for Sigma?
Ahh, the nice thing about shooting with an A7ii is that you have IBIS, so the Tamron's lack of stabilization won't really matter a whole lot, and as you saw in the video, the Tamron is really nice and sharp. So, if you need the extra reach of a 400mm lens, then I could certainly understand waiting. (Incidentally, I wrote a comparison of the 100-400 vs Sigma 150-600 on my site, if you're interested: www.lightandmatter.org/2018/equipment-reviews/lens-comparisons-equipment-reviews/sigma-100-400mm-or-150-600mm-which-should-you-buy/ ).
Otherwise, if 300mm will do the job for you, then I didn't have any problems with it... good solid lens.
So if you have IBIS and OSS it isnt really noticable beter than IBIS only? And did you notice lenscreep from the Tamron or Sony? Thanks for the comparison!
My understanding is that with Sony, the IBIS doesn't combine with OSS for most lenses, but yes... if there is a combined effect, it's modest at best. No zoom creep from either lens, but I only tested them for about a month and sent them back, and I don't remember using them in any situations where creep would have been an issue. Both of the samples I used were a little stiff to turn, so it seems unlikely... though that will vary with age and maintenance.
@@MatthewGore Thanks for answering :)
Well, price may be an important factor. However, one might want to consider refurbished or used lenses. They often can be equivalent in price, regarding the Sony/Native Lenses. I have had significant savings and very reliable results with refurbished equipment...Just sayin'
Agreed, depending on the age of the lens. Especially with larger lenses, the AF motors can get sluggish with age... though it's not a very significant problem with most lenses.
Thanks for the review. Base don it, I just ordered this off Amazon for $539 CDN ($393 USD). And free shipping. I prefer a tripod for landscape anyway, and my A7R2 has IBIS, and I have my camera's custom buttons already programmed for things like AF/MF, so no need that I can see to pay 2X+ for a used Sony with lower IQ. Hopefully it's as good as the may reviews. If not, I should be able to get most of my $$$ back on resale.
I also have an A7Rii and am considering this lens. How is it working out for you?
The one immediate thing i didn't like is that it didn't have locking switch. Why.. why.. Tamron didn't include the lens lock?
Ahh, yes... that's something that I didn't even mention. I actually almost never use a lock switch, so that's something that I don't really miss... but I can certainly see why it would be an important thing for those who do.
2:43 since the description of both lenses say f4.5- 5.6/ 6.3 how can u exceed the default blend range and compare them at f8/ 11?
The range listed on the lens of f/4.5-6.3 is the maximum aperture available. When the lens is at 70mm, the maximum aperture available is f/4.5, and when you zoom it out to 300mm, the maximum aperture available is f/5.6 or f/6.3, but regardless of where it is zoomed, smaller apertures like f/8 to f/22 are also availalbe, if you need to let in less light. Hope that helps.
@@MatthewGore ah ok my bad,
i forgot the smaller the aperture value the wider its open, thanks for the answer
essentially, the lack of stabilisation in the tamron shouldn't be a problem considering that cameras such as the soy a6500 already have it built-in, correct?
The a6500 and a6600 do have image stabilization, but the a6000, a6100, and a6400 (all of which have been popular) do not have stabilization, so it just depends on your camera. All of the modern a7 models have IBIS.
How would a Tamron lens assist in achieving sharp images at its maximum focal length without a built-in stabilizer?"
This kind of I want it's perfect
I’m more of a sports videographer, can I get by without the OSS of Tamron? I have a Sony A7III with IBIS.
what did you decide?
OMG, I think I saw a guy switching between lenses on Stevens Pass, should've said hello :)
Definitely! :-)
I decided to get Tamron 70-300!
Nice! Hope you enjoy shooting with it :-)
Hi, I have a A6000, which lens do you advise me to take? I can get the Sony for 400,- second hand or a Tamron new for 550,-. I was thinking on the Sony because of the OSS..
Agreed. I'd also lean towards the Sony lens because of the OSS. Consider the Tamron if there's some reason that you'd really prefer a lighter lens.
I usually shoot with the 100-400GM, but when I want to travel light, I'll take the Sony 70-300 with me. Even though the Tammy has a little better IQ, it's not enough for me to part with the Sony, because I'm too lazy to fart around with trying to sell it lol.
Yep... if you already own the Sony, it's a really minor difference in image quality. The weight is a bigger issue, for me, but even that is less than a pound.
