Definitely appreciate you showing how it performs and the image quality. I don't know if I will get one but it is the only 70-300 lens for the Z cameras. I would LOVE using it for motorsports photos/videos (during the day) though. If anything, it's getting rented for sure! I don't know if I can justify $700 when you COULD find some decent 70-200 2.8 VR2's around that price range. But like you said, who ever needs that focal length, will definitely need it. Thanks for reviewing this lens!
Sure, but if you want, you can always close down a f2.8 lens to f6.3, but you cannot open a 6.3lens to f2.8 :/ Well, and you may not afford the f2.8, but it is another issue ahah
I appreciate that Nikon's AF might not be (it isn't) at the same development stage as Sony's or Canon's, but the fact that you don't ever miss a chance to bring it up and talk about it multiple times becomes a bit distracting. I'm not even a Nikon shooter but the fact that 3rd party manufacturers are developing lenses for them I think is excellent news overall and I came here to see what was the quality of the lens for its intended target audience and use and instead all I hear is complaints about Nikon's AF system when that has nothing to do with the lens. I appreciate you Jared, and I've been following your journey for years now and I'll continue to do so, YT's photography community owes you an outstanding debt for your tireless work and dedication, but if I may, I think that although constructive criticism has a place in the industry and you're of course allowed to use the space as you wish and voice whatever your experience, likes and dislikes are, you've made your point, multiple times, over various videos. We know. Don't let it become "a thing" that you are known for that could put people off and detract from all your amazing work and qualities as an educator and reference in the space. All the love from Scotland, keep up the good work!
It’s probably an issue with the lens anyways. When tamron doesn’t focus well on Sony they point out differences between it and native lenses. He could have easily thrown on a native lens to see if he saw the same issue. But it’s “idk which is the issue… but I’m going to allude it’s the Z9 and not the first ever attempt at a lens on the Z mount”
Or shoot with. Auto ISO thats what i do you select the speed and the aperture. the camera sets the ISO especially good in indoor situations! or shooting birds!
15:17 Or, it's because Tamron is partially owned by Sony. If I go to Z-mount I think the FTZ will be glued to the body, at least for some time, and I'll use the AF-S 70-200/4 or AF-P 70-300/4.5-5.6 alongside my other F-mount lenses.
A nice first option from Tamron for the Z mount system, the first thing I noticed was the price jump from the Sony mount as well, very unfortunate. I think at $550 it is a no brainer but at $700 that is right at the top of the range most would be ok paying for this type of lens.
I borrowed someone's Nikon Z50 with the 50-250mm lenses at a swim meet. I didn't change auto settings and took pictures at ISO 10000 and up in a dark natatorium. I got similar results to you at the basketball game.
I always use high quality clear filters for all of my lenses just to protect the optics. It's high quality glass and I haven't noticed it affecting my image quality vs not using a clear filter.
It's new tech, I guess, but how does the IQ compare to the old 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 using the adapter, which has a more open aperture on the long end? Based on what I see from your photos, the G lens seems at least as sharp. Also the G lens has VR in the lens. Most important for me, as you said, I have both the adapter and the 70-300 G lens.
The oldest one is an F4-5.6 It's faster. It's according to the images in this video equal in sharpness at 300mm. It has image stabilization. And can be found for 200ish bucks... Errrr
What is your suggestion ? Nikon Z9 with f mount Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 or Nikon Z9 with Tamron Z mount 70-300. Which is better combination as regards to auto focus precision.
I own this lens, great to keep in the bag if want a light zoom lens. RAW files need more aggressive sharpening in post processing than the expensive Z Glass. I am pleased with the results on my Z7ii.
Not a lens I am personally interested in BUT it is nice that tamron is making Z mount lenses. I loved their 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 G2 lenses and they are a fantastic option for a budget photographer getting going who cant justify the 2000+ costs of the mainline nikon/canon/sony lenses.
I have had the 24-200 for just over 2 years now and I have really enjoyed it for my own personal uses. I have even used them in some of our wedding films, and they handle it just fine. But as I look more at wiidlife and sports shooting, that 100-400 is becoming very enticing. Personally, this lens would not interest me, but it is nice to see a Z mount Tamron lens finally being out in the world.
You can just get a Canon 70-300 "L" lens (the high-end white one) on eBay for $600-700 and an EF-Z adapter and you'll have top quality for the same price.
@@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas all EF lenses work perfectly on it with full autofocus and everything, even better than Nikon's own F-mount lenses on the FTZ adapter, according to Jared himself.
