Tamron 28-300 vs. 50-300 for Sony E: BATTLE OF THE 300MM ZOOMS!

[@mulreid]

Wow the subscriber count is going up now! Great stuff! So happy for you as my favourite photography channel.

[@techtoremember8096]

Thanks so much! Really appreciate your support. Have a great day

[@rolandrick]

Just for clarification to the interpretation error most KZbinrs make like at 2:50: A third of a stop is a HUGE difference. It’s 33% more or less light the lens can capture in relation to the third stop value above or below it. It is a logarithmic scale, meaning independent of the position of the scale it is like so. Because the aperture is a square value, it must be factored to the square root of 2, what is 1.41459…, that’s where the 1.4 comes from. 1*1.4=1.4, 1.4*1.4=1.96 ➡️ if you use the non rounded value sqrt(2)*sqrt(2)=2 the result is of course correct, following the rounded numbers are used, 2*1.4=2.8, 2.8*1.4=4, 4*1.4=5.6, 5.6*1.4=8, 8*1.4=11, 11*1.4=16, etc. Between each of the values representing a full stop the amount of light is doubled or halved. 1.4 is half as much light reaching the sensor as 1, 2 half as much as 1.4, …, 8 half as much as 5.6, etc. For that, e.g. 1.4 to 5.6 are 4 stops less light that means 2⁴=16 times less light at 5.6 as at 1.4. For the exponent just count the full stops between the values. So, 1.4 to 8 is 2⁵=32 times less light at f/8 as at f/1.4. That means, it is a huge difference between 6.3 and 7.1. Got it? Shutter speed and ISO are already linear values (on a logarithmic scale based on 2), so, the square root thing isn’t necessary there. So if your exposure is right let’s say for example at a shutter speed of 1/250, ISO 1600 and f/6.3 and you step down to f/7.1 you must increase the ISO to 2000 or lower the shutter speed to 1/200. If you want to know more in detail, wiki it. 😊😉

[@Gold-Horse]

The best review for these new Tamron super-zoom lenses.. I bought the 50 to 300 lens and it is working amazingly with me ..

[@techtoremember8096]

Thanks so much ! Yes that’s a great lens

[@mattgage1021]

I have the 28-300. It's a great lens for my needs. I wanted a one size fits all travel lens.

[@ADR1ANBUTT0N]

So it’s worth getting then? Similar looking for something with a little extra reach, I’ve only been using my 28-70mm lense I have and wanted that extra reach. Plus can’t justify paying 2 or 3 times the price for a G Master lens. Have you used it for anything specific or just general landscape/travel?

[@DavidHunte]

I have the 28-200mm. It's a great lens. I want to get the 28-300 for the extra range. I also would love the stabilization as the 28-200 does NOT have that in the lens. This is something to think about.

[@techtoremember8096]

If you have a camera with no in body stabilization they yes for sure

[@photoinfotech]

I have the 28-200 f2.8 - f5.6. I would have considered the higher zooms as an upgrade to this lens, but this 28-200 is around a stop faster, so it's a loss and gain. It would be interesting to see a high zoom F2 - F4 lens if Tamron or sigma can make it.

[@EugeneBurmaka]

What about 28-300 vs 28-200?

[@DavidKnight1962]

Great video!!

[@techtoremember8096]

Thank you!

[@mightymikex]

Great review! Not sure if you decided finally. I often use the infamous 24-240 on travel (mostly due to 24mm), I guess you may keep 28-300 for travel light, otherwise you might keep 50-300 if you plan to carry a long zoom with any other lens in your bag, it looks better on image quality on 50-300 from this review of yours. Thanks!

[@techtoremember8096]

Hey there. Thanks for the comment! That 24-240 is an underrated lens but I just found it a bit heavy. I am going to keep the 28-300 yes since its pretty darn close to the 50-300 and its lighter and gives you better coverage! Happy New Year!

[@kaochi1107]

very solid and useful review and comparison between these two lenses. great job!

