🌀FULL REVIEW New TAMRON 100-400mm lens

[@Henry30065]

I bought the Tamron 100-400mm lens after seeing your video. I am absolutely delighted that I took your advice.

[@ManyDoors777]

Tamron has really upped their game. This is now on my Christmas list for the end of the year.

[@dons.9842]

Ken, I first had the Tamron 100-400 which I bought for my crop sensor camera. I recently acquired a mint Nikon D4s, and immediately bought a Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2. I like the idea of also having the Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 which I can buy slightly used for around $800. In your opinion does it make any sense to have both a 70-200 and a 100-400? If not, which would you keep? I value your opinion. You’re the best out there for lens information.

[@yuqin405]

does each new 100-400 need focus calibration?

[@chrissimmonds4383]

Excuse me for asking this question 5 years after your review of this lens.But, you are the most knowledgable of any of the camera reviewers on youtube. I've just bought this lens at what I consider a bargain price of £574 brand new. The lens is in Canon EF mount and I use it on a Canon 5D iii. I also use micro 4/3rds and adapt my EF lenses using a Viltrox EF-M2 speedbooster. On all my Canon lenses, this boosts the focal length (equivalent focal length) to 2x x 0.7. With my Canon lenses in use, the M4/3 camera also indicates the effective aperture increase in light gathering, an F1.8 lens showing as F1.2 on the camera lcd. With the Panasonic 100-400 lens however, while I get the increase in focal length, the indicated max aperture is always the largest the panasonic lens is capable of natively ie F4.5. This is puzzling me and it's not an urgent question, but I thought, if anyone will know the answer it would be you. Be well and fare well in this crazy screwed up world, I think you are a real sage. Thanks for all your postings.

[@EmptyMirrorMindful]

Ken, now that a little time has passed, how often does the 200-500 stay home and this replaced it in the bag? And did you end up picking one up? I expect it cant replace the 80-200 due to speed and bokeh? I would love to replace that and get the newer 70-200 f2.8 you highly recommend for the VR but thats a beast too and beyond my budget for awhile. Thanks for all you do!

[@HR-wd6cw]

I know this ia now 3 years old, but the AF-P 70-300 is what you're talking about around 7:13. Tests have shown that it's actaully optically better than the "G" version you referenced. But the issue is that it's not compatible with older DSLR bodies (say the D7000 or D5000 or D3100 or earlier). And it's only "partially" compatible with ones lke the D7100, D700, etc, because of it's electronic diagraph. But optically, I felt the AF-P was a tad bit sharper than my older G lens I had, especially beyond 200mm. The VR And AF was improved on the newer AF-P lens though, over the AF-S. Sharpness is probably similar, with the AF-P probably edging out the G lens just a little at most FLs. I think the biggest complaint I've seen on the Tamron 100-400 was the corner sharpness, but even in test shots I've done and seen from others, it's not that noticeable unless you're zooming in to check. But from viewing distance, it's not that bad given what the lens is. Some argue that the 100-400 is also not as sharp from 300-400. Yes true, but at least you have that as an option in a pinch, over the 70-300 which obviously has a limit of 300mm (and I'd even argue that the last 50mm on the 70-300 isn't any sharper than the Tamron between 300-400). For me though I tried the 200-500 and then the Tamron, and for my situation, the Tamron is the better route (I feel I can handhold it better and get sharper shots with it because it's lighter and smaller) than I could with the 200-500. The 200-500 is great if you can mount it on a monopod or tripod and use it that way, but the Tamron 100-400 is a great wildlife travel lens. The Tamron 100-400 makes a decent travel long zoom lens for working outdoors in good light. In doors, it doesn't fare so well, but outside when traveling, I think it's perfect. You will probably have a focal range gap for most people, say between 70-100mm but that's not that big of a deal IMO.

[@Jindujun]

is the new NIKKOR "AF-P 70-300 mm 1:4,5-5,6E ED VR really that worse than the 100-400 tamron for around the same price nowadays? I wanna use it for sportsphotography.

[@antonykyriacou8300]

I purchased one today 10th March 21, and although I’ve only taken test shots, it’s really impressive. Many thanks for the recommendation.

