I very much appreciate your excellent reviews. I especially like that you put the Optical Deep Dive at the end, allowing the viewer to easily watch or skip that segment. Thanks!
Great detailed review! Thank you. I will buy this lens in a couple years, as soon as there are some available on the used market for $450 or thereabouts. The capability that interests me is the 0.50 : 1 magnification ratio, as my primary usage will be for photographing frogs, geckos, salamanders, toads, lizards, etc. I will be using this lens most at 50mm and at or very near minimum focus distance. I have concerns about the edges of the frame when using in this way, as shown at 30:56. I mean, when I am at 50mm, and filling the frame with a tiny gecko that is half the size of my pinky finger, and I have the image composed so that the gecko's eye is near the corner of the frame, I sure want the highly detailed iris to be captured very sharp and clearly. If I am forced to zoom in to 100mm to get the deep edge real sharp, that changes everything about my background and the amount of the gecko's habitat that I am able to include in the composition. I just hope these deep corners aren't really as terrible as this video shows when shooting at MFD and at 50mm.
There's definitely a huge difference between this lens and it's predecessor - the 70-300mm. But there's also no question that the corners at 50mm do remain the weakest aspect of performance...but yes, my tests are designed to really highlight flaws, and they won't be as pronounced in real world shots.
Thanks for the review! I happened to buy the 50-400mm JUST before Tamron released this one...What do you think about the image quality of these two? Are there any noticable difference?
@@DustinAbbottTWI Well, if the 400 isn't any better optically, then the extra 100mm isn't relly worth the extra size and weight. That's what I meant...In this case the 50-400 is a bit pointless in my opinion. But hey, thanks for the quick answer! :)
nice lens, I hesitate between this one and 70-180 g2, I'm a bit afraid of the ISO with the 50-300 at 300, handheld you have to shot at minimum 1/400, 6,3 to avoid shake. What's you think about that ?
Hmm. Tempting to pair this with the Tamron 20-40 (or the sony 24-50, 28-60...) for a two-lens day out kit. Still, I think if I'm going to pick up a slower tele I'd prefer to have range out to 400mm; the Sigma 100-400 comes to mind. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this vs the sigma and whether it would be best to step up to the next pricing tier, where the tamron 50-400, tamron 150-500, and sigma 150-600 live.
The Sigma is pretty good optically, but the AF isn't up to snuff with more recent lenses like the 50-400mm or Sigma's 60-600mm. If you won't need to track a lot of action, it's a fine choice, but I personally would probably save up for the Tamron 50-400mm if you need more reach than this lens.
Hi Dustin, thanks for the exceptionally detailed and insightful reviews, as always. I have even gone ahead and ordered one for myself to test out as my telephoto option. In case you have the data, do the corners sharpen up by 70mm or so, or does it indeed take till 100mm? Since my "everyday carry" is the 24-70, I am most interested in the 70+ regime, as opposed to the 50-70 regime. Thanks again, for all the great work that you do!
As with the 70-300, your review demonstrates field curvature at the wide end. In your 70-300 review, you indicated it was largely gone by 90mm. In this review, you tested at 100mm and found it essentially gone, but I'm wondering if it's gone at shorter focal lengths. Can you elaborate? If it's much better at 70mm than the 70-300, I may be tempted.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for the prompt reply! This and a 20-40 are looking like a killer walkabout/travel combo. I may have to sell my 17-28 and 70-300. Urg.
Another great lens review Dustin! Tamron did a great job with this lens with no real flaws except possibly the corners at wider apertures and wish it didn’t stop down so quickly as you zoom but overall a great lens for the price. Did you test for coma performance? Did that hold up just as well?
Great review, as always. I have a question that has been puzzling me. When the corners of a lens are not sharp, does that mean that they are never sharp? Or, does it mean that they are focusing at another distance than the center is? That is, would some appropriately curved surface be sharply in focus over the whole image? Thanks. I've learned a lot about lenses from your channel.
That really depends on the lens. Sometimes it is a matter of focusing in the corner and that improves performance. In other cases, the lens just doesn't resolve well in the corners. In this case, the lens is fine when stopped down a bit. Real world corners at 50mm look fine.
Thnx for the video, i am trying to decide whether to go for the 50-400 vs 50-300.....is there a difference in the vibration compensation system used in the two of them? I dont have any use in particular for the lenses, i just want an all rounder for most things a beginner would come across....Something i would like to try are photos of buildings or people with large moons or suns in the background.....which one would you recommend?
