Tamron 70-180 vs Sony 70-200 (mark 1)

Hi folks. I have had an a7iii camera for a year and a half now and just upgraded to an a9ii.

I've been using a Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 lens with the a7iii and it worked great.

It STILL works great with the Sony a9ii.

But I'm aware it only gives me 15fps vs the 20fps that the Sony would give me. I'm thinking about trading it in for the 70-200 mark 1 (I cannot afford the mark 2 unfortunately or this would be a no-brainer!).

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Biggest concern is AF performance. Is it much better on the Sony mark 1?

My photography subject is dogs and dog sports (agility mostly). So I'm looking at fast moving subjects that turn quickly.

I also own that Tamron 70-180 and have occasionally tested the Sony FE 2.8/70-200 GM OSSs. I believe the autofocus performance is more or less the same, the biggest difference is in the physical features: the original Sony FE 2.8/70-200 GM is quite heavy (1.4 kg), the newer Sony FE 2.8/70-200 GM OSS II is much lighter (1 kg) and then Tamron 70-180 mm F/2.8 shaves off some more weight being only 800 g and slightly smaller in dimensions compared to these Sonys. Obviously to archive this Tamron has 20 mm less in focal length of the telephoto end and no optical stabilization.

I looked at your pictures and saw a lot of running dogs (and a lovely small one in snow a year ago ) it makes sense to get the better fps. For sure.

The Tamron 150-500 is much heavier (and you should write a review for it) but the Tamron 70-180 is much lighter then the Sony 70-200GM mark 1.

You know, I would keep saving for the mark 2 version. I know it is much more expensive, but both the Tamron and the mark 1 are compromises. The one is light, but less reach and slower fps (and maybe AF) the other is heavy. You will end up with the mark 2 in the end. Staying with the Tamron 70-180 until then makes sense IMHO.

But also.... go out and rent it and find out if you feel the difference is significant enough to buy it. Makes a lot of sense.

crysania wrote: And I should review the Tamron 150-500. It's really a fantastic and affordable lens. I plan to trade it out though eventually for the Sony 100-400.

Why? If you upgrade that one to the Sony version, do you still need the 70-200? You have one light lens and the other is the highest fps!

I guess you answered your own question.... you need an f/2.8 in difficult situations.

I didn't answer my own question. My question is trade the Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 for the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 (mark 1) or not worth it?

And yeah I know they can use teleconverters...but I hear lousy things about the 2x ones. I mean, I could manage to afford the 70-200 mark 2 if I sold both of my lenses (Tamron 70-180 and Tamron 150-500) but I don't think I want to deal with the teleconverter for shooting fast action sports. Some of the dogs I shoot run at over 30mph!

crysania wrote: I didn't answer my own question. My question is trade the Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 for the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 (mark 1) or not worth it?

Yes, I know. Maybe I was unclear. You want the best AF in bad light and, because of the speeds, 30fps is desirable - that is the Sony. IMHO. But it is your question, you decide when it is answered