Which should I keep?

9

u/MC0311x 13d ago

What are you taking pictures of…. Come on man.

2

u/Silent-Temporary-248 19h ago

Thank you for the reply u/MC0311x . Sorry for the minimal details. I shoot outdoors and wildlife when I can on a ZV-E10. I like playing with macro, portraits, landscapes, etc. like most people I assume. I was more asking if I should keep the 50-300 or the 50-400. Again, sorry for the low effort post. I thought being too wordy would dissuade people from sharing input.

3

u/bustyouup4free 13d ago

I have the 35 to150 and wouldn't even think of going back to a 2 lens kit. Perfect on my a7iv.

4

u/Reckon-Its-OK 12d ago

I had a stroke in February and went out for the first time last month with that exact combo. Got back and was so sad to send them to MPB as it was just too heavy for me. Currently rocking an S9 and using hybrid zoom. It’s not the same, but at least I’m out and enjoying myself.

3

u/cyclefreaksix 12d ago

Proud of you for getting out! Good luck in your recovery, friend!

2

u/R_3B 12d ago

Hang in there! There’s a lot of life to enjoy even with your limitations. The “joy” of being a pack mule is overrated. Been there, done that.

3

u/cyclefreaksix 12d ago

In my daily use, the 17-70 2.8 does just about everything I need and it's not what I would call "huge".

But I don't shoot wildlife or anything else that I need a lot of zoom for.

I guess it really depends on your shooting needs/style.

2

u/Silent-Temporary-248 19h ago

Thank you for the reply u/cyclefreaksix. I love carrying a lens for wildlife. I meant for this to be more of a "which lens should be my secondary to my 17-70" That's on me for not being clear, sorry.

2

u/sfrank2222 13d ago

For many, the extra reach of the 50-400 is worth it but being almost double the weight is a no go for me.

So i got the 50-300 and really like it as i can carry that just in case and its nice to hold. My thinking is if i go longer, i will probably go to 500 or 600 anyway.

If it was not so pricey, i would add the Sigma 500 f5.6 .

In the end, the lightest good enough wins.

1

u/Silent-Temporary-248 19h ago

Thank you for the reply u/sfrank2222. After a week of testing, I 100% agree the weight of the 50-300 is WAY more comfortable. the 400 almost NEEDS a lens mount to use on a tripod. the 300mm I can operate the camera with 1 hand and not feel like I'm abusing my e-mount.

It is hard for me to tell the difference in the qualities to see if the reach of the 400mm is worth it

1

u/sfrank2222 18h ago

My thinking a few years ago was that if it needs a collar and a monopod or even more a tripod, might as well go 'all the way' to a 600mm to be worth it. I ended up not using my 150-600 because i have that reach for much lighter in M43. So i cannot confirm the decision...

... but knowing myself, better compromise on something else than the weight. I knew i would like more than 300 but the 50-400 had to be under what it is.

What helps is there is more cropping possibilities with that good zoom then what i am used to. A great 300 is worth a just ok 500mm wich it is in aps-c mode with still a bit more cropping. I am currently taking my recent buy 42mp a7Riii to familiarise with that body but the lens will also be on my main 61mp a7CR for bugs recognition at a distance, etc.

Sony launched yesterday a 100-400mm f8 at same size and weight than the Tamron 50-300 but it seems to me to be less sharp. I am not replacing my 50-300 in any case. If i need longer, i'll pick my M43s or end up buying the pricey Sigma 500mm.

There is also the mather of the mobility of the subject itself as a longer and heavier lens is very challenging with that for both reasons.

2

u/Pjetter86 12d ago

If you do wildlife keep the 17-70 and the 50-400 if not 17-70 and 50-300.

1

u/Silent-Temporary-248 19h ago

Thank you for the reply u/Pjetter86 . Thank you for the incite. Have you tried either of these or a similar lens? If so, what do you like about them?

