Completely agreed. I bought this lens to replace my Sigma 100-400 I loved. Sigma, beside having the longer range and slightly better contrast/sharpness, also possessed three disadvantages: twice heavier, required adapter, and had an inconvenient focus range. Every time when I needed little bit wider shot I had to unpack to change the lens. Now my set includes Nikon Z6, Z14-30, Z 24-120, and Tamron 70-300. Light and compact for any travel.
The Tamron is definitely a lighter carry - which can be quite convenient! And being able to go a little wider than 100mm is nice, that's probably my biggest adjustment when using the Sigma.
I tried this lens mostly for airplane-spotting but for two reasons I recently (after saving quite an amount of money) switched to the Nikon 100-400 S lens: 1.) 300mm were often not enough reach but more important: 2.) The results at the far end of the lens came out way too soft for my liking! OK - the Tamron ist very affordable and for its price quite fine, but the Nikon completely plays in a different league as far as image- and build-quality is concerned!
I am sure the 400 is nice for airplane spotting. And yeah, the Nikon 100-400 is certainly a different league of glass. I would like one, but every time I look at the price I think about how my Sigma 100-400 does an okay job!
I got this lens paired with a z6ii and I’ve learned it’s definitely a tripod only kinda lens…at least for me. The focus gets soft for me almost every time I shoot hand held with it, even with high shutter speeds. I don’t like tripods so it’s kind of a love hate relationship with this lens but I do get really good photos from it when I suck it up and bust out the tripod. For being a budget lens, I think the image quality is pretty good.
The lack of VR does hurt this lens a bit. I tend to shoot from a tripod a lot, so I don’t notice it as much. I do agree, for a budget lens, the image quality overall is pretty good. Thanks for watching!
I looked at this lens when it first came out but was disappointed by the specs and the fact that they were charging more for the Nikon version than the Sony. I decided to buy the f mount Tamron 100-400 with a tripod collar. I saved a fair amount of money by buying used. The plan is to just keep the 100-400 since I’ll pretty much be using it on a tripod anyhow and pickup another native telephoto in the future. Hopefully a 70-200 f4. Now we just need Nikon to add it to their roadmap.
The Tamron is definitely a budget lens. A 100-400 is a solid choice - I do enjoy using my 100-400, especially out in the western US and even on my West Virginia trips. A 70-200 f/4 would be nice. I have a f-mount 70-200 f/2.8, but it is pretty heavy to lug around - especially when an f/4 would be perfect. Have you considered using a 24-120 to bridge the gap from the wide angle side of things to the 100mm of the 100-400? That trio of lenses seems attractive to me (14-40, 24-120, 100-400). But I don’t have the 24-120 yet…
I do have the 24-120. That’s my go to lens. Sold my 70-200 2.8 to help pay for it. The 14-30 has a great reputation but based on my past history of using such a wide lens I opted to buy a used 20mm 1.8g to adapt. That saved me a lot of money and gives me something a little wider than 24 that can be used for astro. $1300 was just to much money to spend for something I wouldn’t use much.
The money I used to buy that was originally intended for the Nikon 100-400. That went out the window when I saw the price as it’s just a hobby. Of course the 24-120 came out at the same time and it was a surprise. Originally it was going to be a 24-105. Since I was looking for more reach I decided to pick up a 24-120. Had to wait 4 months to get it though. It’s definitely a superb lens that’s not to ridiculously expensive.
The Nikon 100-400 is so expensive. I ended up going to the Sigma route and use the FTZ adapter for it. Partially because the 100-400 was out of stock everywhere and also because with all the money saved I could actually use the money on a trip or two or three!
Would you reccomend this for motorsport? I need one as a beginner for formula 1 panning shots. I also need suggestions for a body and strap. Budget is $1500
I likely would not recommend the lens for motorsport. The lens lacks stabilization which would be useful for motorsport photography where you would be panning. Since I used it primarily for landscape the lack of stabilization wasn't a big deal as I was on a tripod usually and photographing stationary subjects. As for recommendations with that approximate budget in mind, the Sigma 100-400 F-mount lens (you would need an adapter to use a Nikon mirrorless camera body with it), but it was a good lens with good IQ, great focal length, and had stabilization. Maybe pair it with a Nikon Z5 if you want to go Nikon mirrorless. This would be a little over your budget though. If it is a hard budget, the maybe go with a DSLR camera body - keeping in mind the world seems to be moving to mirrorless, so you might find yourself with a camera body that is dated. Hope that helps!
Having used both Tamron 70-300 and Sigma 100-400 for motorsports photography, Tamron can certainly do it but I would choose Sigma if your budget allows it. Tamron is an excellent, light-weight landscape/hiking lens but Sigma offers the features (panning-OSS and minimum-focusing distance switch) that specifically help with motorsports where you're often shooting through fences and doing panning shots. While Tamron is much cheaper, but you'd need to pair it with more expensive camera that features in-body stabilization, possibly making it more expensive combination in the end. Extra reach can also be helpful for F1 and other big events where spectators are seated really far from the track. I mainly shoot smaller local events where I can roam around pretty freely and get close to the track on some corners, that's where I often find that 100mm is just too long and I need to swap in wider angle lens, like 28-75mm. But that can be an issue also on some bigger tracks, like for example Red Bull Ring Turn-1, I would prefer to have 70-300 instead of 100-400.
A bit off topic here, I hope you don't mind. What is your take on plastic lens mounts? One of the Nikon 70-300MM lenses I'm looking at has such a mount. Thanks.
Hi Jeff, thanks for posting the video-gives me good direction. Question for you: do you think this telelens will work for an air show, say like, the Blue Angels? I’m thinking about renting this lens.
I’ve got both those lenses with a D7500, but I mainly use them for photographing our dogs. They fit that bill very nicely. It’d be easy to add a 10-20 for ultra-wide without adding much weight. The beauty of aps-c.
