Thanks for your video. I think the 50-400mm range is one of the main highlights of this lens. True, many may have 50mm primes, but the beauty of this lens is that the 50mm is included in the range of 50-400 and you would not have to change lens. So perhaps, it’s more of a benefit to outdoor run and gun photographers that don’t want to switch lenses or have the time to setup different shots/scenes like a filmmaker. That being said, perhaps an interesting comparison would be with Sony 100-400mm GM F4.5-5.6 lens if you don’t need the 50mm. Yes it’s more expensive, but you’re getting a sharper lens, brighter aperture at 400mm, GM quality with compatibility with Sony’s lens breathing compensation for video, and compatibility with teleconverters (1.4x and 2x).
Thanks for the nice video. For use on APS-C bodies, Sony makes the 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS which I think is a good alternative for A6000-series and FX30 users
Great video Harv. Just wondering if I was to shoot at f6.3 throughout with ISO at 12,800 for darker events, gigs etc. Do you think this would be an ideal setup?
This lens starting at 50mm is very handy, meaning when paired with 17-50 (internal zoom) and another 50mm prime, it can always give you a normal FOV whenever you turn on the camera. From there you can quickly zoom in or out. It could seem strange to those who are used to a zoom starting with 24mm or 28mm.
Another option is from Tamron themselves but it's for APSC but it has more range and can really be one lens to do it all but some say it's not as sharp and as well praised as this 50-400 in the quality department, it's the Tamron 18-300 F3.5-6.3 (27-450mm FF eq.). But I wonder does one can really tell and focus on when your story is better and more important the the quality of the lens but also wonder if it's sharp enough to get your story sharp enough for the eyes? I decided to get Sony A7RV and Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 but I also want an ultrawide to everyday lens, their 17-50 is tempting as it's the same series and connect the range but if I going to have another lens to carry, it is not so practical to have near range and not maximise the range, hence I will go for the Sony 12-24mm F4 even tho I really wanted an ultrawide to short tele range and want to support these series like 17-50 and Sony own 20-70 but the ultrawide side is not ultrawide enough yet in the current options, but I also wonder if I should get the 12-24mm now as it's 6 years old and the 6 years old 16-35mm GM hot updated months ago? But can you give your inputs on the Sony 12-24mm GM, one reviewers demonstrated the lens will have weird curvature magnify looking footage if you try to change the focus while the in-body lens correction turned on, won't have if you turn it off, is this something bad for the video making? If you correct it it looks wired, if you don't correct it you will know the footage isn't perfectly rectilinear lens! Here's the link and the part is 10:42 in the video!: m.th-cam.com/video/4FbYfkMDreU/w-d-xo.html
I just bought this lens again after about a year since I got it first time. I’m predominantly handheld shooter and I found that with a7IV I could only do about 200mm handheld after which the VC was no longer working that well. The so so IBIS and poor rolling shutter didn’t help. I decided to get it again to try it with ZV-E1 as it has better ibis, Eis (dynamic active) and far better rolling shutter. So far so good. Question is if it will make sense to have this along with the Tamron 28-200 f2.8-5.6 ?
I never got the obsession of the 70-200 F/2.8, the background is more than blurry enough at f/4.5-6.3 at those focal lengths, I wouldn't want it any blurrier or there won't be much left to my image (I stop it down if anything). Also many go for APS-C bodies for tele work, but they don't realise that f/4.5 is f/2.8 equivalent on APS-C in light gathering and depth of field, your APS-C equivalent lenses are bigger, heavier and more expensive, you're not gaining anything... I had a 50-200mm on my Fuji APS-C but recently moved to Full Frame (ZV-E1) and ended up getting the Tamron 70-300, the lens is actually a lot lighter while being faster! - the 50-400 is looking great, but I just cannot believe how light the 70-300 is for the quality and range you are getting, it's light enough I don't dread taking it with me on holiday, so there is that advantage :)
@@LiveMyJourneyTom Yes it does, that's a common misconception. An f/2 lens on Full Frame gathers double the light of an f/2 lens on micro 4/3, Tony has a full explanation here: th-cam.com/video/DtDotqLx6nA/w-d-xo.html - a common mistake is forgetting the crop factor also applies to ISO and wondering why exposure doesn't change, heh. Knowing the focal length, aperture or ISO without knowing the sensor size tells you precisely nothing about what the image will look like (in every sense of the word: field of view, exposure, depth of field, light gathering, noise, etc). All the measurements are per square inch, including ISO, that's why you get such strange values like ISO25 on a phone, when electronically it is identical to ISO1000 on a full frame sensor.
