- I absolutely love the versatility of using zoom lenses.
And when I think of a well-rounded zoom lens kit
I think of a 16 to 35, a 24 to 70, and a 70 to 200.
But sometimes getting those really high quality zoom lenses
that we all obviously want can be really, really expensive.
Luckily now Tamron has all three of those
zoom lens spots filled.
Actually you're incorrect.
What do you mean?
Tamron doesn't have a 16 to 35.
They have a 17 to 28.
I mean, yeah okay, you're right.
And they don't have a 24 to 70, they have a 28 to 75.
Yeah, okay, you're right.
And they also don't have a 70 to 200, they have a 70 to 180.
Okay, I get it.
But that's what we're going to do in this video
is look at some of the differences between a 70 to 200
and the 70 to 180.
Just get outta here, let me make my video.
Sorry about the interruption.
In this video today we're going to be taking a look
at the Tamron 70 to 180 F/2.8
and compare it to its closest competitor
the Sony 70 to 200 F4 G lens.
(funky music)
So first and foremost
the reason that we're going to be talking
about the Tamron versus the cheaper Sony
rather than the Sony G Master is just
because they're in a lot closer of a price range.
The Tamron comes in at $1,199 making it the cheapest option
but we've also got the Sony that comes in
at $1,499 regularly but is often on sale for $1,299.
And there's a lot of used options out there that
you can get for cheaper.
Because it's a little bit of an older lens
you can find those things.
And then of course, there's the G Master
and it comes in at $2,599 US
which is why I'm kind of leaving it out of this comparison
because it's just so much more expensive that really
if you're looking at the Tamron,
you're probably not even looking at
the G Master necessarily.
(funky music)
Alright, so we've established
that the Sony is a couple hundred dollars more
expensive than the Tamron.
Let's see if we can figure out why.
Starting off with the build of these two lenses.
The Sony feels like it's built like a tank.
I feel like I could use this thing
as a hammer and it would probably be just fine in the end.
The focus and zoom ring are both smooth
and have a nice resistance to them
as well as the nice rubber grip on the outside.
Overall, you definitely feel like you're holding
a premium piece of glass when you have this one.
The Tamron on the other hand does feel a little bit more
like a budget lens.
There's definitely a lot of plastic in the construction.
And unfortunately I know firsthand how easily
this will break if you accidentally drop it.
I chipped away part of the front filter thread
in an accidental drop.
Luckily the rest of the lens still works flawlessly
so I could continue with my testing.
And no, dropping the lens was not on purpose
and it was not part of my testing.
The focus ring on the Tamron does feel pretty smooth
but it's a little bit thin.
It feels like there's not much to grab onto
as well as the texture of the outside is not easy to grip.
It's got more of a plastic-y feeling than a rubber feeling
and the zoom ring definitely doesn't feel as smooth
as the Sony.
It's got a little bit of friction going on there,
kind of plastic on plastic rubbing feeling.
As well as, as you can tell we've got the extending barrel
which we'll talk about a little bit later.
The weight of these two lenses is actually pretty close
with 840 grams for the Sony and 810 grams for the Tamron.
Now that weight is without the tripod mount
but it really doesn't weight much.
The Tamron actually has a one millimeter wider diameter
but it uses a 67 millimeter filter thread
whereas the Sony uses a 72.
I think this is because Tamron has used 67
on the rest of the lenses in this lineup.
So they want it to keep it consistent.
As far as the length of these lenses
the Sony is quite a bit longer.
The Tamron is 149 millimeters long, whereas the Sony is 175
but the Tamron has an extending barrel and the Sony doesn't.
And when the barrel is extended on the Tamron
it's actually a couple millimeters longer than the Sony.
That being said the fact
that the Tamron is a little bit shorter
makes it easier to bring with you in a bag.
The Sony is rated as dust and moisture resistant.
Whereas the Tamron just calls it moisture resistant.
I don't know how different that's actually going to be
on the two of them but I know that having
an extending barrel makes there more chance
that you're going to get moisture or dust inside that lens.
Now as far as extra features go
the Tamron's list is pretty short.
There is a lock to keep the lens
from extending unintentionally
which I must admit is kind of a cool feature in theory.
In reality it is pretty much completely unnecessary
because that lens does not move on its own.
I have a couple of lenses that definitely extend
if they're like hanging from my backpack
or if I'm just holding it in my hand
or something like that, but this one, it doesn't move.
So that lock is really unnecessary.
And I just kind of find it is annoying
to be completely honest.
(funky music)
The Sony on the other hand has a plethora of cool features.
A lot of which you'll find on the G Master version as well.
Like I said before, we've got internal zoom
which is a really cool feature to have.
It just feels really nice when you're using the lens for it
not to necessarily extend while you're zooming.
We've got an auto focus manual focus toggle switch.
