Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD vs. Nikon Z 100-400mm f4.5-5.6

[Celticursa]

Just read Brad Hill’s latest blog post comparing very favorably the Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD to the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. I own and have been happy with the Nikon Z lens, finding it especially useful for ”macro” work where its close focus capability comes into play, but if as Brad states, the image quality of the Tamron is significantly better, thinking I should sell my Nikon Z, buy Tamron and be a fair bit of money ahead.…did I mention the Tamron is $1200 and the Nikon Z would bring way more than that in proceeds. I would appreciate any thoughts from the forum on this conundrum.

 

[Charlie Lasswell]

From what I've read, the Tamron is ~0.5lb heavier, 0.5 stop slower, and the stabilization is not nearly as good as Nikon, however, considering the pricing and the percentage of time I'd be using it, I'm seriously considering it. For now I'm waiting to see how much these new lenses affect the price on a used Z 100-400mm because weight is a big factor for me.

 

[Cameron T]

Just read Brad Hill’s latest blog post comparing very favorably the Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD to the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. I own and have been happy with the Nikon Z lens, finding it especially useful for ”macro” work where its close focus capability comes into play, but if as Brad states, the image quality of the Tamron is significantly better, thinking I should sell my Nikon Z, buy Tamron and be a fair bit of money ahead.…did I mention the Tamron is $1200 and the Nikon Z would bring way more than that in proceeds. I would appreciate any thoughts from the forum on this conundrum.

Well, to me, the 150-500 really only wins out because it's light.

The 100-400 is (iirc) better for the semi macro work, and the 180-600 is just better at the longer lengths (and faster than the Tamron).

The good news is none of them are bad. The bad news is they all make compromises on things, and you have to decide what you prioritize.

I'd still get the 180-600 today. But that's just me.

 

[Highbow]

There's another advantage to the Z100-400 S that I will mention, you can use it with the 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverters. I own both the Tamron and the Nikon. I'm impressed with the focus and speed of the Tamron but as others have mentioned the Nikon Z 100-400 is so great for closeup shots. So I think they both are great for either my Z6ii or Z5 , the extra reach of the Tamron without the tele gives me two long range lenses for wildlife shooting. I hope to try the Tamron soon on released birds at a preserve to see how well I can focus on quail or pheasant.

 

[DownToThis]

Reviving an old thread here to see if anyone has any more input on the tamron vs nikon. I'm looking for something more portable (have a 800mm already so this would be a complementary lens). I'm leaning towards the nikon as I'd like to take the lens to Costa Rica and it'd be good to have a lens that could do macro as well as have some reach as I'm hiking. But I've been happy with previous tamrons (and their 6 year warranties) so am a bit torn.

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

I owned the Z100-400 and it did a lot of things well but image quality was not always the best. I own a Z 70-200 f/2.8 and the Z 400 mm TC 2.8. These two lenses are great for shooting in the cloudy, darker conditions often found in hte Pacific Northwest. This leaves a whole between 300 and 400 mm with a wide aperture. For me, f/4 is a minimum requirement. The Tamron 150-500 does cover the range of focal lengths needed but at a more narrow minimum aperture. It meets my needs when there is enough light. It is in the same range of IQ as the 100-400 and 180 to 600 but it is smaller and lighter. This makes it better suited for travel where both size and weight important. For my last trip to Central America I picked up a used 300 PF f/4. I had an old FTZ already. It worked well for hummingbirds and some other closer birds and gave me f/4 when needed. There is no small, light, bright 300 mm lens for the Z cameras like the 300 PF for F mount. It would fill a gap for me and would be a great sports lens. I guess no kit is perfect.