A more affordable alternative is the "Canon 70-300 ii usm", which can be found on eBay for $300-400 and has the little info screen on it, one of the only lenses with canon's "nano-ultrasonic" focusing, and still better optics than this Tamron.
Great video as usual. Nice lens if you want the adaptor free Z lens. I was thinking about it but I already have the 28-300 and the adaptor, so I probably don't need this one. The wide 28 gives me more than the 70, so I will stick with it. The combination of the adaptor and the lens is quite heavy, but for the focal range and the quality I can get with it, I am happy to go with it. I don't think this lens is much less awkward. It might be lighter, but with the lens hood, it seems about the same. I wonder if the image quality is affected by it being a Z mount lens as opposed to my F mount. I am new to the Z cameras so am trying things out.
I had the Tamron 70-300mm Z lens since it came out and I use it with the Z9 with great results! I have even shot hummingbirds with it with great results. When I purchased it there were few other options and I have not been disappointed. Maybe I got a better one, who knows?
Basically what I expected. When the lens 1st came out for sony what was the price and how about the canon version? (never mind the canon version) Would I get this one, no because I have the 70-200 2.8? I wouldn’t worry about the front element on the lenses if they were on long-term from the manufacturer like many of yours are.
Appreciate the Nikon coverage. I’m not even a Nikon shooter. I used to be and considering going back. Currently in the Canon eco system and have been the past 6 years but I loved my Nikon CCD cameras back in the day and curious about Nikon again.
on sony a7c this lems is fantastic. Nikon will do good now that Tamron convert their zoom to Nikon. Now there is the 50-300 VC with more range and stabilization OR the bigger and heavier 50-400 VC, soon these will be available on Nikon if it is not already done. AND the 17-28 f2.8, the 28-200, the 70-180 f2.8, the 28-75 g2 f2.8. all fantaSTIC.
Tamron has some great lenses right now , not sure why they chose to start with this... test how much Z mount they can sell? I mean they could have started with the 35-150 or the 150-500, much more interesting lenses. BTW not sure why your Z9 misses , mine hardly miss a beat in sport events
In fact, this is one of three theor lenses adapted on Z mount. But 17-28 and 28-75 are branded as Nikon. All three lenses are made after Nikon's agreement. Nikon wouldn't agree with some super cool lenses because who would be buying expensive Nikon S-line lenses?
@@patrikfiser3630 There will always be loyalist who prefer badged S lines (Especially a common theme in Nikon and Canon). Sony Has the 200-600 but still allow the 150-500, why wouldn't Nikon if they plan 200-600 too? Or the 35-150 , Nikon , Sony or Canon wouldn't make such lenses in a million years , they are all too bland and boring companies for that. Sure it might hurt in the short run but it can help people lure in to the brand just as with Sony , options are a good thing.
@@LOLA6ifyable yeah, but Sony jumped into market like decade ago and has such a wide portfolio. They've already paid up their investments to developing new system. Nikon is quite new in the business. They need to earn as much money as possible. Third party lenses will run this plan. Especially when they're substituting lense Nikon doesn't have in portfolio
This is the comparison I'm thinking about.. But can't find an in person comparison of the two. Or comparing it to an older 70-200 f4 with ftz and this lens.
I own the first version of this lens, the F mount version that cost 150 euros. No VR and at 300mm nothing is in focus because everything is shaking. Even when using a tripod the result isn't that good... At 70mm is AMAZING!!!
As a Phillies fan who must shoot from the upper deck and not the photographer's pit like SOME people (not that I'm bitter), I appreciate being able to get this lens past stadium security. They have a "thing" about lenses that look "professional" (whatever THAT means).
I had a Nikon Z 24-200 and it is not working and right now and looking to replace it. The quality of the my old 24-200 was alright (I go better results with Nikon Z 50mm 1.8). So, is the Tamron worth it?
Okay so 15ish years ago Tamron made the 70-300 usd vc for DSLRs. It was an F4-5.6 lens with image stabilization for 300ish usd. BTW jared did the review of this lens jumping, running and crawling in the streets. This video would be qualified as funny compared to the present video format :) And now 15y later Tamron is delivering a slower 70-300 giving the same sharp-ish results at 300mm without image stabilization for more than twice the price. Am I the only one understanding that something is very off here. Well no problem I'll keep my oldest Tamron hands on. 700ish usd even 400usd for such a standard kit telezoom lens is way too much nowadays.
