Tamron 50-400 for Sony coming to Nikon
- Thread starter MrFotoFool
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
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.
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
New member
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
Well-known member
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.
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.
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.
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.
ccirelli
Well-known member
Helpful info, thanks! I hear the 35-150 is an absolute winner. I might actually prioritize the 50-400 over the 180-600, if I'm being honest with myself about my use case. Plus paired with the Z8's 45mp sensor, I'd get some very nice reach considering the crop factor / extra mp's.
The Tamron Zmount 35-150 f/2-2.8 is a real workhorse indoors and outdoors.
Ado Wolf
Well-known member
I have an upcoming Safari trip in Nov and I am seriously considering buying this lens to use it with my Z6 over the F 70-200 F4 / F 70-300 f5.6 AFP..
I've been waiting so long for a Z 70-300 mm but the Tamron version lacks VC (no go for me) and the good 70-180mm is too short.. With the 50-400mm I gain 100 mm, but get more weight (not something I want, but it's a compromise I'm willing to live with). So I do hope it offers the same sharpness as my newly acquired and much adored Tamron 28-75 mm F2.8.
The 100-400mm is too expensive and heavy, considering I usually shoot Wildlife with primes... Safari is an exception and does require a zoom in conjunction with my telephoto prime.
I've been waiting so long for a Z 70-300 mm but the Tamron version lacks VC (no go for me) and the good 70-180mm is too short.. With the 50-400mm I gain 100 mm, but get more weight (not something I want, but it's a compromise I'm willing to live with). So I do hope it offers the same sharpness as my newly acquired and much adored Tamron 28-75 mm F2.8.
The 100-400mm is too expensive and heavy, considering I usually shoot Wildlife with primes... Safari is an exception and does require a zoom in conjunction with my telephoto prime.
Alistair
Well-known member
Except this is not a Nikon lens and PL often makes an appalling hash of lens tests.
Last edited:
The Tamron Z70-300 had quite good image quality but the lack of VC and being used on my wife's Z50 was not a good combo. So as I noted it was sold. In the meantime my wife moved onto a Z7II and Nikkor Z 28-400mm f/4-8 VR very light and versatile, VC is very good. Biggest drawback for me is f/8 at 400mm but it does not bother her. The Tamron Z glass I am using as noted above is great but not a match for the focal length you are looking for.
Don’t you have VC from built in IBIS with the 70-300 Tamron (excluding dx)?
not in the Z50
Ado Wolf
Well-known member
IBIS works efficiently with wide lenses.. but with telephoto lenses, starting at 100mm it is not that as effective, which is why the 70-200mm f2.8 from Nikon has VR when the other S line lenses with shorter focal lengths do not.
This was also confirmed by Steve in one of his videos..
Z50 VC is not on the sensor but on the lens mount and it does not give a stable view with a lens without its own VC/VR like the Tamron 70-300. It is called "Lens shift using voice coil motors (VCMs)" . My wife was not happy with the "jumpy" view.