Hii i am also using a6400 but m cnfusd please suggest me which lense should I purchase? Zoom lenses
If you're talking about one of these two lenses, then I'd recommend the Sony 70-300 for the a6400, since the a6400 does not have in-body image stabilization. It does really depend on what you want to use the lens to photograph. If you're always going to be shooting with a fast shutterspeed or from a tripod, then image stabilization is less important. Good luck!
@@MatthewGore Thanks for response sir...and what about sony 18-105 because sony 70-300 is expensive but tamron 70-300 is cheapest lenses 😅😅
Sony 70-350 is specially designed for APSC cameras and its much cheaper (sec9nd hand) than Sony FF 70-300
Were these taken on a tripod or handheld?
Which ones? The photos for sharpness/resolution comparisons were tripod mounted (as mentioned at 2:04, so you probably know that...) but the rest of the images are all hand-held, I believe. The snowboarding/skiing pictures were hand held, the pictures at the lighthouses were hand-held, the various ducks and things were hand held. I can't think of any others that were shot from a tripod, but it's been a while since I've seen the video :-)
@@MatthewGore so the stabilisation in the body makes up for the lack of OSS in the lens. Interesting, I was leaning toward the Sony 70-300mm or the Sony 70-200mm f4 but if the Tamron can get clean pictures and decent video then I might go with that but I still think the 70-200mm f4 used is the best bet. Decisions are tough haha
@@TTWGD3 Yeah, that's a hard choice. Actually, if you're looking at spending $1000+ on a used f/4 lens, I think that the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 would be an even better choice (you might watch my video about that lens), though it's obviously even further from being a 300mm...
I can get the sony second hand nearly for the same price of the tamron, is it better lens the sony?
Well, if you've seen the video, I think you'll probably know how I'll answer this... the Tamron is at least as sharp or sharper than the Sony, and it's much lighter; the AF is about the same. Tamron is quite a bit smaller and lighter, but doesn't have stabilization... so if you need stabilization in the lens, get the Sony. If you have it in the camera, the I'd go for the Tamron.
@@MatthewGore thanks
I would still go for the Sony. On the longer telephoto lenses, the stabilization in the lens works far better than the camera stabilization. At least that's been my experience. Plus, the Sony has various controls on the lens which I find quite helpful. I was in your same boat and went for the Sony and haven't regretted it. I did try the Tamron for a few days and had trouble getting sharp images at the longer end without lens stabilization. Even though I have an old Sony a7rii, it still has in body stabilization, but much more helpful if it is in the lens. Just my opinion.
Sony really needs to refresh all of their zoom lenses or Tamron is about to takeover.
I can’t find this lens used anywhere
Do you mean the Tamron? The 70-300 Di III was brand new a few months ago, so that's probably to be expected. The Sony lens should be more common out there.
@@MatthewGore yeah, I just can’t find any cheap enough
Tamron is definitely better if you are planning to use it on a tripod for landscapes
Agreed, and it's also good down to about 1/60th of a second hand held, with good IBIS... though perhaps not for serious landscape work.
@@MatthewGore Why not good for serious landscape work? What do you suggest then?
@@MatthewGore Do you suggest the 70-180mm 2.8 then?
@@connorkoldeway I don't have a problem with the lens for serious landscape work, I specifically meant that I wouldn't use it hand-held for serious landscape work at low shutterspeeds. That said, larger aperture lenses (like the 70-180mm f/2.8) are likely going to be sharper around f5.6 and f8 than this lens, and some people will find that to be important. If you're one of those landscape photographers who likes to shoot at f/11 or f/16 from a tripod to get more depth of field, then this lens will probably be as good as anything.
@@MatthewGore I'm actually thinking the 70-180mm more. I wanted the 2.8G 70-200 but the price I cannot justify at this moment. I just want the detail landscape shots like in the rocks
lol why was comment removed?
That's weird. I just looked for your original comment (which was emailed to me), which I assumed that RUclips had held for moderation since it contained a link, but it's not even in the moderation queue. Anyway, to answer your question... I didn't notice any problems with the corner sharpness around the 70-100mm range, but I'll look again. Sounds like a decentering issue?
@@MatthewGore RUclips being weird again :) Thanks for the reply. I understand a one off sample for a single review being a decentering issue but it seems to be more common than not in reviews. The Dustin Abbot review for one and there is a graph on the digitalcameraworld review that shows the exact same behavior. I would be happy with corner sharpness at all focal lengths even if it meant only at F8 onwards as is my use case. It's such a shame because the price and weight compared to the Sony is so favorable.
Why Sony experience too everything Sony company understand photography too much RICH PEOPLE FOOL MAKE I LIKE BUT BULLSHUT TOO MUCH EXPERIENCE THERE OMG 🤣🤣😂