Hi Jared Jeremy Parr i have the canon 70-300 and has a image stabilizer and it take very good pic I would like to order your porpack 123 sometime but I don't have credit card yours truly Jer
Interesting, yes i belive the AF is not what i want... I prever using my old 80-400 Nikon with adapter I think it wont be better or badder but i have it and should use it..... Its 3times more expensive so it shall be better
Tamron have made 70-300 for decades for dslr.... Often bundled with a beginner body alongside the kit 18-55. I hoped they've improved as they were often sold for 99 dollars... It seems they have, as the CA was always terrible and the screw-drive was soooooooo slow!
The price for such a standard kit zoom lens should be arpund 300ish usd. Nothing special in this lens. Moreover it's too slow. Should be F4-5.6 like the oldest one. And yes with stabilization
24-200 is probably my most used lens. Tempted to get the 24-120 but I'm not rich. Tell me Jared if Nikon had made their own 70-300 for the Z would the AF be better? You harp on AF way too much with Nikon and have only praised them rarely for being leaps ahead of Canon and Sony when it comes to lenses. I mean Canon just basically stuck a RF mount on their EF longer focal length glass. I'm sure if Nikon did the same their Mirrorless AF would be much better. It's going to be tougher to beat up Nikon when the Z8 and mark iii versions come out with the improved AF. The ultimate Hybrid camera line up.
Watching this again, i think the reason that the Nikon version is more expensive is likely licensing. Keep in mind that Sony has a decent stake (I think 12 or 20%) in Tamron, so naturally, I would think Tamron would cut Sony a bit of a deal to make lenses since one of Tamron's stock holders IS Sony. That might not be the case, but that 's the only real logical reason I can think of.
I have the Z50 and have no interest in that lens because it has no stabilization - 300mm f6.3 with no stab would require a tripod. The Kit 50-250 DX is a much better option (has built-in stab)
The price of entry into the z world with such high prices for the lenses and extremely limited Third party support is a major reason why I'm still shooting with my Nikon DSLR. My Tamron 100 to 400 f mount cost me $650. I would have to adapt because I'm never going to spend over $2,000 for that sort of lens. Or any lens. I think shooting the lens DSLR style as you did is actually the best way to test the AF of this lens. Otherwise you're just testing the AF of the camera, which, as we know, gives you unsatisfactory results. I got my Tamron 70 to 300 VC USD when it was retailing for $450. Even with inflation, 700 is pretty steep
@@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas there is as of today not a single proof about the fact that IQ of mirrorless lenses is better than DSLR IQ. None of the mainstream RUclips togs, none of them, did any side by side comparison. Why? Simply because there is no such thing as better IQ of mirrorless lens than DSLR lens. I did my own brickwall tests of Sony mirrorless vs sony DSLT with the kit lenses. And even the oldest Minolta kit zoom lenses beercan is superior than the newest Sony kit lenses. I'll go mirrorless some day yes. It just won't be with Sony clearly.
@@actionphotopassion5082 there is always some objectively better product out there. That doesn't mean the difference is vital for my own work. In other words, one doesn't need to upgrade every time something new comes along. I am right now reprocessing images from my d90 I took in 2014. Make great prints!
@@lsaideOK hehe that's a nice idea. I also do like to give a spin to my oldest Minolta D7D sometimes. Actually those CCD sensors have something un je ne sais quoi that is irreplaceable 😍 But yeah I will go mirrorless when time will be good for what I want. I'm leaning towards Panasonic as they are the most outsiders and unexpected.
One of the explanations why the lens is more expensive for Nikon is choice ... it pisses me off how few choices there are for the Z-mount. So less competition means the ability to increase profit margins.
Very nice to see Tamron making lenses for Nikon Z system, but at this price for this kind of lens, it´s a very unattractive option. I would pick a Tamron 70-200 2.8 adapted all the way.
I think full frame nikon owners won't buy this because it isn't pro enough.. and apsc users will just get the 50-250 kit lens . Which is a pretty decent lens..
Ya, in this case it’s clearly the lens that’s hindering the Z9’s excellent AF system. I’m glad this lens exists for the more casual shooters, but it’s not for me. And Tamron at least could have included a usb port plug to seal the open hole in the side of this lens. 🤷🏻♂️
My biggest complaint about this lens is that it lacks VC (vibration control or basically image stabilization) which IMO is a boneheaded mistake by Tamron. I would have gladly paid another $100 for the lens if it had some sort of in-lens stabilization because beyond about 100mm IBIS becomes less effective (or ineffective in some systems).
