10-16-2023, 07:17 PM
So far, I haven't tested the 50-400mm because I don't understand its purpose.
* at 50mm, it's too slow to make it useful
* it overlaps with a lot of standard zoom lenses at the wide end - and even with the 17-50mm, you aren't really "required" to fill the gap compared to a conventional 100-xxx.
* 400mm isn't long enough
* it's excessively expensive for what it is. Where I live, both the Tam 150-500mm as well as Sigma 150-600mm Sports are much more affordable. And if I had a choice between 400mm and 500/600mm for less money, I would know what to choose, really. And the Sigma 100-400mm is almost half the price.
The 50-400mm could make more sense in X-mount, maybe. But the value props remain questionable, IMHO.
It doesn't seem to gain lots of traction in terms of sales volume either.
* at 50mm, it's too slow to make it useful
* it overlaps with a lot of standard zoom lenses at the wide end - and even with the 17-50mm, you aren't really "required" to fill the gap compared to a conventional 100-xxx.
* 400mm isn't long enough
* it's excessively expensive for what it is. Where I live, both the Tam 150-500mm as well as Sigma 150-600mm Sports are much more affordable. And if I had a choice between 400mm and 500/600mm for less money, I would know what to choose, really. And the Sigma 100-400mm is almost half the price.
The 50-400mm could make more sense in X-mount, maybe. But the value props remain questionable, IMHO.
It doesn't seem to gain lots of traction in terms of sales volume either.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji