I have been using the Canon 80d + 70-300 ii usm for a while now and haven’t been happy with it so I’ve found a pretty good deal on a A6400 with a 70-350mm lens, just wanted some opinions on how it’s like because I’ve never owned a Sony(I’m mainly shooting motorsports and street)

ZLee wrote:I have been using the Canon 80d + 70-300 ii usm for a while now and haven’t been happy with it so I’ve found a pretty good deal on a A6400 with a 70-350mm lens, just wanted some opinions on how it’s like because I’ve never owned a Sony(I’m mainly shooting motorsports and street)The 70-350mm G is one of my favourite lenses on either full frame or APS-C and I own some good ones.It's super sharp across the range, has great colours, fast AF, is uber compact @ 625 grams, and that 105-525mm FFE reach is unbelievable!I also have G & GM full-frame tele zooms, but this one lives on my A7RIV and A6600 a lot because it is just so convenient.Would go great with the A6400 too because it has OSS. Not cheap, but a must-buy lens, particularly for wildlife or sport on APS-C.

ZLee wrote:I have been using the Canon 80d + 70-300 ii usm for a while now and haven’t been happy with it so I’ve found a pretty good deal on a A6400 with a 70-350mm lens, just wanted some opinions on how it’s like because I’ve never owned a Sony(I’m mainly shooting motorsports and street)What is the exact reason for your unhappiness? That is important information for someone to advise you.Firstly, have you checked if you need another lens, like the 70-200mm f/2.8 or the 100-400mm L II? The 80D has worked well for several of my fellow birders with Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm zooms, and it should do much better with exceptional lenses like the EF 100-400mm II.What I like about DSLRs like 70D/80D is that the OVF gives a larger view than what you'd get with the tiny EVF of the a6xxx series. I wear glasses, so the difference is starker. The center OVF/EVF position also makes it easier and quicker to aim, as compared to a rangefinder style EVF on the side. It worked well for me with a 400mm lens on a 70D when photographing birds in flight. Apart from this, the EVF also has a lag while the OVF is real time. On the flip side, you have flicker-free tracking when using the electronic shutter on an a6400, and you can shoot more frames without worrying about shutter life.Ergonomically, I liked the 70D better because the larger body gave me enough leverage with long lenses, while with the a6400 I inadvertently end up pressing the command dial with my palm.You should rent an a6400 and the 70-350mm and spend two days with it to see if you like it. Also rent the 100-400mm or the 70-200mm Canon lenses and see what works better for you.

ZLee wrote:I have been using the Canon 80d + 70-300 ii usm for a while now and haven’t been happy with it so I’ve found a pretty good deal on a A6400 with a 70-350mm lens, just wanted some opinions on how it’s like because I’ve never owned a Sony(I’m mainly shooting motorsports and street)I use this combination for wildlife. I like the reach in relatively small package. Very good optical quality, I can crop nicely at 350mm. Be prepared for differencies in usage and not so easy transition from Canon DSLR to Sony mirrorless. I bought L bracket for Sony 6400 for better handling with bigger lenses. Sony apsc bodies are very compact (which I like) but it have some ergonomic downsides.

As others have said, the 70-350 is a marvellous lens.  Be aware that it retails without a lens collar; if you want to use it on a tripod, as your motor racing use-case suggests is possible, you can get an iShoot collar - that also fits Sony's 135/1.8 GM - from Amazon.My experience with the lens is all on the later a6600, but I have seen very good results on this forum from those who chose the a6400 to pair it with.HTHMike M

I used to have a Canon 77D + 55-250 STM and switched to Sony A6400 three years ago. I have used the 70-350 and I am more than happy with its fast AF and excellent sharpness. The AF on the A6400 is superior to any DSLR. Paired with the right lens such as the 70-350 you will take great pictures, even of birds in flight.