I'd like to ask when exactly the presets aren't On Sale as I'd like to give you the full cost, please, they are on sale for 5 years already 😩 Anyway tho, always agree with those reviews as they are total truth, hqha
Seems like canon stomps this range with the RF 100-400. Sure it's a bit darker but it also has more reach, much better AF motors, better IQ, and Stabilization. And it's $50 cheaper.
@@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas I've had fantastic results with the RF 100-400. From what I can decipher from the review It is much sharper than this Tamron. You also have fantastic stabilization that more than makes up for the 1 stop less light.
Nice review as always... Just love your style... AWESOME!!! I want your opinion on one thing... Nikons seem to take slightly longer to get into focus when compared to Canon or Sony...I assume the speed of the motors being used in Nikon lenses are just slower... And could this motor speed be a bigger cause than the focusing tech in the camera as to why Nikon is lagging in focus tracking??? What do you say???
It’s sad that in 2023 when Canon and Sony have autofocus that simply works perfectly every time Nikon users still lie to themselves that Nikon autofocus works lol
Great Lens review, but if I may, why do you keep harping on Nikon's AF system? We get it, you hate it and it could be better. WTF has that got to do with the lenses you review? 15 years ago, I switched from Canon and Pentax to Nikon because I fell in love with Nikon's lenses and, I confess, I loved the look of their pro cameras. I shoot mostly portrait and fashion and I can tell you, Nikon pro-sumer and pro cameras & compatible lenses rule. I don't care about wildlife, but I do understand that others do, so I sit through those parts of any lens review - does it lessen my view of Nikon gear? No! Why should it? The AF flaws, which you point out, while real, have nothing to do with lens itself. To flip it around, should the lens then be highly touted as "always spot on and tack sharp" because Nikon's AF gets it right every time in my use-case situation, i.e. when I use it handheld on a fashion or portrait shoot and I nail every shot? No, of course not. My point is that your audience is not dumb, so stop harping on something that may make the new comers to Nikon equipment question their judgement in buying gear that could potentially be the best equipment they have purchased because they don't shoot action shots or wildlife. Just tone it down the Nikon AF rhetoric, please! You're not wrong, but your constant ridiculing of it is making you look like a Nikon hater. We in your established audience base know that you are not, but the new viewers might not. Have a great day, Jared, and I do look forward to more content from you.
Why? Canon's RF 100-400 IS is a spectacular lens for $500. Tamron wouldn't likely sell this in an RF mount even if they could. They'd have to put it around $300 or less to compete.
@jorgepinogarciadelasbayona9729 I have the RF100-400 and it is very dark. Since I have the R7, having an RF mount from either Tamron or Sigma 70-300 would give me a lot more flexibility.
No I will first buy the lens, then watch video :)
prove it
Lolz 😁👌
Bold move Cotton…
I know right?
@@mikearledge5909 lol!!!! Dodgeball.
Definitely appreciate you showing how it performs and the image quality. I don't know if I will get one but it is the only 70-300 lens for the Z cameras. I would LOVE using it for motorsports photos/videos (during the day) though. If anything, it's getting rented for sure! I don't know if I can justify $700 when you COULD find some decent 70-200 2.8 VR2's around that price range. But like you said, who ever needs that focal length, will definitely need it. Thanks for reviewing this lens!
Whilst background separation at a f2.8 or lower is good, higher f-stops also tell a great story of those in the background as well. Food for thought.
Sure, but if you want, you can always close down a f2.8 lens to f6.3, but you cannot open a 6.3lens to f2.8 :/
Well, and you may not afford the f2.8, but it is another issue ahah
I appreciate that Nikon's AF might not be (it isn't) at the same development stage as Sony's or Canon's, but the fact that you don't ever miss a chance to bring it up and talk about it multiple times becomes a bit distracting.
I'm not even a Nikon shooter but the fact that 3rd party manufacturers are developing lenses for them I think is excellent news overall and I came here to see what was the quality of the lens for its intended target audience and use and instead all I hear is complaints about Nikon's AF system when that has nothing to do with the lens. I appreciate you Jared, and I've been following your journey for years now and I'll continue to do so, YT's photography community owes you an outstanding debt for your tireless work and dedication, but if I may, I think that although constructive criticism has a place in the industry and you're of course allowed to use the space as you wish and voice whatever your experience, likes and dislikes are, you've made your point, multiple times, over various videos. We know.