We've got a toggle switch between the full focus range
or just three meters to infinity.
And then there's a big one that makes this stand out.
It's got steady shot built in.
So we've got stabilization in the lens.
And especially when you're at longer focal lengths like this
this can make a big difference.
There's a switch on the side of the lens
where you've actually got two different types.
There's a general stabilization.
And then there's one specifically for panning.
Again, this is something that the Tamron doesn't have.
Luckily most of the Sony full frame bodies have
internal stabilization built into them
but doubling up with lens stabilization can be huge
especially when you're at these longer focal lengths.
If you're shooting video you'll get steadier shots as well
as if you're shooting photos in low light
you can get a little bit more out of your shutter speed.
We've also got a focus hold button
that you can customize to whatever you want.
Actually, there are three of them
but they all function as one button.
But depending on how you have the lens oriented,
that way they're easier to get at.
And speaking of that we've got a tripod collar mount
that's actually movable so you can change it
between portrait or landscape mode or however you want it.
And it's removable as well.
So if you don't want it on there, you can just take it off.
This is another thing that the Tamron doesn't even
have the option for as far as I'm aware.
Now since that section leaned so heavily
in favor of the Sony lens,
let's talk about something where the Tamron
absolutely crushes and that is close focusing distance.
The Sony's minimum focusing distance is about a meter
whereas as the Tamron's is under a foot.
So if you want that close minimum focusing distance
the Tamron is definitely the winner in that department.
Okay, so that takes care of a lot
of the specs features and those kinds of things.
But what about a couple of the most obvious questions?
First and foremost, being the difference
between 180 millimeters and 200 millimeters?
Was there a bug on my lens a second ago?
So for me and in my testing
the difference between 180 millimeters
and 200 millimeters was not super significant.
It's definitely there.
You'll definitely notice a little bit, but in practice
in the actual use of these two lenses
it didn't really make that big of a difference for me.
So it's not necessarily a point that I would give
to Sony for having the extra reach or anything.
It's handy but it's not that handy.
Then on the other end of the conversation of course
we've got F 2.8 on the Tamron versus the F4 on the Sony.
Now, once again this is something that you might notice
but especially at these long focal lengths,
it really isn't a huge thing.
You get a little bit more light
and you get a little bit more blurry background
from the Tamron, but not a huge amount.
So I don't necessarily give a point to the Tamron
in that category either.
And you might be thinking okay well
what about low light, F 2.8 has to help there?
Sometimes.
In certain cases it seemed like the F4 was pretty darn close
to the same light transmission as the F 2.8
which I thought was a little bit weird
but maybe it just has better transmission.
And again with the Sony stabilization in the lens
you can actually get a little bit more
out of your shutter speed
so that can make up for the light in photography anyway.
Okay, so what about auto focus, sharpness,
and image quality?
For auto focus I didn't really have any issues
with either of these.
They both performed really well.
Tamron has been doing a great job,
obviously Sony does a great job with their native lenses.
No complaints there whatsoever.
The Sony 70 to 200 was already a really sharp lens.
I think the Tamron might have a slight advantage on it.
It seemed like in certain pictures, I would be like,
okay the Tamron is sharper on this one.
And the Sony is sharper on that one.
We're really splitting hairs there.
I would say that they're probably about even
and then as far as image quality
I think they're both fantastic.
Really, it was minimal minimal differences between the two.
Alright so I've jammed your brain full
of information about these two lenses, but brass tacks,
which one would I recommend if you're in the market
for a 70 to 200 for your Sony system?
If you were absolutely going to make me pick one
I'd probably go with the Sony one for a couple of reasons.
The stabilization in the lens is a big one for me
as well as the internal zoom.
I really liked that it has a tripod mount on it
and I'm a really big fan of the build quality of this lens.
It's a pleasure to zoom and focus.
It's just really nice to use.
You feel like you're using a really premium piece of glass.
That being said, if you're looking for something
that you don't need all those bells and whistles,
maybe you don't feel like you need stabilization
as well as if you really want to have that F 2.8
then the Tamron is going to be the way to go.
But as always I want to hear from you.
Let me know down in the comments which of these two lenses
you would choose.
I'm going to keep going, even though this plane is gone.
So let me know down in the comments
which one you would choose
and on your way down there hit the like
and subscribe button, hit that bell notification
so you don't miss out on future reviews and tutorials.
Thank you so much for watching and I'll see you next time.
Stupid plane.
Can't you see I'm doing important things
about cameras for YouTube?
These people have their priorities all mixed up.
Hello airplane.
Welcome to the show.
Ugh, ugh, bugs, fricking hate bugs.
Just gonna have another boat here.
It's a boat time.
Just wait for these waves to do their thing.
(waves crashing)
I guess I should stop recording
before I just go and do other things eh?
(funky music)