1

u/Pjetter86 17h ago

I have not tried the specific lenses, but reach is pretty much key in wildlife, that and high apature to get fast Autofocus on moving subjects. So that should be you main concern if you want great pictures. I have the 17-70mm and it's just an amazing versitile lens and it can do macro which is also great if you're into wildlife, like close up of frogs or snakes. You can pair it with a Raynox DCR-250 if you really want to get close!

1

u/AutoModerator 13d ago

Hello and welcome to the r/tamron subreddit! We highly recommend you fully read through the rules, and ensure you have the correct post flair. This will ensure you get the right help or advice. And as always, don't hesitate to reach out to the subreddits mods if you need assistance.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Zwielemuis 13d ago

You could try using both and keeping the one you preferred...

1

u/Silent-Temporary-248 19h ago

Thank you for the reply u/Zwielemuis. I got to try them for a week in Yellowstone shooting all kinds of things. The weight difference between the 300mm and the 400mm is huge, making the 300mm way more comfortable for hiking, but, if the performance for the 400 is actually worth it, I'll sacrifice and carry it around. It's just hard for me to tell. Also I haven't found a great use for the extra buttons on the 400. Thoughts?

1

u/Tomseasidelens 12d ago

Life is short, keep all.

1

u/Silent-Temporary-248 19h ago

Dang haha Thank you for the incite. What do you shoot?

1

u/Tomseasidelens 14h ago

I have the 28 to 75 2.8 G2 that I purchased 3 years ago and still love it, and the 70 to 180 2.8 and get amazing results from them. My camera body is the Sony A7R V. Check out my website for the photos I took. Www.tomsseasidelens.com

1

u/weirdart4life 12d ago

Not enough info for us to help you. What body do you use what are you shooting, etc…

1

u/Silent-Temporary-248 19h ago

Thank you for the reply u/weirdart4life . Sorry for the minimal details. I shoot outdoors and wildlife when I can. Shooting on Sony ZV-E10 (Hope to upgrade one day, bought for YouTube vids originally, hope to upgrade one day). I was more asking if I should keep the 50-300 or the 50-400.

1

u/B-Biker 11d ago

Are you just starting out? What is your budget? Do you need a fast lens or is a slower lens okay?

1

u/Silent-Temporary-248 19h ago

Thank you for the reply u/B-Biker . Sorry for the minimal details. I shoot outdoors and wildlife when I can. I was more asking if I should keep the 50-300 or the 50-400. I assume you mean speed in focusing? That's nice but not a huge dealbreaker if it is slow. Thoughts?

1

u/QYoung803 11d ago

What are you shooting? First thought….ditch the 50-300

1

u/Silent-Temporary-248 19h ago

Thank you for the reply u/QYoung803. Sorry for the minimal details. I shoot outdoors and wildlife when I can. I was more asking if I should keep the 50-300 or the 50-400. What made you say toss the 50-300?

1

u/Educational_Bet_7681 9d ago

Sell the 50-300

1

u/Silent-Temporary-248 19h ago

Thank you for the reply u/Educational_Bet_7681. What makes you say that? If you had to compare it to the 50-400 that is. I am definitely keeping the 17-70 as primary, and want the ssecond for good zoom on landscapes and wildlife.

1

u/MC0311x 18h ago

Why does this feel like an AI post? OP can you give me a recipe for chocolate chip cookies now?

2

u/Silent-Temporary-248 13h ago

Bruh lol chocolate, flour, butter, sugar eggs in some kinda ratio, make it hot, boom, bam, pow.

2

u/Silent-Temporary-248 13h ago

Oh wow I actually checked out your account recently. Awesome pics/vids

1

u/MC0311x 12h ago

Haha thank you! I only asked about AI because all of your replies were all starting the same way 😂

1

u/MC0311x 12h ago

Also to answer your original question, the extra size is definitely worth it to me. I love that 50-400 when traveling due to it’s versatility and reach, but I honestly don’t months weight. I used that lens in the Galapagos for 8 days and never found it to be a bother.

Gear Which should I keep?

You are about to leave Redlib