@@DigiDriftZone this is a really over simplified and in turn it distorts the message. When talking about aperture equivalents in light gathering we are talking about the property of the optical system to deliver an amount of light to the sensor per unit of area of the sensor. What he mixed into this is properties of the sensor itself. A 50mm f1.8 lens will deliver the same amount of light per each squared mm of a sensor surface on any given sensor size, therefore the equivalence doesn’t apply. The sensor with gather light according to its properties but it gets much more complicated here as they use different pixel sizes and technologies etc. Smaller resolution sensor will have larger pixels and will be able to gather more photons per pixel then one with a larger resolution and smaller pixels. Higher resolution sensors can will have smaller noise that can be less visible. You can have sensors that are front side illuminated, backs side illuminated, stacked and god knows what else. All that will decide on the actual dynamic range and low light capabilities of a camera, not the equivalent crop factor. A modern m43 or aps-c will have much better dr and low light then a full frame camera from 10 years ago when Tony recorded this…
@@LiveMyJourneyTom It is simplified because otherwise it would be a long post, like this :) - yes, every 5 years or so we get around a stop of low light improvement in the sensor technologies, but you can't cheat physics, sensors from the same generation perform better the larger the sensor is by exactly what you would expect, based on the surface area and the total number of photons landing on the sensor. However, if we look at different size sensors within a few years of each other, this rule is surprisingly accurate (Tony tested it to something like 99.3% accuracy across manufacturers and sensor sizes, assuming we are comparing a similar sensor tech and not a backlight CMOS to a stacked CCD). With this in mind, all of the following produce a roughly equivalent image, giving you the same exposure, same noise, same dynamic range, same depth of field, same light gathering, same focal length, you name it, everything that makes your image what it is (minus colour science / white balance): - iPhone 15Pro: Main 6.8mm f/1.78 @ ISO2,300 - Panasonic G9 II 12mm f/3 @ ISO7,000 - Sony A6700 16mm f/4.2 @ ISO12,800 - Sony A7C II 24mm f/6.3 @ ISO28,800 It's important to understand this if you want to achieve similar results across systems. All else being roughly equal an f/2 MFT lens gathers half the light of an f/2 on Full Frame. Yes, the light is the same per square unit of sensor surface area, but because the sensor is double the size, you have double the light gathered. Now if you take a full frame lens and you put it on a full frame and MFT bodies, you will get the same exposure. That is expected, because you've cropped out 1/2 of your image, you effectively removed 50% of the light, so your light captured is actually half that of the Full Frame sensor with the same lens. A common misconception here is to assume light gathering is the same because the exposure is the same, when this ignores that you've lost 50% of your light due to the crop. If you however correctly matched the focal lengths applying the crop factor, you must not forget to apply it to ISO too or you will get an exposure difference. The formula is: ISO*(cropfactor**2). Surprisingly, pixel density matters less in practice than what we would imagine, Tony tested this, you can have an A7S III with large pixels totalling 12 megapixels and an A7R V with with much smaller pixels totalling 60 megapixels, while the resolution will be different, the exposure will be the same and the noise level is also tested to be the same. This is counter intuitive as you think large pixels will have less noise, but no, it's the total sensor size that matters and how much light is hitting it. Now there are exceptions to this like what the native ISO of the camera is, the A7S III will perform better at the native 640 vs the A7R V which will perform better at the native ISO of 800. Yes, there are different sensor technologies and generations, so if you are comparing a modern APS-C vs a modern Full Frame, once you've applied the crop factor to all 3: focal length, aperture and ISO, that's when you can compare the advantages and disadvantages of each sensor technology and generation (or more often than not, be surprised that your image is near enough identical). However for all intents and purposes, an F/2.8 lens on APS-C gathers the same light as an F/4.2 lens on Full Frame, it's important to understand why this is and to match your lenses appropriately. The same applies to focal lengths, an f/2 50mm lens gathers half the light of an f/2 100mm lens. You can see this physically by looking at the iris opening of say a 16mm F/1.8 lens vs the comparatively giant iris (5x the size) of a 85mm f/1.8 lens.