[@rexko381]

Finally received my copy (used), took 40 to 50 photos around 7:00PM (Oakland CA) with D4, No joking, photos are jaw dropping. Thanks again!!!

[@AAJpax]

I ended up picking up the tamron 100-400mm based on your advice. Very very satisfied with the AF + stabilization combo, and IQ. Thanks.

[@rainmakr20]

Hey Ken thought you might be intrested that Tamron has posted a link to this video on their website under reviews.

[@RickAShriver]

what is the auto focus system?

[@_jchnd]

How is sharpness wide open at 400mm? Thanks

[@KB-vu2bm]

I bought 100-400 few days ago - before seeing this video. Amazing lens for it's price - 500 USD with 4year warranty. Great sharpness both FX and DX, amazing VC - I'm able to handhold 1/40 @ 400. Crazy shit! Much lighter than my 70-200 G2. another great lens from Tamron.

[@jeetray11]

its 6 year warranty. did u buy it used?

[@BorisStein]

Will this lens be a good match for an old nikon D300? or perhaps better use nikon 300mm F4 AF/S with 1.4 TC?

[@JuanLopez-oz9kh]

Ken how does this Tamron compare to the Tamron 2.8? Since they are so close and with the f4 coming out at the same price?

[@tommasodapice345]

hi, thanks for your videos I really love them. I have a nikon 28-300 but I am not really happy about the image quality, do you think this tamron 100-400 would be an improvement or shallI stick with the nikon? thanks for your time

[@jaaycesholiday388]

Is the autofocus fast for flying birds?

[@chrisharris8600]

Where did you get your Nikon decal for your hood?

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

ebay

[@louiseducator]

Given that I really don't have the strength for the obnoxiously large 200-500 what are your thoughts on the 100-400 paired with a D850 for bird photography - bearing in mind that I'd be relying a lot on cropping the 47.5mpx sensor to get detail.

[@thinktank8389]

Louis Berk im not Ken, but have D850 with lens. And id say its a 7 of 10 for birding. Now using video mode its fabulous for birds, keeps up incredibly well. Id lean more toward the Nikon 200 to 500mm. That should be a $2500lens, its a loss leader for Nikon. Thats where they release a good priced nice unit to get peoples attention. And this decade its the 200/500mm nikon. For your needs thats the one. And price not so far apart. Youd be upset if you compared later down the road. I push this lens on everyone, not one regret thusfar. Can be found second hand for around $850 in good condition. I always wait til Christmas for my lens purchases, by far best time to wheel and deal. Got a new 70 200mm Nikkor for $680, 20mm $400, 180mm 2.8 for $400, sigma 150 600mm $600, All at Christmas. So maybe wait, or go test one. But id go 200 500mm nikon in your sotuation. Sorry for ranting, i do that.

[@deeber35]

how much better is this 100-400mm vs the 18-400mm lens at 400mm? trying to keep weight low

[@FLORAMORAITINI]

Theoria Apophasis good morning. Is the Tamron 100-400 suitable to the Nikon D700 which I have with me? . While I am in Guangzhou China, I thought of having one at a better price. Many thanks.

[@thinktank8389]

Flora Moraitini im not Ken, but yes! Itll work fabulously with that combination.

[@FLORAMORAITINI]

@@thinktank8389 Τhank you very much "not Ken" !!!!

[@billrailo9850]

Does the Tamron 100-400 have the same problem as the Tamron 150-600mm in that it is only good on sunny days?

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

heheheh, nooo. :P

[@basil686]

should i get this or the 150 600 G2?

[@japangelo]

Ive had this lens for a few weeks already..bought it from Japan for slightly less money ...its daaamn good!! Best money spent this year

[@turnerx5]

Angelo Midori - have you shot any action with it? How is tracking focus? Thanks!

[@maxloverU]

Can you please post any sample pictures or quality comparison

[@skyboy123454321]

turnerx5 i use this lens on canon 70d. Tracking is great i can photograph eagles diving for a fish with sharp images. it is really snappy when focusing, although the af wont work all that well in low light conditions due to the f6.3 at 400mm

[@itsmebabinable]

Just bought this lens. It's superb. Light weight and sharp enough. Focussing speed is awesome. Thanks for your recommendation.