This is an incredibly attractive lens to me due to its size, range, and macro capabilities. This looks like an incredible travel telephoto lens. I wish the stabilization was a bit better though.
On the used market you can get the old 70-300 for 350€ here in Germany but the new one is at 900€ wich in turn is close to the 70-180mm f2.8. Which one would you get?
That really depends on what your priorities are. This lens has a much more zoom range and telephoto reach, obviously, though at the cost of a much slower maximum aperture. If you want to shoot wildlife or birds, for example, the 70-180mm isn't going to do you a lot of good, particularly since it can't be used with a TC. It will be a much better portrait or event lens, however.
I'm testing the E-mount version right now, so I don't know the answer to that. I'm reviewing the Z mount version of the Nokton 75mm F1.5, and it doesn't have a declick option.
Perfect combo in theory. In reality the 17-50 is too weak at 17mm until you stopped it down to f/11. People are better off getting the Sony 16-35mm f/4 G PZ in conjunction with this lens. No 36-49mm? Big deal, the 17-50 is weak from 40-50mm anyway.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 and why would you need perfect sharpness from a travel combo? The 17-50/f4 is only 700$. For it's price it's magnificent. And not everyone is using 45 or 60MP cameras. Even 24MP is a lot for travel photos.
I have 50-400. It is kind of heavy for me. I mainly do astro and landscape. So I need a light setup for hiking. This lens is a bit tempting considering it's weight for landscape. I would love if Tamron releases 28-200 g2!
It's definitely a bit more upscale than the Sigma in a number of areas, though that Sigma has always been a good bang for the buck lens. This Tamron has much better AF performance, however.
Can't wait for this lens to be available in Z mount! This seems like a great budget option for butterflies from a distance. Any idea how long it will take for Tamron to announce the Nikon Z mount version?
Was waiting for your review! Optically it looks much better than I expected and macro capabilities are superb for such focal range and lens size/weight! I considering this lens for aps-c as replacement for 70-350, because of better macro(0.2x vs 0.32x), which is the only thing I miss on sony lens, wonder how this tamron compares to the sony 70-350 in terms of sharpness on the long end. Also wonder what is magnification ratio @150-200mm, which would be the most usefull for skittish bugs and small critters.
I too have the 70-350 and seeing sharpness is about on par and bokeh is clearly better on the Tamron makes it really tempting to switch. Bokeh is my main issue with the Sony.
@@PatrickWithCamera As mentioned, I have the 70-350, which I use on 24MP APS-C. Dustin tested the Tamron on 60MP FF, which has a comparable per-pixel-resolution, so I made a rough estimate based on his test images. Not perfectly reliable but I don't think it's far off.
It would be interesting if this lens will eventually be released for the Fuji X mount with its 40 megapixel sensor. I recently obtained Fuji's new 16-50mm 2.8-4.8 "kit lens" which is designed for Fuji's 40 megapixel sensors. The shapness of this lens on my X-H2 camera is very impressive!
I have the older version which is 500gms - excellent for travel & very ergonomic now less than half the price for the new version. I also have the 50-400 - similar 1:2 macro at 50mm. The newer version is somewhere in between - weight - cost & range. I also have the sony 70- 200 f4 macro which is more than double the cost but the macro range is at every fl & the f4 is useful for interior more compressed macro so the versatility is different. The rendition is special. All the 3 tamron lenses give excellent value & optics. It is a question of what range one wants & cost. And also the lens one wants to pair with. Very impressive the zooms that tamron is giving.
The Sony is definitely the most special optically (And yes, the 1:2 macro at every focal length is super useful), though a lens like this is solid bang for the buck as a budget alternative.
I've got the 70-300 as well. It's an amazing lens that's imo only really let down by the lack of OSS.....that being said though, at this price point + the lower weight, I think I'll take that one major downside. When I heard about the 50-300 I considered maybe selling the 70-300 and putting that money toward an upgrade, but I don't think OSS and an extra 20mm on the wide end are worth the extra $400+ CAD over the 70-300 (MSRP for the 50-300 is showing up for me as $1100 CAD, while the 70-300 is available between $600-700).
Nice review! Very detailed and appreciated. As you say, quite a nice more affordable (more or less depending on the market) alternative to the Sony 70-200/4 G II macro. And even if this isn't the 70-300 G2 it seems such a lens would come too close in specs to this new lens so I doubt we'll ever get a "G2" successor to the 70-300 rxd.
Tamron needs to include the AF/MF switch on all their lenses. There really is no excuse for not including it on this nice lens. I'd probably go for the 50-400 for the added features despite the increase in cost.
Could be quite tempting for aps-c too. Sharpness seems to be at least on par with the Sony 70-350mm, while bokeh definitely looks better on the Tamron.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I know you use the 70-350 for FF too. With that in mind, and if someone is using it on both FF and aps-c, is it worth the trade-in / trade-up cost to change? GAS is so easy to get and so hard to get rid of!! Thanks for all the time you put into these reviews.
@@daustonian9331 I'm not sure where you got the idea that I use it for full frame. I did include some observations using it on a full frame camera, but in APS-C mode. I've actually never owned the 70-350mm
Apologies bot for my bad recollection and probably making you think twice - at least for a second! I recalled you took a lens on vacation to Arizona and thought this was the one. It was the 35-150… can’t explain my minds reasoning, but thanks for the reply and great reviews!
Any drawback compare to 50-400 besides 100mm less. I mean it is almost half the weight of 50-400. If the tradeoff is only 100mm less reach. I am happy to take this over 50-400.
I don't think 70-350 gonna be updated ever, it's AF with a6700 is amazing, still sharp as most modern lenses. Also wish it was updated maybe to 100-400 with better macro :D
@@DustinAbbottTWI I suspect it's a manufacturing concession necessary with this kind of focal length while keeping the price within reason. For my use the performance is quite sufficient. It will replace the 70-300 - my favorite zoom.
I would love to see this one on Z-mount, too, though I suspect it will be at least six months until we see it considering that Tamron is just releasing the 50-400mm on Z mount.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
This video is sponsored by Fantom Duffel. Visit store.fantomwallet.com and use code DUSTIN20 to get 20% off
Would be interesting to see a comparison between this one and Tamron's 50-400.
And 70-300
If image wise they are the same would lean for the 50-300 based on weight alone
Sir. The quality of your reviews is exospheric.
That's a pretty high compliment.
I very much appreciate your excellent reviews. I especially like that you put the Optical Deep Dive at the end, allowing the viewer to easily watch or skip that segment. Thanks!
My pleasure. I've played around with format for years, and this seems to be what works best for me.
Thank you Dustin for reviewing this lens..I found out not many reviewers wanted to test this lens
Where did you get that information from?
This lens is so new that it's more likely not many reviewers even got their hands on it yet. Give it some time.
Great review Dustin very interesting travel friendly zoom fromTamron.
Definitely is.
Have you reviewed any Viltrox lens ?
Pretty much all of them.
Great detailed review! Thank you. I will buy this lens in a couple years, as soon as there are some available on the used market for $450 or thereabouts. The capability that interests me is the 0.50 : 1 magnification ratio, as my primary usage will be for photographing frogs, geckos, salamanders, toads, lizards, etc.
I will be using this lens most at 50mm and at or very near minimum focus distance. I have concerns about the edges of the frame when using in this way, as shown at 30:56. I mean, when I am at 50mm, and filling the frame with a tiny gecko that is half the size of my pinky finger, and I have the image composed so that the gecko's eye is near the corner of the frame, I sure want the highly detailed iris to be captured very sharp and clearly. If I am forced to zoom in to 100mm to get the deep edge real sharp, that changes everything about my background and the amount of the gecko's habitat that I am able to include in the composition. I just hope these deep corners aren't really as terrible as this video shows when shooting at MFD and at 50mm.
There's definitely a huge difference between this lens and it's predecessor - the 70-300mm. But there's also no question that the corners at 50mm do remain the weakest aspect of performance...but yes, my tests are designed to really highlight flaws, and they won't be as pronounced in real world shots.
Thanks for the review! I happened to buy the 50-400mm JUST before Tamron released this one...What do you think about the image quality of these two? Are there any noticable difference?
They really aren't radically different optically, so I don't think you're losing anything.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Well, if the 400 isn't any better optically, then the extra 100mm isn't relly worth the extra size and weight. That's what I meant...In this case the 50-400 is a bit pointless in my opinion. But hey, thanks for the quick answer! :)
Funny I actually wanted Tamron to produce this exact lens and it looks like they've hit it out of the park, just want it for the Z mount too!
Agreed. I'd love it on Z-mount.
I have the 17-400 Tamron it’s been a good investment, thanks Dustin God bless y’all
I'm glad it is working well for you.
nice lens, I hesitate between this one and 70-180 g2, I'm a bit afraid of the ISO with the 50-300 at 300, handheld you have to shot at minimum 1/400, 6,3 to avoid shake. What's you think about that ?