[@techtoremember8096]

Thanks so much !!!

[@RiccardoGabarriniKazeatari]

Nice video, but I just *loved* the jokes and the movie references... Hope you won't stop. Liked 'n subscribed 😁

[@techtoremember8096]

Haha That’s great to hear ! Thanks so much for the support

[@RounakDuttaRkD]

Review the 18-300 next please.

[@霸鳥腰的霸]

Nice video❤ Thanks for sharing🎉

[@TomHitchings]

I’d find a comparison with the 28-200 vs 28-300 more useful if that’s possible.

[@techtoremember8096]

I am considering that -thanks for the suggestion

[@TomHitchings]

Have subscribed for it!

[@techtoremember8096]

@TomHitchings thanks !!

[@rolandrick]

😂 12:35 happens only in Hollywood movies 😄

[@billr6983]

Unless there's a specific reason you'd want to start at 50mm, I'd go for the 28-300 for its smaller size and versatility. For street or vacation/travel photography that extra field of view and smaller size would come in handy. You demonstrated the difference in tight spaces nicely. There's not enough difference between the two , it's the 28 for me. Great work, as usual a very informative and fun video. You deserve more subs and views.

[@techtoremember8096]

Great thinking there thank you. And thanks for the kind words. I am leaning in your direction regarding the 28 being the better option! Thanks again for your support

[@Carbonisation]

Lovely review! Is it possible for you to upload your sharpness test and samples in your description? I would appreciate it a lot to be able to view them outside of KZbin. Thanks in advance!

[@Carbonisation]

I have read and seen every review I could find, even in other languages, but only 3-4 shared full resolution images. They seemed to have mediocre copies, but it soinds like you got a good one, which can show the actual potential. You could upload the images on Flickr or somewhere else and share it in the description of this video. Again, would be much appreciated!

[@techtoremember8096]

That's interesting that you heard about mediocre copies. Tamron is usually pretty consistent with quality control these days. I will look into the possibility of uploading some images. Thanks for the comment

[@Carbonisation]

@@techtoremember8096 They are, yes, but most of the reviews claim that the corners are almost unusuablle at 28mm, and that the 50-300mm is noticeably better at the tele end. You seem to have gotten a very good copy. If it's as good as you claim, I could see myself getting the 28-300mm, mostly due to its size. I mostly use some primes; Laowa 9mm f/5.6, Sigma 17mm f/4, Sony 40mm f/2.5 and Sigma 90mm f/2.8, but sometimes I just want to bring one lens (like the 28-300mm) and perhaps the Sigma 17mm. Anyway, hope that you're able to upload some images, and keep up the good work!

[@Carbonisation]

@@techtoremember8096 Hi again. Not to push you, but have you looked in to sharing the images? If it isn't possible, then that's that.

[@Czerosiewicz]

I have used the 28-200 and the 50-300 and... I have to say, I don't know if I was lucky, but my 50-300 copy was so unbelievably sharp, it was actually sharper than my prime lenses! Only problem I had with this lens, was its low light performance - I was forced to use high iso, so I've decided to try 28-200 - but now I'm thinking going back to 50-300 - the 28-200 is not that sharp, not even close, even though I can use faster shutter. I think the VC actually makes huge difference here - but switching from 28-200 I surely will miss the wide end! So now I think trying out the 28-300 😂

[@techtoremember8096]

So many choices!!! Would be nice to have them all wouldn't it?

[@edc641]

I have the 28-200 and 50-400. Love them both, and my 28-200 is not far behind the 50-400 in IQ.

[@nSpiraliArchitectb]

@@edc641 Wow, that is high praise for the 28-200 given how great a lens the 50-400 is. The OP saying it was much less sharp than even the 50-300 has me conflicted now. On paper the 28-200 seems like the ideal lens for my intended use case of travel "do-to-it-all".

