FE telephoto recommendations?

[Mr.Meerkat]

Hey all! I've been looking into getting a tele for my A7R2. There seems to be three "obvious" choices for budget-er lenses but struggling to decide on which one I want to select.

1. Sony 70-300 G, £630 used 

2. Tamron 70-300, £580 new 

3. Sigma 100-400, £800 new 

 

Sony - Apart from the reported sharpness not being quite as good as Tamron/Sigma, there doesn't seem to be much else (ignoring copy variance).

Tamron - No OS, which is quite a big downside but otherwise seems like a nice n compact lens to pair with my A7R2 

Sigma - The extra reach definitely would be nice but it weighing more or less as much as my A7R2 and 4/24-105G is probably a little too heavy. 

 

Currently I'm leaning against the Sony the most, I think, as it's a solid "jack of all trades" with OS and being relatively compact/light. However, the Tamron is very tempting as it'll perfectly fit into my current camera bag without adding any extra weight or bulk (swap out my f1.8 35+85 with the Tamron and vice versa, as required). Also, when I do take all my lenses (usually only if I'm flying internationally), being able to have a standard zoom, 2 primes and a tele (with my A7R2) at 2kg~ does sound very appealing indeed, especially as some can be very anal regarding carry-on weight limits. As for the Sigma, the extra reach for flexibility does also sound great. Can always use APS-C mode with 18MP as well and get 600mm of reach for the ultimate flexibility.

 

What to do eh? Someone push me one way! 

[_Dawnte_]

I'd get the Sony, Tamron and Sigma have historically had some sharpness issues for variable lenses

[GDRRiley]

5 hours ago, _Dawnte_ said:

I'd get the Sony, Tamron and Sigma have historically had some sharpness issues for variable lenses

you should look at every model, not a general statement around brands

do you need a wider or tighter lens?

the sony vs tamron is just which is better. but the sigmas in a different class. its in a different range

[_Dawnte_]

2 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

you should look at every model, not a general statement around brands

do you need a wider or tighter lens?

the sony vs tamron is just which is better. but the sigmas in a different class. its in a different range

I've owned a tamron 70-300 as well as a nikor 70-300. The Nikor is already lacking in quality, the tamron even more so. I've seen and compared pictures from a sony 70-300 and it has far better clarity even on further distances as well as much less distortion. 

Appologies if it seemed like i generalized the answer, it's more of a generalization of my experience rather than of the brands. 

[Mr.Meerkat]

2 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

do you need a wider or tighter lens?

the sony vs tamron is just which is better. but the sigmas in a different class. its in a different range

That I unfortunately don't know how to answer. I know back when I had a 240mm tele (360mm FF) on my A65, I did use it occasionally but then again, once I changed to E-mount, I've never found 105mm to be all that limiting. 

 

The real motivation here is my significant other wanting to get into wildlife photography where my current lens won't really suffice (p.s. I do aircraft spotting so would welcome a tele into my collection so not 100% SO). 

 

Helpful? No but I really do think the sigma might be a little too heavy/bulky for my personal preference so I guess it's Tamron vs Sony. 

 

3 minutes ago, _Dawnte_ said:

I've owned a tamron 70-300 as well as a nikor 70-300. The Nikor is already lacking in quality, the tamron even more so. I've seen and compared pictures from a sony 70-300 and it has far better clarity even on further distances as well as much less distortion. 

Appologies if it seemed like i generalized the answer, it's more of a generalization of my experience rather than of the brands. 

Funnily enough, depending on which review you look at, it's a bit of a mixed bag between the three. Sometimes the sigma is the sharpest, sometimes the Tamron is the sharpest and then other times the Sony is the sharpest but the general consensus seems to be that the Sony is the softest out of the three (albeit with the nicest bokeh). 

 

Usually AF speed would be a useful factor to take into account but because of how old the 70-300G is, the tamron and sigma are reported to be about on par (or maybe slightly better). 

[GDRRiley]

If your after aircraft or bird work go 100-400

25 minutes ago, _Dawnte_ said:

I've owned a tamron 70-300 as well as a nikor 70-300. The Nikor is already lacking in quality, the tamron even more so. I've seen and compared pictures from a sony 70-300 and it has far better clarity even on further distances as well as much less distortion. 

Appologies if it seemed like i generalized the answer, it's more of a generalization of my experience rather than of the brands. 

Owning a 70-300 doesn’t mean you’ve owned this one on a mirrorless mount 

Typically all the mirrored and mirrorless versions feature different optics 

[Zodiark1593]

On 3/16/2021 at 6:23 PM, Mr.Meerkat said:

That I unfortunately don't know how to answer. I know back when I had a 240mm tele (360mm FF) on my A65, I did use it occasionally but then again, once I changed to E-mount, I've never found 105mm to be all that limiting. 

 

The real motivation here is my significant other wanting to get into wildlife photography where my current lens won't really suffice (p.s. I do aircraft spotting so would welcome a tele into my collection so not 100% SO). 

 

Helpful? No but I really do think the sigma might be a little too heavy/bulky for my personal preference so I guess it's Tamron vs Sony. 

 

Funnily enough, depending on which review you look at, it's a bit of a mixed bag between the three. Sometimes the sigma is the sharpest, sometimes the Tamron is the sharpest and then other times the Sony is the sharpest but the general consensus seems to be that the Sony is the softest out of the three (albeit with the nicest bokeh). 

 

Usually AF speed would be a useful factor to take into account but because of how old the 70-300G is, the tamron and sigma are reported to be about on par (or maybe slightly better). 

A tad bit of edge softness is inconsequential compared to motion blur without stabilization. Considering the lens speed is on par, I probably wouldn’t consider the Tamron here.  
 

That extra reach from the sigma is an idea, but as mentioned, you have to the factor the weight not just for yourself, but the SO. Matter of tradeoff here. Do you want something easier to carry, or more reach?
 

Also, I’m legitimately curious as to why the APS-c mode would be considered when you can literally just crop in after the fact. 

[Mr.Meerkat]

On 3/18/2021 at 3:57 AM, Zodiark1593 said:

A tad bit of edge softness is inconsequential compared to motion blur without stabilization. Considering the lens speed is on par, I probably wouldn’t consider the Tamron here.  
 

That extra reach from the sigma is an idea, but as mentioned, you have to the factor the weight not just for yourself, but the SO. Matter of tradeoff here. Do you want something easier to carry, or more reach?
 

Also, I’m legitimately curious as to why the APS-c mode would be considered when you can literally just crop in after the fact. 

Yeah fair enough, I mean the weight difference between the Sony and Sigma is "only" 300 grams, which is still substantial but is no longer "double the weight". Maybe the Sigma does make the most sense, especially with how it would overlap with my 24-105 a little better in terms of reach (is very much debatable tbf). 

 

As for why APS-C mode, of course there's post-cropping but let's just say that I'm on the lazier side plus it'll be much easier for my SO as what she sees in the EVF is what she gets. 

[YellowJersey]

I have the Sigma 100-400mm and it's quite good. It matches the GM lens in most cases. The only downside is that it's fairly big and heavy. But so far as IQ goes, no complaints here on my A7rIII.

[Fetzie]

To be honest, I wouldn't consider any lens longer than 200mm without some kind of active stabilization. It makes so much of a difference (my 300PF feels like it's on a gimbal when VR is on). It's hard enough keeping a moving animal in frame at 50+ metres as it is, you don't want to have to contend with even more erratic movement from camera shake on top of that, along with having to run at 1/4000 and 3200+ ISO in broad daylight to compensate for it.