I finally pulled the trigger on a Sony a6400 and I am so hyped to actually start taking some decent photos of birds and stuff in my backyard. My kid has this school trip to the local zoo in like three weeks and I really want to be the cool dad with the big lens haha. But man lenses are expensive!! I have about $450 saved up and I've been scouring eBay and marketplace like a madman.
Right now I am totally stuck between two options. The first is a used Sony 70-350mm G lens which people say is amazing but it's pushing my budget super hard and I might have to eat ramen for a month. The other one is the Tamron 70-300mm which is brand new for around the same price but it doesnt have stabilization? I'm worried because I dont have the steadiest hands when I'm excited. I also saw the cheap 55-210mm for like $150 but I feel like I'll regret not getting more reach since 210mm seems kinda short for wildlife.
Is the extra reach and stabilization on the Sony 70-350 really worth the extra money over the Tamron or the cheapo kit lens if I'm just starting out? Or should I just go for the Tamron and hope for the best...
In my experience, skipping the Sony E 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS is smart because 210mm is just too short for birds. Since the a6400 lacks IBIS, lens stabilization is mandatory.
- Sony E 70-350mm f/4.5-6.3 G OSS: Best choice. You get 525mm equivalent reach and vital OSS.
- Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III RXD: No stabilization makes handheld shots at 300mm a total nightmare. Eat the ramen, the Sony G lens is definitely worth it.