[@HR-wd6cw]

For the people who like to say this lens isn't as good as X, Y, and Z, need to consider what you're paying and what you're getting. I think for $800, this is a great lens. It's certainly not going to be as sharp as the 200-500 or as versatile as Tamron's own 150-600 but for a good walkaround 100-400 wildlife telephoto lens (especially for beginners) $800 is not bad at all. I mean a Nikon AFP 70-300 which may be optically similar, is about $600 now so $800 to gain another 100mm is not bad. Put this thing on a crop sensor and now you have something like a 150-600 for $800. I wanted to like the 200-500 and I do, and yes it is probably "better" than this one, but I wouldn't want to carry around the 200-500 as much as I would this lens. Partially because this lens is about 1/3 of the weight and about 70% of the cost. Perhaps for professionals or serious wildlife shooters, the 200-500 is better, but the 100-400 at $800 is great for beginners or people who just want to do occasional general wildlife photography. For me, using the 200-500 on a crop sensor Nikon (1.5x crop) means an equivalent angle of view of about 300-750. Great if you're doing BIFs but not so great if your subjects are closer than about 200-300mm, like at a zoo. So if you're on a crop sensor, the 100-400 is an excellent choice because you can take advantage of that crop factor to get a FF equivalent of roughly 150-600. I do have to say I slightly disagree on the AFP 70-300 (the replacement for the AF-S G version). It's more expensive, and likely too expensive for what it is. Should be more like $400 or $450. But I feel it is sharper at telephoto lengths than the AF-S G version. When I had my AF-S version lens, I would rarely shoot it beyond about 200mm. The new one I don't mind shooting beyond 200mm (up to maybe 250mm). But I do feel that the newer AFP is a better lens, but probably not that much better that it has to be $600. Knock off about $150-200 and that's probably what the lens should be priced at, so I agree on the overpricing of that lens. The lens, I also feel addressed some of the shortcomings of the AF-S version too.

[@ebones7125]

Ok, ok so I got the 70-300 before off your recommendation and I tested it against my tamron 70-200 and the tamron is so much sharper it makes the 70-300 look blurry. My question is are the tamrons THAT much better or do I have a bad copy of a 70-300? How do you know if you have a bad copy? I don't know how sharp it's SUPPOSED to be.

[@marktanquerel]

Another Question :-) If you say the purchase should be the Tamron, would you also buy the TC-X14N teleconverter to get some extra reach? Thanks again sir...

[@easy56wedge]

How does this lens perform when shooting Milky Way, Andromeda, Orion, and other deep sky objects etc on a tracker? Any info is greatly appreciated.

[@ClickPro87]

Happy holidays bud! What's your opinion on the Tamron 35mm 1.8 on the D850??? Will it hold up? My D850 just shipped!

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

ive used that lens, i bought the 45mm version of same......course it will hold up! great lens, but slow AF

[@ClickPro87]

Glad to hear it! I bought the 35mm based on your recommendation actually and it's been glued to my D750. I did send it in initially though because straight out of the box it would hunt for dayssss. I sent it in Monday had it back by Friday and it made such a drastic difference (all for free besides the shipping there). I wish I listened to your advice on the 85 though... it's a bit muddy... I'll be selling it after the new year. Thanks again for everything Ken!

[@luap1983]

Hi ken, I would like to get a telephoto lens for landscape, could you recommend a lens for me? Was thinking of the Tamron 70-210 f4 or this lens! Cheers

[@thomasmarais9277]

If you shoot on canon, I would rather go for the canon 70-200 f4, image quility is better, focusing is much faster, I have used both of these lenses and in my opinion, i would use the canon

[@turnerx5]

No image samples on your Flickr feed?

[@Jogamaniac]

How does this compares to Nikon 200-500 with regards to sharpness at 400, focus acquisition speed and tracking and VC or VR.

[@ianbrown704]

Hi Ken I am looking for this focal range, how does this stand up to the latest Nikkor 80-400. I have a chance to pick up a brand new one for $1400, much appreciate your advise.