ZLee wrote:I have been using the Canon 80d + 70-300 ii usm for a while now and haven’t been happy with it so I’ve found a pretty good deal on a A6400 with a 70-350mm lens, just wanted some opinions on how it’s like because I’ve never owned a Sony(I’m mainly shooting motorsports and street)When you switch systems, there will be some learning curve, but people either like or hate the smaller size.  Personally, I got tired of lugging around a bulky DSLR.  Biggest adjustment may be the cramped size, but as long as I can hook my fingers around a grip, I'm generally happy.  Menu layout is a matter of preference; setting custom menus helps.As everyone says, the 70-350 is great. I bought it used not long ago, and haven't had time to put it through a formal test, but I found it a big step up from the older lenses I've used, but still relatively compact for a Tele lens.And when you're not shooting at long distance, it's easier to carry around.

The A6400 I don't know, I use the A6600 (and others) because it has IBIS and the battery is the same as the A7 series so I only need one battery type and one charger.

I apologise for not having an example from the a6400, but one evening last summer (2021), I saw an UFO like thing emerge from the neighbours' garden - and just instinctively pointed at it before it completely disappeared.   I nearly missed.  This is a crop.  I have it printed 60cm x 40 at home.  Very sharp, though I am sure others could have done better.Red in tooth and claw 9)Just feel this thread could do with more pictures and fewer thousands of wordsMike M

GaryW wrote:ZLee wrote:I have been using the Canon 80d + 70-300 ii usm for a while now and haven’t been happy with it so I’ve found a pretty good deal on a A6400 with a 70-350mm lens, just wanted some opinions on how it’s like because I’ve never owned a Sony(I’m mainly shooting motorsports and street)When you switch systems, there will be some learning curve, but people either like or hate the smaller size. Personally, I got tired of lugging around a bulky DSLR.It's not just harder to carry around a larger photographic gear, but it's also fewer times because of the same things: size and weight.Biggest adjustment may be the cramped size, but as long as I can hook my fingers around a grip, I'm generally happy. Menu layout is a matter of preference; setting custom menus helps.As everyone says, the 70-350 is great. I bought it used not long ago, and haven't had time to put it through a formal test, but I found it a big step up from the older lenses I've used, but still relatively compact for a Tele lens.How do you plan to do a formal test? I got a 70-350 too, new couple of months ago. I'm not convinced yet that mine is good, as no doubt I got clearer pictures of the Moon when I manually focused. Also, I got a better focused and sharper image with 18-135 at 135, through the glass of the rear sliding door, of a squirrel laying flat on the hand rail in the morning sun light compared to 306 mm focal length, using the same focus method, with the focus square on the squirrel's head, just swapped the lenses as quick as I could, but when viewed on the computer and zoomed in to have the same viewing head size, there is no doubt that 70-350 didn't do well, actually worse. It's possible that focus with 70-350 through a window, especially at an angle through the window, doesn't focus right. I noticed that in the car through the windshield, and being in a parking lot, I stepped out to take another picture that came out better. Then, when I took some pictures in a park, in late afternoon, dim light and with long zoom, the pictures got grainy. That is understandable, and I will test in full day light. But now I have doubts that the lens works fine, compared to the 18-135 through the window. I was thinking to compare 18-135 to 55-210 and 70-350, indoor on tripod on a distant painting on the wall, same lighting, all three at 70, then all at 135, and finally only the last two at 210. Of course I'll do the first two at 55 and I'll do 350 with 70-350. I'll just zoom in the pictures on the computer and compare between the lenses. So, how are you going to do a formal test of 70-350? Thank youAnd when you're not shooting at long distance, it's easier to carry around.