Do you need the 300mm reach? If so, the 180mm of the 70-180mm leaves you a long way off.
Hmm. Tempting to pair this with the Tamron 20-40 (or the sony 24-50, 28-60...) for a two-lens day out kit. Still, I think if I'm going to pick up a slower tele I'd prefer to have range out to 400mm; the Sigma 100-400 comes to mind. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this vs the sigma and whether it would be best to step up to the next pricing tier, where the tamron 50-400, tamron 150-500, and sigma 150-600 live.
The Sigma is pretty good optically, but the AF isn't up to snuff with more recent lenses like the 50-400mm or Sigma's 60-600mm. If you won't need to track a lot of action, it's a fine choice, but I personally would probably save up for the Tamron 50-400mm if you need more reach than this lens.
Hi Dustin, thanks for the exceptionally detailed and insightful reviews, as always. I have even gone ahead and ordered one for myself to test out as my telephoto option. In case you have the data, do the corners sharpen up by 70mm or so, or does it indeed take till 100mm? Since my "everyday carry" is the 24-70, I am most interested in the 70+ regime, as opposed to the 50-70 regime. Thanks again, for all the great work that you do!
They sharpen up more quickly than the 70-300mm anyway, and so if you need sharp corners, just stop down to the F5.6 to F8 range and you'll be fine.
As with the 70-300, your review demonstrates field curvature at the wide end. In your 70-300 review, you indicated it was largely gone by 90mm. In this review, you tested at 100mm and found it essentially gone, but I'm wondering if it's gone at shorter focal lengths. Can you elaborate? If it's much better at 70mm than the 70-300, I may be tempted.
I found that real world shots are radically better in the corners on the 50-300mm vs the 70-300mm
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for the prompt reply! This and a 20-40 are looking like a killer walkabout/travel combo. I may have to sell my 17-28 and 70-300. Urg.
Any thoughts on APS-C performance? It's close in range/size/weight with Sony's 70-350 G lens, curious how the performance compares.
There's definitely enough resolution to hold up on APS-C. I haven't done any direct comparison, however.
Another great lens review Dustin! Tamron did a great job with this lens with no real flaws except possibly the corners at wider apertures and wish it didn’t stop down so quickly as you zoom but overall a great lens for the price. Did you test for coma performance? Did that hold up just as well?
I haven't had a chance to test for coma. I've been working on about 9 reviews, so time is limited!
Dustin, would you have picked this or the Tamron 70-180 G2? I'd mostly use it for travel, some hiking, some pictures of my kids.
If you are working in reasonable light, I'd say this lens seems to cover your needs the best.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks Dustin, so this would be your choice then? The extra range and lighter weight certainly appeal!
I would say yes.
Great review, as always. I have a question that has been puzzling me. When the corners of a lens are not sharp, does that mean that they are never sharp? Or, does it mean that they are focusing at another distance than the center is? That is, would some appropriately curved surface be sharply in focus over the whole image? Thanks. I've learned a lot about lenses from your channel.
That really depends on the lens. Sometimes it is a matter of focusing in the corner and that improves performance. In other cases, the lens just doesn't resolve well in the corners. In this case, the lens is fine when stopped down a bit. Real world corners at 50mm look fine.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you
Thnx for the video, i am trying to decide whether to go for the 50-400 vs 50-300.....is there a difference in the vibration compensation system used in the two of them? I dont have any use in particular for the lenses, i just want an all rounder for most things a beginner would come across....Something i would like to try are photos of buildings or people with large moons or suns in the background.....which one would you recommend?
Buy the 50-300mm if you would prefer to travel light. Buy the 50-400mm if you want more reach and a few more features.
Thanks for this great review! How would you feel this lens would fare doing indoor kids sports on a Sony A7cii body?
It would depend on how much light was there. There's plenty of focus speed, but you need a lot of light to keep up a high enough shutter speed at F6.3
This is an incredibly attractive lens to me due to its size, range, and macro capabilities.
This looks like an incredible travel telephoto lens. I wish the stabilization was a bit better though.
On the used market you can get the old 70-300 for 350€ here in Germany but the new one is at 900€ wich in turn is close to the 70-180mm f2.8. Which one would you get?