[@drumsargeant]

The newer Nikon 80-400mm G ED VR will kick its tail, that's why it is also like $2,300.00. On a D500 the Nikkor is a winner!

[@JLeoH]

Hi Ken, I checked the lens' images on FlickR and they all kind of suck (not sharp at all). Am I mistaken or is it a "best bang for the buck" sort of evaluation? Of course a 2.8 zoom is better, yet the Tamron's results seem near unusable. Would love to see some of your test results!

[@BorisStein]

how is it on D500? especially at 400mm?

[@Nikonman77]

Hey big man how do I get your live streaming

[@basil686]

if you could go for the 70 300 VR AFS or the 100-400, which would you go for?

[@MrK67017]

I got the new 70-300 a year ago and I have no complaints about it.

[@davidcaldwell1778]

Can you use it on XT2

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

ohhh no :)

[@angelluismoran1589]

You not only know your stuff, but also a riot to watch doing photo reviews.

[@angelluismoran1589]

By the way I just picked it up for $700.00 and can't wait to see what it can do.

[@juanrobles2680]

Hey Which lens do you recommend me? Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 & tamron 100-400mm lens

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

for what use and budget? :/

[@JurajHatina]

Ken, you don’t mention the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens. Did you test that one? Sure its a pricey beast but should be mentioned at least since it is in the 400mm ballpark.

[@shoock123]

he did mantion it few times, he sad it is crap, but i dident catch why he thinks that way,

[@CameraMystique]

Nice and all, but the key here is that the event photographer will go for a *2.8 lens* or f4 lens. Above 200mm, you go for birds and sports, so you need the extra 100mm. So, the real question is "is the new 150-600 Tamron better than the Nikon 200-500"? I would have bought the 150-600 if I hadn't heard so many issues with its AF system from long-term users. I hate the beefy construction of recent Nikon lenses, but if they' re more reliable in the long run...

[@youknowwho9247]

I've used both. The tamron is much lighter, much smaller and the af is much, much faster. The 200-500 seems really antiquated next to it tbh.

[@EnigMagnum]

what is the highest distance u can shoot a bird from? with this lense?

[@marktanquerel]

Love the Videos Ken!!! - Bought the D500 - Bought the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 I can buy 1 more lens before the wife kills me. I am going to Costa Rica for 3 weeks in April, should I buy the Tamron 100-400 or the Nikon 200-500? Greatings from the Netherlands!!

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

easssssy, the nikkor 200 500

[@marktanquerel]

Thanks for the answer, if i went for the Tamron as the smaller form factor and weight, its a family vacation :), will the TC-X14N teleconverter work well with the lens? Again, appreciate your help..

[@RicardoPestana]

The Canon 100-400 II is also pretty small and light and a better lens but yeah it's much more expensive. I'm actually thinking of buying that Tamron 100-400 for shooting birds and surf events.

[@howiedunbar61]

You should do a video on the sling you made for the 200-500. I would be interested in it.

[@TheMrBennito]

the other lens sniffer, mr. Abbott, got me here, Ken. You are both great reviewers!

[@RipReturns]

Hey Ken, I'm starting the long process of researching long lenses for use on an African photo safari (most of the activity happening @ sunrise and sunset). While I have the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII and 300mm f2.8 AF-S (thanks to you - one of the many lenses bought at your suggestion), I wanted to get your input on something longer for big game (e.g., not birding). Do you have any thoughts on Nikon 200-400mm f4 VR1 versus Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 for high-speed, low light shots? While I know a 500mm f4 VR can be had for $2,000-$3,000, I fear that some type of zoom may be desirable. Are there any other lenses you'd recommend? Sadly, haven't found the kind of deal you found on your 600mm f4 ;). Thank you!

[@RipReturns]

Unless you believe otherwise, I'm dropping both the 200-400mm f4 (too expensive, and questionable sharpness/focus at a distance) and the 200-500mm f5.6 (not enough light for high-speed, low-light shots expected early morning / dusk for African Safari). Instead, going to use my 300mm f2.8 AF-S (another recommendation by you that I followed...unicorns blowing rainbows...wow!) and worry about the 2nd camera body. Thanks!