piticoto wrote:GaryW wrote:ZLee wrote:I have been using the Canon 80d + 70-300 ii usm for a while now and haven’t been happy with it so I’ve found a pretty good deal on a A6400 with a 70-350mm lens, just wanted some opinions on how it’s like because I’ve never owned a Sony(I’m mainly shooting motorsports and street)When you switch systems, there will be some learning curve, but people either like or hate the smaller size. Personally, I got tired of lugging around a bulky DSLR.It's not just harder to carry around a larger photographic gear, but it's also fewer times because of the same things: size and weight.I was pretty good at lugging that DSLR around, but it was on the smaller size of DSLRs. But I would sometimes just get frustrated with it. Was OK for short outings.Biggest adjustment may be the cramped size, but as long as I can hook my fingers around a grip, I'm generally happy. Menu layout is a matter of preference; setting custom menus helps.Yeah, I'm OK with curving my fingers around the small grip. Yeah, I use the custom menu and custom buttons a lot.As everyone says, the 70-350 is great. I bought it used not long ago, and haven't had time to put it through a formal test, but I found it a big step up from the older lenses I've used, but still relatively compact for a Tele lens.How do you plan to do a formal test?MTF MapperMTF mapper download | SourceForge.netIt's not a perfect solution, but I can get consistent results for meaningful comparisons. I don't have the ability to make a very rigorous test; this is probably the best I can do. When I completed testing several lenses, I made a formula to rank which was "best". This was also a bit flawed, but still based on measurements, so not too crazy. Until you see how they ranked! I rank center-sharpness higher than edge/corner sharpness, so sometimes relatively inexpensive lenses look pretty good.I got a 70-350 too, new couple of months ago. I'm not convinced yet that mine is good, as no doubt I got clearer pictures of the Moon when I manually focused. Also, I got a better focused and sharper image with 18-135 at 135, through the glass of the rear sliding door, of a squirrel laying flat on the hand rail in the morning sun light compared to 306 mm focal length, using the same focus method, with the focus square on the squirrel's head, just swapped the lenses as quick as I could, but when viewed on the computer and zoomed in to have the same viewing head size, there is no doubt that 70-350 didn't do well, actually worse. It's possible that focus with 70-350 through a window, especially at an angle through the window, doesn't focus right. I noticed that in the car through the windshield, and being in a parking lot, I stepped out to take another picture that came out better. Then, when I took some pictures in a park, in late afternoon, dim light and with long zoom, the pictures got grainy. That is understandable, and I will test in full day light.If you're not at ISO 100, any additional noise is going to degrade the perceived resolution. So, yeah, really need to test in day light, if possible, or add lots of additional lighting.But now I have doubts that the lens works fine, compared to the 18-135 through the window. I was thinking to compare 18-135 to 55-210 and 70-350, indoor on tripod on a distant painting on the wall, same lighting, all three at 70, then all at 135, and finally only the last two at 210. Of course I'll do the first two at 55 and I'll do 350 with 70-350. I'll just zoom in the pictures on the computer and compare between the lenses.I have done some of those comparisons as well. It will give you an idea of the relative sharpness between the lenses. I'm always suprised how hard it is to see differences most of the time, unless the lens just has a weird quirk. And some of the time, it seems like focus is off. That could be the main problem in making these kinds of comparisons -- did it actually focus on the same target for each lens? If it's off any bit, it'll throw off the resolution calculations in MTF Mapper, or look more blurry, when doing a manual comparison.So, how are you going to do a formal test of 70-350? Thank youI put the camera on a tripod, with OSS turned off, and using 2-second timed shutter, and aim at a special target that MTF Mapper understands. It analyzes the edges in the chart and comes up with numbers at each location. I'm limited in space, so I can only do a partial test of the lens, so I just note the numbers that I get in the center and one of the edges. I can repeat the process and get similar numbers, so that gives me some confidence in the method.And when you're not shooting at long distance, it's easier to carry around.

ZLee wrote:I have been using the Canon 80d + 70-300 ii usm for a while now and haven’t been happy with it so I’ve found a pretty good deal on a A6400 with a 70-350mm lens, just wanted some opinions on how it’s like because I’ve never owned a Sony(I’m mainly shooting motorsports and street)I use the a6400 with the Sony 70-350mm for much of my street photography.  It's a great pairing and I can't recommend it enough.  I just don't think you can go wrong with the 70-350 if that focal range fulfills your requirements.