How would you compare this to the 35-150? Would you trade a bit wider for the much much longer end? I am shooting the fx30 and want something from 35-50 to telephoto and the old tamron 35-150 2.8-4 ef on a speedbooster is interesting to me. But obviously has way less reach than this.
Hmm having just recently reviewed Tamrons 35-150 (f2-2.8 version) I’d say this is a much more useful range for most. I’ve not tried the older version tho so I’m not sure how it would compare 😄
The 50-400 being more useful? Just to be clear. I would think so as well but having used neither it’s hard to know. I love the normal view to telephoto idea because changing lenses always gets me second guessing my lens and trying to change it instead of focusing on creating. I hate when you have an idea, change lenses to try it, hate it, have to change back 😂
If you are doing lots of things indoors and darker areas the 35-150 would be what I go to personally. The 50-400 is specifically if you need to reach out well ahead in well lit areas IMO. So apples and oranges though I do believe the two are a great combo =P.
Enjoy guys 👍🏻
Thanks for your video. I think the 50-400mm range is one of the main highlights of this lens. True, many may have 50mm primes, but the beauty of this lens is that the 50mm is included in the range of 50-400 and you would not have to change lens. So perhaps, it’s more of a benefit to outdoor run and gun photographers that don’t want to switch lenses or have the time to setup different shots/scenes like a filmmaker. That being said, perhaps an interesting comparison would be with Sony 100-400mm GM F4.5-5.6 lens if you don’t need the 50mm. Yes it’s more expensive, but you’re getting a sharper lens, brighter aperture at 400mm, GM quality with compatibility with Sony’s lens breathing compensation for video, and compatibility with teleconverters (1.4x and 2x).
Thanks for the nice video. For use on APS-C bodies, Sony makes the 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS which I think is a good alternative for A6000-series and FX30 users
Beautiful footage of the red kites! Was that Burghley House??
Great video Harv. Just wondering if I was to shoot at f6.3 throughout with ISO at 12,800 for darker events, gigs etc. Do you think this would be an ideal setup?
This lens starting at 50mm is very handy, meaning when paired with 17-50 (internal zoom) and another 50mm prime, it can always give you a normal FOV whenever you turn on the camera. From there you can quickly zoom in or out. It could seem strange to those who are used to a zoom starting with 24mm or 28mm.
A review comparing ti the new 300 - 50 from a video point of view would be great. Is the auto focus and quality the same?
Another option is from Tamron themselves but it's for APSC but it has more range and can really be one lens to do it all but some say it's not as sharp and as well praised as this 50-400 in the quality department, it's the Tamron 18-300 F3.5-6.3 (27-450mm FF eq.). But I wonder does one can really tell and focus on when your story is better and more important the the quality of the lens but also wonder if it's sharp enough to get your story sharp enough for the eyes?
I decided to get Sony A7RV and Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 but I also want an ultrawide to everyday lens, their 17-50 is tempting as it's the same series and connect the range but if I going to have another lens to carry, it is not so practical to have near range and not maximise the range, hence I will go for the Sony 12-24mm F4 even tho I really wanted an ultrawide to short tele range and want to support these series like 17-50 and Sony own 20-70 but the ultrawide side is not ultrawide enough yet in the current options, but I also wonder if I should get the 12-24mm now as it's 6 years old and the 6 years old 16-35mm GM hot updated months ago?