[@franciscojaviergomez4807]

Hey Ken.. you were 100% right. Each and everyone of the Weasel Club are reviewing the Hasselblad Turd. Huge kickbacks ahead !

[@Altitude2011]

Hi Ken, I know that the Nikon 80-400 mm is more expensive. But why would the Tamron 100-400 mm be better than the Nikon 80-400 mm? Better VR?

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

both version of the 80 400 suuuuuuuuk :/ this is sharper, has better VR, and its a better lens.

[@Altitude2011]

Well, when I bought this Nikon 80-400 mm version 2, I did not know your KZbin channel... Too bad for me! :-(

[@ianbrown704]

Ken I am interested in this lens for my D850, HOWEVER the guy with the big house, car and dolly wife talks about "perceptual" megapixels that are quoted in DXO mark!! Could you do a vlog on this to clear up what it is and if its applicable? cheers Ian (UK)

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

specifically what though?

[@nemac23]

Ian Brown Northrup is a salesman therefore the information he provides should be passed through a filter. personally I don't know how ppl can endure through all his square space ads.

[@I_ammm_mojojojo]

how does the 18-400 compare to the 100-400?

[@BrianPex]

j jacelon That’s a DX lens

[@I_ammm_mojojojo]

@@BrianPex And what exactly is that supposed to infer? There are some excellent DX lenses and some crappy DX lenses.. so the question still stands. Its just a question of overall quality and compromise between the 2 zooms. I have both DX & FX lenses and bodies and often interchange depending on my application and desired result, so was interested in knowing what Ken thought.

[@BrianPex]

j jacelon j jacelon Obviously the 18-400 isn’t going to be anywhere near as good as the 100-400. It can’t by design. The 18-400 is an all purpose lens where the 100-400 is a telephoto zoom lens. The 18-400 is good for what it is but it’s not the same type lens as the 100-400. And you swap DX lenses to you full frame body? Are you serious? For what? You like losing all the resolution in DX mode or do you override that and shoot in FX with the massive vignette that a DX lens creates on an FX body. Simply put, one is an all around DX lens for beginners that want an all around lens and the 100-400 is a good tele zoom for enthusiasts and maybe even some pros. They aren’t in the same ballpark.

[@BrianPex]

j jacelon www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-18-400mm-f-3-5-6-3-di-ii-vc-hld-review-31259

[@BrianPex]

j jacelon www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-100-400mm-f-4-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-lens-review-31750

[@conspicuouslyspiffy7624]

Its not the size that counts, Fame,Status quo,Bank account,Physical Body,MindBrain, or Machinery-Tech-Gear, ,,,, it's in the way that you use it.

[@NickelodeonTuber]

As terrific as the Nikon 200-500 is, it is a beast! The Tamron certainly is something to consider when the beast is too much to handle.

[@kennethmills5470]

You need a Tamron tattoo for Xmas

[@freddiemurry]

Kenneth Mills it would have to go on his forehead

[@FLORAMORAITINI]

Somebody on you tube, mentioned that he had to send 3 copies of this lens back . After that he gave up. How can that be Theoria Apophasis? Have you notice anything wrong with this lens? And he seemed so sincere

[@rainmakr20]

G2 version of this lens coming.

[@keithdickson8364]

rainmakr20 How soon and where did you here that. Thanks.

[@strobelight8047]

@@keithdickson8364 there will not be a G2 coming, tamron is done working on dslr lenses and focusing on mirrorless now. Told to me by a tamron representative

[@michaelgerhold5659]

And now is the perfect time to buy it. You can get it now for about 550-600 bucks. I saw ii for 540 Euros new!

[@fredheidepriem1142]

How about a review of the Tamron 18-400? Considering it for travel, would love to know what you think, even if you hate it.

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

i did that last month :) its great !

[@ianbrown704]

For example, when coupled with a Canon EOS 5D Mark II camera with a 21.1 Mpix sensor, a Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM lens has a Perceptual Mpix score of 17.2, whereas a lens such as the Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 ZE has a Perceptual Mpix score of 15.2.. Consequently you the photographer perceives that the Sigma gives 2 pmp more than the Zeiss? Would you notice this on a print? How important is it to use perceptual results when buying a lens as the same lens may perform very different on different bodies, ie Sigma on a Nikon will be different to when on a Canon even of similar MP sensor. It looks like this now replaces the MTF charts, certainly at DXO MARK. I guess in a nutshell, how important is the understanding of the technical when choosing a lens? The Nikorr 24-70 f2.8 for example only produces 21pmp which is a massive 15pmp less than the capability of the sensor. So when buying a high res camera and even put on what is reputed to be a pro lens, you may still get less than ideal performance. Is this true or would you say just look at 3 reviews and make a conclusion from those. Thanks in advance Ken for any info.

[@nemac23]

Ian Brown Don't put any stock into that perceptual mp measurement.

[@lylecameron5578]

As usual, great video. Would you say the Tamron 100-400 is as sharp (or sharper) than the Nikkor 200-500? Keep up the great work. We need you.

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

as sharp, yes

[@Altitude2011]

Hi Ken, I understand from a previous video that you haven’t been impressed by the Nikon 200-400 mm. What about the rumored Nikon 180-400 mm? Do you predict that it will be a better lens and that in this regard it will match the Nikon 200-500 mm that you praised so many times?

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

i cant comment on a rumored lens :/

[@Altitude2011]

Hi Ken, the Nikon 180-400 mm has been announced. This is not cheap... Well, it must be a very specialized tool for a very few people...

[@rydaug79]

Nikon can't seem to make anything as small as their competitors. Their 24-70 is WAY longer than all the others and the 200-500 is huge.

[@eileenconragan1064]

Hi Ken, I am watching this in July 2019. Do you still back up your review from December 2017 or has something similar and better come along? I love my tamron 24-70 and quality shots of tamron 70-200 but find it heavy in general to hand hold and lug around especially to travel. I also want just a bit more reach. I have an old Nikon AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G and i really havent used it since I went to the Nikon D810 from the Nikon 7100. Maybe it would be a bit better in low light with the D810. I would hate to buy a similar lens as the nikkor 70-300 but my hope would be the Tamron 100-400 would produce much better quality shots. I also have an old Sigma 100-500 and it is massive and usually use it for local birding .....like my backyard or the beach, etc. It is a beast like the lens you showed in the clip as well. I would love to hear what you have to say. Thanks.

[@dunnymonster]

Looking good from Tamron yet again. If I didn't already have the outstanding Nikkor 200 - 500 f5.6 I'd certainly be adding this 😃

[@Snerkler1]

Anyone know if all AF points work on the D850 using this lens at 400mm? I have the Tamron 150-600mm and past 520mm only the limited f8 AF points work on the D850 (and D500 for that matter). I'm assuming it's because it's the light gathering, hence why I'm concerned this lens will be the same.

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

course it does

[@Snerkler1]

Thanks, good to know. It frustrates me with the 150-600mm sometimes when I forget and I'm at say 550mm and I can't use the corner AF points.

[@erichramone7812]

I’m glad you like the Tamron since I’m gonna be buying that one soon. However some example shots or some technical data from your photos would be very welcome too.

[@FayazAhmad-yl6spFZ]

Today is 25 August 2021 I decided to by this lens although I have already Make my mind but after your this video now I finalize that I will buy Temron 100-400mm.

[@mariolastra9709]

Tamron is kicking ass

[@ericpmoss]

Ha! When you first walked into frame, I thought you were setting down a coffee pot.

[@footfeathers]

Damn. I was finally decided on the Nikon 200-500 but now this. I appreciate the information you provide.

[@throughsoul]

I'd find the 200-500 hard to top. You'll be happy with either probably. Question is, do you need the extra 100mm? And is weight an issue? MY question is: Really? SIX stops of VR for the Tamron? I find that hard to believe.

[@scottmcinnis8583]

getting this lens next month been waiting on your review awesome thanks friend

[@freddiemurry]

Scott McInnis how has it been? Crop or full frame? Please tell

[@jenky1044]

I know you slam on Sigma but you said you liked the 150mm Mac when you did the review of that lens.

