Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 VC VXD for Nikon Z | Review + Optical Deep Dive

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

This episode is sponsored by Fantom Tracker. Visit store.fantomwallet.com and use code DUSTIN20 for 20% off.

[@brianeibisch6025]

Great review Dustin. Thirty years ago Tamron was definitely a second class lens but these days Tamron puts out some stellar glass. I have an 18-400 nikon APS-C, F mount zoom and it is fantastic. I also have the 70-200 GII lens on Nikon F mount and once again a fantastic performer. Nikon may have a bit of an edge on this or that with comparable lenses but the price differential should cause people to often seriously consider the Tamron.

[@mipmipmipmipmip-v5x]

Some of the Nikon lenses are rebranded Tamron. Some of the Pentax lenses as well!

[@bizpixvegas7651]

Dustin, great review as usual. I own this lens for Sony. It has become my go to lens along with a 17-28 for my landscape work. It is a little soft on the edges at the 400mm end but not so bad. I tested it side-by-side with a Sony 100-400 which is a much more expensive alternative. I noticed some softness in the Sony too. For less than half the price, going to 50mm and all the macro goodness, I can live with a little softness! This lens is a big winner.

[@stanobert3475]

Thank you again for your excellent review! I own Nikon's 28-400 lens, so Tamron's lens would be redundant for me. This Tamron lens would be an excellent match for my Fuji X system, though. I don't see Fuji releasing the updated version of their long-in-the-tooth 100-400 lens anytime soon.

[@Triforian]

Agreed. However, Sigma already published their 100-400 there. So I feel the Tamron would mostly compete on its ability to go wider. Otherwise, how would it improve over the Fuji 100-400? It's slower at the long end and the Fuji already has their linear motors, so it should still keep up, shouldn't it?

[@zoltanorosz506]

Hi Dustin, is that the new Sony lav mic you're using? The sound is good but this clipping (or what) every minute is really bothersome... 😕

[@TheMrsyouknow]

Thanks for the video! I have only used the 50-400mm E-Mount version on Nikon and sometimes also the Sony 100-400mm on Nikon. It could be due to the adapter, but the Tamron was not as precise in terms of focussing as the sony. And when I compared the sharpness to the older Nikon AF-S 80-400mm, the Tamron lost. However, it is very lightweight and has more range. Probably it is acceptable, and it has a nice image look.

[@AmanKumar23]

Why not compare with Nikkor 28-400?

[@molybdnum]

Seems like there's some sort of audio issue or interference in this one! Not too bad over speakers but makes this challenging to listen to in headphones.

[@musiqueetmontagne]

Great review thank you Dustin. You mention all the valid points as well as all the technical detail necessary to make some decisions. It seems a great lens optically but it will weigh about the same as the Nikkor with the lens collar & foot attached, still great value but I have teleconverters already that can't be used. I do find the Nikon lens to be expensive, not great value as it isn't that good at the long end. However, stopped down to the same wide-open aperture as this Tamron at the long end with a 1.4 TC gives it a big advantage. So I will look for a slightly used 100-400 for a little more than the new Tamron. Thanks again for this review that has enabled my final decision.

[@cyrilhamel8289]

Oops, a little typo in the title on the aperture : "Tamron 50-400mm F4.56.3" ;-)

[@DustinAbbottTWI]

Thanks - fixed.

[@EXkurogane]

This review is a perfect example of how, even if sigma and Tamron started converting all of their lenses to nikon z, it's probably a good idea to stick to native glass. The problem with third parties now is that they design it for for Sony E mount first then converts it. So they are not really optimised on nikon or canon or any other mounts. The rear element could have been a lot bigger if it was designed for nikon. 2 stops of additional vignette is enough of a reason for me to stay away from it. If you were shooting at ISO 6400, after corrections you have ISO 25600 worth of noise at the corners and barely any dynamic range left to work with.

[@bioliv1]

Thanks for advice! I'll then stay with Sony until Nikon becomes the major brand.

[@EXkurogane]

@@bioliv1 it doesn't work that way. Even if Nikon was the biggest camera brand with 80% market share, third party companies will continue to design lenses based on E mount specs first, simply because E mount is the most restrictive among all systems in terms of mount diameter, not to mention it has a longer flange distance than nikon Z. If they designed a lens based on Z mount specs, they can't convert it to E mount anymore. For the same reason, Sigma and Tamron's dslr optics back then were designed with Nikon mount specs in mind first before converting them to canon EF, because nikon F mount was smaller, even though canon was the biggest brand in market share.

[@bioliv1]

@@EXkurogane So the E-Mount will always have an advantage for third party lenses? Is this the reason Canon is so restrictive? Then I can understand Canon's choice to be so strict on third party lenses. It might not was greed at all.

[@EXkurogane]

​@@bioliv1 Canon's problem is they kept updating their EF lenses too frequently. 70-200 2.8L had 3 versions. 16-35 2.8L had 3 versions too, in an attempt to milk their users. But this also meant their EF lenses are too good - there is no reason to spend on RF lenses, so, a lot of Canon users are stubbornly holding on EF glass. RF lenses have not been selling well for many years (at least that is the case here in my country) and if they allowed 3rd parties in, that would make things worse. Nikon is different - as a smaller company they have less budget for R&D. They don't update their lenses that frequently so a large number of Nikon's DSLR lenses especially the primes are very outdated. But this also means there is extra incentive to upgrade to native Z mount lenses where you see a big jump in image quality. With that limited budget, Nikon's strategy is to makes sure their lenses are very good on the first iteration, so that they don't have to update it again for the next 10 years. They focus their budget on high end glass, and then lets third parties especially the Chinese do whatever they please in the budget segment because they make the Nikon system slightly more attractive in terms of lens choices. Meanwhile Canon is doing the exact opposite with their cripple hammer tactics. A lot of RF lenses are not a big upgrade optically when compared to EF, because Canon wants to sell you a better mark ii version a few years later. In fact, we are already seeing it happen. RF 70-200 2.8L ii is coming very soon.

[@bioliv1]

@@EXkurogane I see, glad I left Canon then. Have thought about moving both to Nikon and Panasonic, but stay with Sony then. See no reason to move as they then have the best and most third party lenses. The small e-mount maybe have some disadvantages, but as it has the advantage to give the best third party lenses, this is the most important for me.

[@Xanthos84]

How is the image stabilization in videos comparing to the 100-400 Nikkor, which is just awesome?

[@musiqueetmontagne]

Apparently quite reasonable but far less effective than the Nikon 100-400 plus the IBIS. My friend has the lens and said the biggest difference is with video.

[@derrickm9808]

Good review sounds like a great lens for the money but why not compare it to the Nikon 28-400 lens ?

[@musiqueetmontagne]

I think the Tamron is optically better, in between the Nikkors 28-400 and 100-400. I considered the 28-400 as a long reach, light weight landscape telephoto but having tried it, it not good enough at the long end for me or printing large (the corners) it's actually great at the short end, so not for me.

[@SpencerMoore-i7i]

3148 Morris Squares