That really depends on what your priorities are. This lens has a much more zoom range and telephoto reach, obviously, though at the cost of a much slower maximum aperture. If you want to shoot wildlife or birds, for example, the 70-180mm isn't going to do you a lot of good, particularly since it can't be used with a TC. It will be a much better portrait or event lens, however.
Do you know if Voigtländer 50mm f1 for the Z mount version can be declick like Sony E mount nd Canon RF mount versions?
I'm testing the E-mount version right now, so I don't know the answer to that. I'm reviewing the Z mount version of the Nokton 75mm F1.5, and it doesn't have a declick option.
17-50 + 50-300, perfect travel combo.
Definitely does feel like this would perfectly complement the 17-50 or even 20-40.
Perfect combo in theory. In reality the 17-50 is too weak at 17mm until you stopped it down to f/11. People are better off getting the Sony 16-35mm f/4 G PZ in conjunction with this lens. No 36-49mm? Big deal, the 17-50 is weak from 40-50mm anyway.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 and why would you need perfect sharpness from a travel combo? The 17-50/f4 is only 700$. For it's price it's magnificent. And not everyone is using 45 or 60MP cameras. Even 24MP is a lot for travel photos.
Curious how this compares IQ wise to the Sony 70-200/4 G II
That's my plan!
Thank you for your review ! Can you compare it to 70-200mm f4 macro + 1.4 teleconverter (even if it’s double price..) ?
I'm afraid not. I got months of reviews booked and don't have either lens on hand anymore.
I won't even have a Nikon but I love these videos you do. Keep up the great work!
I appreciate that!
I have 50-400. It is kind of heavy for me. I mainly do astro and landscape. So I need a light setup for hiking. This lens is a bit tempting considering it's weight for landscape. I would love if Tamron releases 28-200 g2!
This does sound like a good fit for you in terms of size and weight, then.
I own the Sigma 100-400mm and it's a very nice Telezoom. But this little Tamron is really tempting...
It's definitely a bit more upscale than the Sigma in a number of areas, though that Sigma has always been a good bang for the buck lens. This Tamron has much better AF performance, however.
Can't wait for this lens to be available in Z mount! This seems like a great budget option for butterflies from a distance. Any idea how long it will take for Tamron to announce the Nikon Z mount version?
I agree that I would love this lens on Z-mount (I will probably buy one), but unfortunately I have no idea when that will happen.
Daytime in Bangkok will use Sony 12-24/4 and the Tamron 50-300 on the A7CR. With cropping should cover a range from 12-500mm.
That's a pretty nice kit.
Was waiting for your review! Optically it looks much better than I expected and macro capabilities are superb for such focal range and lens size/weight!
I considering this lens for aps-c as replacement for 70-350, because of better macro(0.2x vs 0.32x), which is the only thing I miss on sony lens, wonder how this tamron compares to the sony 70-350 in terms of sharpness on the long end.
Also wonder what is magnification ratio @150-200mm, which would be the most usefull for skittish bugs and small critters.
I too have the 70-350 and seeing sharpness is about on par and bokeh is clearly better on the Tamron makes it really tempting to switch. Bokeh is my main issue with the Sony.
@@Elgsdyr Did you found maybe comparison somewhere? Or maybe You bought it already and have some insight? :D
@@PatrickWithCamera As mentioned, I have the 70-350, which I use on 24MP APS-C. Dustin tested the Tamron on 60MP FF, which has a comparable per-pixel-resolution, so I made a rough estimate based on his test images. Not perfectly reliable but I don't think it's far off.
It would be interesting if this lens will eventually be released for the Fuji X mount with its 40 megapixel sensor. I recently obtained Fuji's new 16-50mm 2.8-4.8 "kit lens" which is designed for Fuji's 40 megapixel sensors. The shapness of this lens on my X-H2 camera is very impressive!
That would be a great addition there.
I have the older version which is 500gms - excellent for travel & very ergonomic now less than half the price for the new version. I also have the 50-400 - similar 1:2 macro at 50mm. The newer version is somewhere in between - weight - cost & range. I also have the sony 70- 200 f4 macro which is more than double the cost but the macro range is at every fl & the f4 is useful for interior more compressed macro so the versatility is different. The rendition is special. All the 3 tamron lenses give excellent value & optics. It is a question of what range one wants & cost. And also the lens one wants to pair with. Very impressive the zooms that tamron is giving.
The Sony is definitely the most special optically (And yes, the 1:2 macro at every focal length is super useful), though a lens like this is solid bang for the buck as a budget alternative.