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

i only got it cause it was dirt cheap, i despise sigma

[@jenky1044]

Oh...okay. thank you for answering. Also I'm looking at the Tamron 70-200 G2.

[@co10boy]

Which would you recommend more, this Tamron 100-400 or Nikon 300 AF-S F4? Looking for sharp images on birds and wildlife on my Nikon D7200. Thanks in advance.

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

can you afford the 200 500 nikkor?

[@co10boy]

Theoria Apophasis I might be able to swing it. Is it that much better than the 100-400? Thanks I really appreciate your input and rapid response

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

oh yes, buuuuuut of course its very heavy and huuuuge

[@co10boy]

Theoria Apophasis I definitely want to use it without a tripod. I’ve been using my Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR version 1 and have gotten some okay images. Just seems I can’t get all the way in to capture some of the fine feather details. So would the Nikkor 300 f4 still be an option or should I forget about it move on to the 200-500? Or any other lens you would recommend in that price range of 1000-1300?(on a fireman’s budget)😂

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

i use it with a monopod

[@Altitude2011]

Ken, Dustin Abbott made his final review of the Tamron 100-400 mm on KZbin at the beginning of December.

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

he did? i dont see his vids

[@Altitude2011]

Here is the link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/m3yooKhvnbmFZ68.

[@tompiel6004]

Thanks :-) I'm thinking of buying the Tamron as a replacment for my Canon 100-400 L mk 1. Which I've had for a long time (2007) still performs well but I could do with a better image stabilizer and what I've seen sofar in image quality it seems to be as good or better than my trusty mk 1. Plus it won't break the bank :-) I might rent it to see what it does image quality wise.

[@quintriggins6557]

Dustin Abbott has had a series of reviews out for 2-3 weeks on this lens.

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

so i hear

[@quintriggins6557]

I've had my eye on this lens since it was announced. His reviews led me to pre-order it, and it will finally arrive tomorrow. I have the original Tamron trinity lenses, and am well pleased with them, so I am not surprised that this one is good also. I needed something between the 70-200 Tammy and the Nikon 200-500 on my D500. I use the 200-500mm more than any lense I have right now because I mostly shoot wildlife. Like you, I found the smaller size and lighter weight appealing and I plan to use it some for wildlife, but also for some sporting events. If it is as good as I am hoping, it will become one of my go-to lenses, and you can't beat the price. Abbott is a Canon guy, but he spoke highly of it compared to his Canon 100-400.

[@photosbyjosef]

In Ken Rockwell's review (also favorible) mentioned that this lens is better on Nikon cameras than Canon (I shoot N. D7100 loving it) K.R. reports that Nikon cameras remove chromatic aberration far better than Canon. I haven't heard this mentioned anywhere before and I'm wondering what your scientific non bought opinion is. And by the way thank you so very much for all your videos you have leapfrogged my skills so much further than you could ever imagine I owe you a lot and I do support you on Patreon. Your thoughts.

[@deterpawson]

Hmmm....so sell my older version Nikon 70-300VR and get a Tamron 100-400??? Is it noticeably better than the Sigma 100-400??? Will be using it on me D700. Peace to all to enter here.

[@hiddenpk1]

Rented this in the canon mount. And Holy fuck. It's autofocus is insane and the resolution.... Just wow. At 800 bucks. Or 930 with the tripod collar. It is literally a steal. It can almost replace my 70-200 G2. Almost.

[@photografiaaustralis2131]

Awesome lens. Congrats Tamron.

[@anulearntech]

namaskar in the end.... merry christmas... :-)

[@joecerda630]

Wouldn't the tamron 150-600 make that comparison?

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

i tested that lens, nope.

[@CrimeanBandera]

150 is often a bit too long, while the 600 is not that often required. 100-400 seems much more practical choise

[@keithwhite6096]

C

[@MrJchatt]

Hmmm. I may have to buy the 100-400 and the 18-400. Ok then. GO Tamron!!!!

[@FLORAMORAITINI]

Is there any way to use the 100-400 on a DX for the sake of saving?

