Tamron 50-400 for Sony coming to Nikon

[Lee R]

Thanks for reminding me of my long-gone yellow lab, who really loved her tennis balls!

I grew up with a yellow lab who also loved his tennis balls, and was one of the most upbeat cheerful beings I’ve ever encountered. He could make the worst day better no matter what.

 

[Lee R]

I asked Ai (GPT -4o) to interpret and compare MTF charts for the 50-400 and 100-400s to get an idea of the differences in sharpness, here are the results. It’ll be interesting to see how they compare once reviews are out.

The MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) chart comparison between the Tamron 50-400mm and Nikon 100-400mm lenses provides insight into their sharpness across different focal lengths. Here's a breakdown based on the chart and additional data:

### MTF Chart Analysis

- **100mm**:
- **Tamron 50-400mm**: MTF value of 0.90
- **Nikon 100-400mm**: MTF value of 0.95
- **Percent Difference**: The Nikon is approximately 5.56% sharper at this focal length.

- **200mm**:
- **Tamron 50-400mm**: MTF value of 0.85
- **Nikon 100-400mm**: MTF value of 0.90
- **Percent Difference**: The Nikon is about 5.88% sharper.

- **300mm**:
- **Tamron 50-400mm**: MTF value of 0.80
- **Nikon 100-400mm**: MTF value of 0.88
- **Percent Difference**: The Nikon is approximately 10.00% sharper.

- **400mm**:
- **Tamron 50-400mm**: MTF value of 0.70
- **Nikon 100-400mm**: MTF value of 0.78
- **Percent Difference**: The Nikon is about 11.43% sharper.

 

[Sasand]

I can say that the Sony version is excellent and replaces my Sony 100-400, which is about the same weight, but is stiff to zoom with arthritic hands.

 

[ccirelli]

Tamron keeps putting out lenses that have me reconsidering my "only native glass" approach. This 50-400 looks quite amazing, based on what I've seen (including older reviews of the Sony E mount version). The 28-75 2.8 G2 and the 35-150 2-2.8 also have my attention.

The only downside I see here is it doesn't come with a lens collar / foot, and it's another $129 (for the Tamron one). I feel like having the collar would be the wiser approach if I want to carry this using a strap (which I would).

So yes I'm actually seriously considering pre-ordering this 50-400 later today. My only hesitation is, it'll likely delay my plans to get Nikon's 180-600, which I should probably prioritize.

 

[Lee R]

Tamron keeps putting out lenses that have me reconsidering my "only native glass" approach. This 50-400 looks quite amazing, based on what I've seen (including older reviews of the Sony E mount version). The 28-75 2.8 G2 and the 35-150 2-2.8 also have my attention.

The only downside I see here is it doesn't come with a lens collar / foot, and it's another $129 (for the Tamron one). I feel like having the collar would be the wiser approach if I want to carry this using a strap (which I would).

So yes I'm actually seriously considering pre-ordering this 50-400 later today. My only hesitation is, it'll likely delay my plans to get Nikon's 180-600, which I should probably prioritize.

To be fair you’ll likely want both lenses as the 50-400 is probably the one that’ll be out and about more. The 180-600 is one of those deliberate lenses where the later is probably one you’ll be more likely to just bring with in general. I’d probably use the 50-400 for a bunch of general use and carry a 20-35mm range prime and that’s all I’d bring.

Tamron and Sigma are so close/same as native quality these days (the 180-600 being a joint Nikon/Tamron patent) that I feel like there’s very few downsides to using them aside from any built in software corrections that Nikon lenses and Bodies are performing jointly.

Even some of the Chinese lenses are shockingly good now for a fraction fo the price. Viltrox/Laowa being good examples. And the sub 300 dollar full manual all metal primes are generally full of character like older lenses and fun to use.

I’m heavily contemplating getting the 180-600 to replace my Sigma 150-600 C that I’m still using (I have a pretty good copy and it only really lacks weather sealing, image quality is quite good), or just continueing with the Sigma (I just use a rain cover as it’s mostly stationary when I use it) and getting the 50-400 or 150-500 as those are far better walk around options. The 100-400S is nice but I think the less expensive lenses get you 95% of the way there for a few thousand dollars less, which means more lenses to play around with for that money.

 

[jpawlan]

Having owned the Z 100-400 since it was released and used it alot, i beg to differ with you!
Also having owned both the 70-200 and 100-400, my experience is that the latter is sharper at 400mm.

I too have the 70-200 F mount f/2.8 and the Z100-400 S lenses. I do not have a tc2 for the 70-200 however I have a F mount tc1.4. I can definitely tell you that the Z100-400 S is extremely sharp even at 400.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Tamron keeps putting out lenses that have me reconsidering my "only native glass" approach. This 50-400 looks quite amazing, based on what I've seen (including older reviews of the Sony E mount version). The 28-75 2.8 G2 and the 35-150 2-2.8 also have my attention.

The only downside I see here is it doesn't come with a lens collar / foot, and it's another $129 (for the Tamron one). I feel like having the collar would be the wiser approach if I want to carry this using a strap (which I would).

So yes I'm actually seriously considering pre-ordering this 50-400 later today. My only hesitation is, it'll likely delay my plans to get Nikon's 180-600, which I should probably prioritize.

In DSLR f mount lenses I used a lot of Tamron Lenses after they brought out the G2 versions shortly after Sigma brought out the Sport versions.

The most surprising Tamron for my wife and I was the 18-400. We bought them for D500's and they were extremely versatile and light. I even took quite acceptable BIF images with one on my D850 much to the shock of a Nikon engineer who saw the images at a photography symposium. It also surprised a Tamron sales rep and one of the most knowledgeable glass guys I know. He had told me to not hold my breath. A few days later one of his dealers got the reps sample in and tried it the day before the rep got it and had amazing burrowing owl shot. Then the rep got it and got to Boise a few days later and when I walked into the camera shop he had the craziest grin on his face and held out the lens to me and whispered I was wrong. That was the freakiest lens that should not have been anywhere near as good as it was.

I have the Zmount Tamron 150-500 and the 35-150 f/2-2.8. We had a 70-300 (no vibration reduction) and sold it after getting these two. Looking at the specs I would think this is going to be a good bang for the buck and again quite light and versatile.