I've got the 70-300 as well. It's an amazing lens that's imo only really let down by the lack of OSS.....that being said though, at this price point + the lower weight, I think I'll take that one major downside.
When I heard about the 50-300 I considered maybe selling the 70-300 and putting that money toward an upgrade, but I don't think OSS and an extra 20mm on the wide end are worth the extra $400+ CAD over the 70-300 (MSRP for the 50-300 is showing up for me as $1100 CAD, while the 70-300 is available between $600-700).
The zoom lock is to allow grasping the zoom ring during mounting and unmounting, but you knew that, right?
The primary purpose of a zoom lock is to prevent zoom creep, actually.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I disagree.
Nice review! Very detailed and appreciated. As you say, quite a nice more affordable (more or less depending on the market) alternative to the Sony 70-200/4 G II macro. And even if this isn't the 70-300 G2 it seems such a lens would come too close in specs to this new lens so I doubt we'll ever get a "G2" successor to the 70-300 rxd.
Exactly. This is the G2, basically.
Is this good for Safari?
Yes, though I would say Tamron's 50-400mm would be even better. That extra 100mm on safari could make a big difference.
How:s it compare to Nikon Z?
There is no Z-mount version of this lens, yet.
Hope this comes to fujifilm, looks nice and compact for travel. Paired with the 17-70mm
I definitely think it could work on Fuji, and Fuji could use some new telephoto options.
Tamron needs to include the AF/MF switch on all their lenses. There really is no excuse for not including it on this nice lens. I'd probably go for the 50-400 for the added features despite the increase in cost.
I like having one as well.
Could be quite tempting for aps-c too. Sharpness seems to be at least on par with the Sony 70-350mm, while bokeh definitely looks better on the Tamron.
That's a fair point.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I know you use the 70-350 for FF too. With that in mind, and if someone is using it on both FF and aps-c, is it worth the trade-in / trade-up cost to change? GAS is so easy to get and so hard to get rid of!! Thanks for all the time you put into these reviews.
@@daustonian9331 I'm not sure where you got the idea that I use it for full frame. I did include some observations using it on a full frame camera, but in APS-C mode. I've actually never owned the 70-350mm
Apologies bot for my bad recollection and probably making you think twice - at least for a second!
I recalled you took a lens on vacation to Arizona and thought this was the one. It was the 35-150… can’t explain my minds reasoning, but thanks for the reply and great reviews!
This thing would crush on a Zf!
Agreed. I actually really want one on Z
Any drawback compare to 50-400 besides 100mm less. I mean it is almost half the weight of 50-400. If the tradeoff is only 100mm less reach. I am happy to take this over 50-400.
The 50-400mm has a couple of additional switches, but I would say they are pretty close performance wise.
Would you recommend 50300 over 70200f4g2? I just bought 70200, but just saw 50300 in preorder, thinking of returning it.
I personally think it is more useful unless you need the faster maximum aperture.
Which one you chosen and how the experiences?
hopefully, these lenses push Sony to, also, update the 70-350 apsc
The 70-350mm is still a good lens, and unless a lot of people start buying this for APS-C, I'm not sure it pushes Sony.
I don't think 70-350 gonna be updated ever, it's AF with a6700 is amazing, still sharp as most modern lenses.
Also wish it was updated maybe to 100-400 with better macro :D
Chipmunk drama 🎉🎉🎉🎉
LOL
Impressive lens. Shame about the corners @ 50mm where the sharpness is often most crucial. As usual your review is the first I consult, thanks Dustin.
Yes, though I found that real world shots at landscape apertures looked fine in the corners.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I suspect it's a manufacturing concession necessary with this kind of focal length while keeping the price within reason. For my use the performance is quite sufficient. It will replace the 70-300 - my favorite zoom.
Please. Z Mount. Please, Tamron, hurry! 🙏 🙇🏻♂️ ❤
By the end of the video this has literally claimed my top spot of most wanted lenses at the moment. For Nikon Z Mount, that is.
I would love to see this one on Z-mount, too, though I suspect it will be at least six months until we see it considering that Tamron is just releasing the 50-400mm on Z mount.
the 50-400 was good. but a 40-300 would've been compelling. too bad.
Really? This is the first 70-300mm style lens that expands the formula to 50-300mm, and you're criticizing it for not being even wider?
"High torque linear motor" 🤨
This seems to perturb you. Why? The very motor is called, "Voice-coil eXtreme-torque Drive"
@@DustinAbbottTWI Because of the "Voice-coil" it should be a "Singing high torque linear motor" :)