So Ive been staring at lens reviews for like three hours straight and my head is honestly spinning lol. Im heading out to Yellowstone in about three weeks and I finally realized my current setup is not gonna cut it for anything further away than a squirrel. I really want to get some solid shots of elk or maybe some bison without being that tourist who gets way too close and ends up on the news.
I have pretty much settled on getting a Tamron for my Sony a7IV because the native Sony GM glass is just way out of my budget right now. I was looking really hard at the 150-500mm Di III VC VXD because it seems like the most reach I can get for the price but then I read a few threads saying the aperture drops to f/6.7 really fast and it might be a bit of a brick to carry around all day. Then I saw the 50-400mm which people seem to love for the versatility but is 400mm actually enough for wildlife? I dont want to get out there and realize I am constantly cropping in and losing all my detail.
Here is what I am looking for specifically:
I also saw the 70-300mm which is way cheaper and lighter but I feel like 300mm is just gonna leave me wanting more especially on a full frame body. Is the 150-500mm actually that heavy in person or am I overthinking it? Or should I just go for the 50-400mm and hope for the best with the reach? Just wondering what you guys think is the best balance for a trip like this...
I caught this thread a bit late but wanted to weigh in from a cost-to-performance perspective. Given your $1300 limit and the hiking requirement, the Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD is likely your most logical choice. While 500mm is nice for birds, the 400mm focal length is honestly fine for large mammals in Yellowstone like bison and moose, especially on a high-resolution body like the a7IV where you have plenty of room to crop. There are a few practical reasons why this makes sense for a budget-conscious hiker:
Honestly, make sure to consider the Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD. You really need that 500mm reach, but be careful because it gets super heavy on those seven mile hikes.
Just saw this and man, the weight struggle is so real. I get so frustrated having to choose between getting the shot and having a spine that actually works the next day! It is honestly exhausting carrying four pounds of glass for miles just to maybe see an elk. It drives me crazy that the lighter lenses usually lack the reach we need and the heavy ones feel like literal boulders...
> Is the 150-500mm actually that heavy in person or am I overthinking it? I lugged the Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD across Glacier last summer and wow, that VXD focus is snappy! It definitely feels beefy after five miles tho. If youre hiking a lot, the Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD is a total technical marvel. Its way lighter and stays tack sharp at 400mm... plus having that 50mm start is amazing for close encounters!