But can you give your inputs on the Sony 12-24mm GM, one reviewers demonstrated the lens will have weird curvature magnify looking footage if you try to change the focus while the in-body lens correction turned on, won't have if you turn it off, is this something bad for the video making? If you correct it it looks wired, if you don't correct it you will know the footage isn't perfectly rectilinear lens! Here's the link and the part is 10:42 in the video!: m.th-cam.com/video/4FbYfkMDreU/w-d-xo.html
I just bought this lens again after about a year since I got it first time. I’m predominantly handheld shooter and I found that with a7IV I could only do about 200mm handheld after which the VC was no longer working that well. The so so IBIS and poor rolling shutter didn’t help. I decided to get it again to try it with ZV-E1 as it has better ibis, Eis (dynamic active) and far better rolling shutter. So far so good. Question is if it will make sense to have this along with the Tamron 28-200 f2.8-5.6 ?
I never got the obsession of the 70-200 F/2.8, the background is more than blurry enough at f/4.5-6.3 at those focal lengths, I wouldn't want it any blurrier or there won't be much left to my image (I stop it down if anything).
Also many go for APS-C bodies for tele work, but they don't realise that f/4.5 is f/2.8 equivalent on APS-C in light gathering and depth of field, your APS-C equivalent lenses are bigger, heavier and more expensive, you're not gaining anything...
I had a 50-200mm on my Fuji APS-C but recently moved to Full Frame (ZV-E1) and ended up getting the Tamron 70-300, the lens is actually a lot lighter while being faster! - the 50-400 is looking great, but I just cannot believe how light the 70-300 is for the quality and range you are getting, it's light enough I don't dread taking it with me on holiday, so there is that advantage :)
Totally agree! 👍🏻
The crop factor doesn’t affect the light gathering.
@@LiveMyJourneyTom Yes it does, that's a common misconception. An f/2 lens on Full Frame gathers double the light of an f/2 lens on micro 4/3, Tony has a full explanation here: th-cam.com/video/DtDotqLx6nA/w-d-xo.html - a common mistake is forgetting the crop factor also applies to ISO and wondering why exposure doesn't change, heh.
Knowing the focal length, aperture or ISO without knowing the sensor size tells you precisely nothing about what the image will look like (in every sense of the word: field of view, exposure, depth of field, light gathering, noise, etc).
All the measurements are per square inch, including ISO, that's why you get such strange values like ISO25 on a phone, when electronically it is identical to ISO1000 on a full frame sensor.
@@DigiDriftZone this is a really over simplified and in turn it distorts the message. When talking about aperture equivalents in light gathering we are talking about the property of the optical system to deliver an amount of light to the sensor per unit of area of the sensor. What he mixed into this is properties of the sensor itself. A 50mm f1.8 lens will deliver the same amount of light per each squared mm of a sensor surface on any given sensor size, therefore the equivalence doesn’t apply. The sensor with gather light according to its properties but it gets much more complicated here as they use different pixel sizes and technologies etc. Smaller resolution sensor will have larger pixels and will be able to gather more photons per pixel then one with a larger resolution and smaller pixels. Higher resolution sensors can will have smaller noise that can be less visible. You can have sensors that are front side illuminated, backs side illuminated, stacked and god knows what else. All that will decide on the actual dynamic range and low light capabilities of a camera, not the equivalent crop factor. A modern m43 or aps-c will have much better dr and low light then a full frame camera from 10 years ago when Tony recorded this…
@@LiveMyJourneyTom It is simplified because otherwise it would be a long post, like this :) - yes, every 5 years or so we get around a stop of low light improvement in the sensor technologies, but you can't cheat physics, sensors from the same generation perform better the larger the sensor is by exactly what you would expect, based on the surface area and the total number of photons landing on the sensor.