[@edc641]

@@nSpiraliArchitectb Went hiking for 9 days in September. Super heavy (and full) backpack with all the food, tent, sleeping gear and stuff so I only wanted to bring a single lens with my camera (also because I don't like switching lenses in harsh environments far from civilization). Picking the 28-200 was a no-brainer. For a single lens the zoom range is hard to beat. 50mm (50-400) would've been too narrow, and the 28-200 is half the weight. It's not perfect, obviously, but it's simply a really good lens. I love my 50-400 and when I go on shorter hikes/trips, where weight and space saving is not of highest prio, I tend to bring that lens over the 28-200. It just feels more solid. But the 28-200 is close enough for me not to bother about the difference in IQ. It's the faster lens too. F/2.8 at 28mm for that kind of lens is incredible. Haven't used the 28-300 myself, but based on what I've seen of that lens I'd guess the 28-200 is the better choice, unless you need the extra 100mm.

[@nSpiraliArchitectb]

@@edc641 Thank you, seems the 28-200 is the lens for me.

[@g7starr]

I'd get the 28-300.

[@LaurisBergs]

Tamron 28-300mm f/4-7.1 Di III VC VXD vs Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS? What would you recommend as a better choice for Sony A7 IV?

[@techtoremember8096]

I had the Sony 24-240 a while ago and its a decent lens. Its a big and bulky lens however and the Tamron felt lighter to me. In addition with the Tamron you get in tighter (300mm vs. 240) although not as wide as 24mm. If you are shooting a lot of landscapes and you want that extra 4mm, I suppose the Sony is your better bet, but if you are zooming more often than not, then I'd definitely go with the Tamron. Its a newer lens, with updated optics and I think every bit as good if not better than the Sony lens. Thanks!

[@aleksdeveloper698]

3:47 be careful when you say that, because it is not night. Photographers love f1.4-1.2 because of low light photography. So it is best to mention that this is full blown sun, but when I worked with some clients, within 2 hours the sun went down and it was very dark. If I didn't have 1.4-1.2 lenses it would have been impossible to shoot with f7.1.

[@aleksdeveloper698]

And also great video overall, just wanted to mention that.

[@techtoremember8096]

Appreciate the comment. Yes, for sure f1.4 or f2 will be significantly better for low light however if you use this lens in sunny daytime conditions you can certainly get pleasing results. Thanks!

[@marc_likes_marketing]

i have really enjoyed your comparison! new sub! i look forward to checking out your other vids.

[@techtoremember8096]

Great to hear -thanks ! And welcome aboard

[@gandalfgreyhame3425]

I wish Sony would make a 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6, like my FABULOUS Nikon lens. It's the main reason I'm holding onto my D800 instead of getting an A7. With a 77mm front, its a bigger lens than these skinny 67mm Tamron lenses, but way better f-stops. The Nikon lens blows away these Tamron lenses.

[@tubeland344]

That's great, but I don't think most folk would switch camera systems for just one lens. Unless they're rich or irresponsible with their money

[@nikolaytrifonov8732]

I checked both lenses and the 50-300 is slightly better on sharpness, the 28-300 mm is not good on wide angle in my view which makes it no use for what wide angle is needed, the soft corners making it almost no use for landscape or photo where details are needed. The 50-300 mm also not ideal on 50 mm, but much better as you zoom in.

[@わための助手君]

how about 28-300 VS 28-400? I know it's different ! nikon and sony LOL But I only have D5300. it's so old so I want buy new one. I am think about zf and a7Cr. think

[@techtoremember8096]

I dont have a Nikon to test on but my friend has the 28-400 and says its very good sharp the zoom range. Just be aware the Nikon brightest aperture is f8 at 400mm so its even a bit darker than the Sony

[@taewookkim9245]

무척 유익하고 유머도 재밌는 내용이었습니다. 제가 원하는 정보가 다 들어있어요. 감사합니다!

[@techtoremember8096]

Thank you!

[@jan-martinulvag1962]

50-300 is quite a bit better than the 28-300