[@coolbreeze1954]

You say the Nikon 70-300 af-s. G vr is definitely not that fast to autofocus and not incredibly sharp in your review of the Tamron 100-400 Dec 21 2017 yet on another review of Nikon zooms you raved about the same Nikon 70-300 af-s G vr being very fast to focus and very sharp so I bought one. Now you are saying it is not that fast to focus or that sharp??? So which is it? Did you have a brain fart? Did you get that lens mixed up with something else?

[@thinktank8389]

Mike McKee i got same 70/300mm based on recommendations also. Like the lens. For sure not as sharp as high end, little soft throughout. But for the $140 im pleased. But, i caught him switching his tune a few times. Not saying its poor, just not the description given before. And the point you raise is important.

[@pawelhener5338]

Hi Ken, since you have a lot of The new Tamron gear (24-70 G2, 70-200 G2, 100-400, 18-400 dx, 45mm 1.8) I was wondering if you got a chance to play around with the Tamron Tap In console and could tell a bit about its usefulness. Also I would like to hear your opinion on the Tamron Teleconverters. Oh and the best news for 2018 would be if Tamron came out with a reasonably priced 600, 700, or 800 prime !!!!!

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

i havent used that console, no.

[@coffeejn]

I'd still prefer the heavier lens for the reach, but I am trying to photograph birds (it's also it's a nice work out). Got a Nikkor 300mm f4 prime which is light (autofocus is a bit slow but metal body), and the Nikon 70-300 AF-P DX since it was really cheap (~350cnd). Currently, the only lenses I would consider would be macro lens (something other than the Tokina 100mm) since I think I got too many lenses already for summer use. Macro photos are mostly for winter in my case (getting better light/flash should fix my situation for macro), although I will be hunting for some snowy owls in the coming week.

[@DennisWachtel]

Ken thx for this review. Can you say something on the Autofocus speed if you would hook it up to a D500? Action/Animal photography suited?

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

AF is damn fast, i already did test it on the D500 :)

[@timloucks4325]

Sweet. I love the 200-500, but hate lugging it along on longer hikes. I can't bring myself to pull the trigger on the cost prohibitive Nikkor 400 f4 pf + TC 14E III. Thanks for the review.

[@a2roland]

Thank You!

[@randyle4520]

Let me be your minion bro knowledge is power

[@paulmetdebbie447]

Great lens for FX. For my Nikon DX I prefer the nikon af-p 70-300mm 4.5-6.3 VR. Half the weight, a third of the price and equally sharp. Yes it's dinky but it delivers.

[@karlossaez]

Dustin Abbot did a review some weeks ago too.

[@orjanjhmagnusson]

(Dustin Abbot) Correct. There are more reviews out there. Interesting lens.

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

zat so, ok

[@5sidedfistagon]

I think im going to buy one!

[@synkraut9633]

Thanks Ken for being both enthusiastic about some lenses and honestly pissed of by others. Until recently I thought that both Tamron and Sigma suck and only Tokina had at least a few good lenses (still loving my Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 atx pro). Looks like I need to reevaluate. THX!

[@skyboy123454321]

They may have sucked in the past, but their new line of lenses kick ass

[@nuclearjock934]

I like your lens shade stickers. Can you hook me up??

[@darthgzuz]

No pics ... ??? What????

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

ive posted lots of pics on my flickr page actually

[@franklawler7055]

Hi Ken, Got the Tamron 100-400mm. for around 500 GBP as 400mm primes for my D7100 are either way too expensive or poor IQ. It was great at 200mm but not at 400mm which is where I needed it. After calibrating in the camera body I found this lens very impressive at 400mm with great VC and AF. Now other areas of the zoom are softer and I don't believe I can make more that one calibration per lens in my D7100. I like everything about the 400mm side of this lens and would be interested if you or anyone reading this has any suggestions on a good substitute - or should I just keep it for the 400mm. The Sigma equivalent is a no no, as it has 21 elements to the Tamrons 17 a poor image stabilisation and the AF is not as good either for my birds in flight photography.

[@slowdownmovies4474]

Hi. Before calibration it was soft at 400 mm? Mine copy is good at any focal length, but I must stop it down to f/8. So soft at maximum aperture. Is there any resolution for make it better also at max A? :p