However, if we look at different size sensors within a few years of each other, this rule is surprisingly accurate (Tony tested it to something like 99.3% accuracy across manufacturers and sensor sizes, assuming we are comparing a similar sensor tech and not a backlight CMOS to a stacked CCD).
With this in mind, all of the following produce a roughly equivalent image, giving you the same exposure, same noise, same dynamic range, same depth of field, same light gathering, same focal length, you name it, everything that makes your image what it is (minus colour science / white balance):
- iPhone 15Pro: Main 6.8mm f/1.78 @ ISO2,300
- Panasonic G9 II 12mm f/3 @ ISO7,000
- Sony A6700 16mm f/4.2 @ ISO12,800
- Sony A7C II 24mm f/6.3 @ ISO28,800
It's important to understand this if you want to achieve similar results across systems. All else being roughly equal an f/2 MFT lens gathers half the light of an f/2 on Full Frame. Yes, the light is the same per square unit of sensor surface area, but because the sensor is double the size, you have double the light gathered.
Now if you take a full frame lens and you put it on a full frame and MFT bodies, you will get the same exposure. That is expected, because you've cropped out 1/2 of your image, you effectively removed 50% of the light, so your light captured is actually half that of the Full Frame sensor with the same lens. A common misconception here is to assume light gathering is the same because the exposure is the same, when this ignores that you've lost 50% of your light due to the crop. If you however correctly matched the focal lengths applying the crop factor, you must not forget to apply it to ISO too or you will get an exposure difference. The formula is: ISO*(cropfactor**2).
Surprisingly, pixel density matters less in practice than what we would imagine, Tony tested this, you can have an A7S III with large pixels totalling 12 megapixels and an A7R V with with much smaller pixels totalling 60 megapixels, while the resolution will be different, the exposure will be the same and the noise level is also tested to be the same. This is counter intuitive as you think large pixels will have less noise, but no, it's the total sensor size that matters and how much light is hitting it. Now there are exceptions to this like what the native ISO of the camera is, the A7S III will perform better at the native 640 vs the A7R V which will perform better at the native ISO of 800.
Yes, there are different sensor technologies and generations, so if you are comparing a modern APS-C vs a modern Full Frame, once you've applied the crop factor to all 3: focal length, aperture and ISO, that's when you can compare the advantages and disadvantages of each sensor technology and generation (or more often than not, be surprised that your image is near enough identical). However for all intents and purposes, an F/2.8 lens on APS-C gathers the same light as an F/4.2 lens on Full Frame, it's important to understand why this is and to match your lenses appropriately.
The same applies to focal lengths, an f/2 50mm lens gathers half the light of an f/2 100mm lens. You can see this physically by looking at the iris opening of say a 16mm F/1.8 lens vs the comparatively giant iris (5x the size) of a 85mm f/1.8 lens.
How would you compare this to the 35-150? Would you trade a bit wider for the much much longer end? I am shooting the fx30 and want something from 35-50 to telephoto and the old tamron 35-150 2.8-4 ef on a speedbooster is interesting to me. But obviously has way less reach than this.
Hmm having just recently reviewed Tamrons 35-150 (f2-2.8 version) I’d say this is a much more useful range for most. I’ve not tried the older version tho so I’m not sure how it would compare 😄
The 50-400 being more useful? Just to be clear. I would think so as well but having used neither it’s hard to know. I love the normal view to telephoto idea because changing lenses always gets me second guessing my lens and trying to change it instead of focusing on creating. I hate when you have an idea, change lenses to try it, hate it, have to change back 😂
If you are doing lots of things indoors and darker areas the 35-150 would be what I go to personally. The 50-400 is specifically if you need to reach out well ahead in well lit areas IMO. So apples and oranges though I do believe the two are a great combo =P.
Thanks for the thoughts! That’s a very good point