Don't let it become "a thing" that you are known for that could put people off and detract from all your amazing work and qualities as an educator and reference in the space.
All the love from Scotland, keep up the good work!
It’s probably an issue with the lens anyways. When tamron doesn’t focus well on Sony they point out differences between it and native lenses. He could have easily thrown on a native lens to see if he saw the same issue. But it’s “idk which is the issue… but I’m going to allude it’s the Z9 and not the first ever attempt at a lens on the Z mount”
This is the kindest review I've read on RUclips so far..
Or shoot with. Auto ISO thats what i do you select the speed and the aperture. the camera sets the ISO especially good in indoor situations! or shooting birds!
15:17 Or, it's because Tamron is partially owned by Sony.
If I go to Z-mount I think the FTZ will be glued to the body, at least for some time, and I'll use the AF-S 70-200/4 or AF-P 70-300/4.5-5.6 alongside my other F-mount lenses.
A nice first option from Tamron for the Z mount system, the first thing I noticed was the price jump from the Sony mount as well, very unfortunate. I think at $550 it is a no brainer but at $700 that is right at the top of the range most would be ok paying for this type of lens.
0:18 Its not the first 3rd party lens. There are many good Viltrox AF lenses and others.
I borrowed someone's Nikon Z50 with the 50-250mm lenses at a swim meet. I didn't change auto settings and took pictures at ISO 10000 and up in a dark natatorium. I got similar results to you at the basketball game.
How would this compare optically to an older 70-200f4 using the ftz?
the nikon 70-180 2.8 non S will be better option when it comes out ?
What about using the 1.4 Nikon Z teleconverter along with the Nikon Z 70-200?
I rented a 1.4x for mine and it was excellent. So excellent they are always out of stock! The 2x isn't that bad either.
@@MTBD80, I can never find one everywhere I look they are out of stock. It must be a good thing to have with the Z 70-200 lens.
I always use high quality clear filters for all of my lenses just to protect the optics. It's high quality glass and I haven't noticed it affecting my image quality vs not using a clear filter.
You're always telling me what to do!!
That devil woman!
As a z50 owner with it kit Lenses, my 50-250 lens is all I need and it has vr.
So I already have the adapter what old glass would be good or at least better than this that gets me to that 300 mm Mark
Viltrox would like a word with you about being first for 3rd party z lens support.
Photography aside, I can't help but think "uncle Jared, I don't want to run anymore" with that look on his face.
It's new tech, I guess, but how does the IQ compare to the old 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 using the adapter, which has a more open aperture on the long end? Based on what I see from your photos, the G lens seems at least as sharp. Also the G lens has VR in the lens. Most important for me, as you said, I have both the adapter and the 70-300 G lens.
The oldest one is an F4-5.6
It's faster. It's according to the images in this video equal in sharpness at 300mm. It has image stabilization. And can be found for 200ish bucks... Errrr
can you use this lens on a canon 700d? or only nikon?
I've been using a Nikon AF-P 70-300mm DX with an FTZ on my Z50. I don't think this lens is a big enough upgrade to replace it
Jared...just a curious question: have you updated the z9 firmare to version 3.01? If not it should make some improvement on the AF.
I asked the same question a couple of weeks ago....no answer yet.
What is your suggestion ? Nikon Z9 with f mount Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 or
Nikon Z9 with Tamron Z mount 70-300.
Which is better combination as regards to auto focus precision.
That’s not even a question. Z9 owner should never use a 70-300
@@froknowsphoto I know...but ego part apart....what is your suggestion
@@matrishva get the 1.4 TC and nikon glass
Soooo, how is it for wildlife? As a hobby photographer? I have the 50-250 on the z50, and i like it. Looking for something cheap for the z6.
What is a good budget/value telephoto lens for z6 mount or should i just get the ftz
Adapter and buy an f mount lens
I own this lens, great to keep in the bag if want a light zoom lens. RAW files need more aggressive sharpening in post processing than the expensive Z Glass. I am pleased with the results on my Z7ii.
Just ordered for my Z6. Going to replace my blurry Nikkor 55-300 4.5-5.6 G ED on FTZ.
Still lack of lock function. Sony version is just too easy to extend the length itself.
In my view AF-P 70-300 is just a better option😂
Not a lens I am personally interested in BUT it is nice that tamron is making Z mount lenses. I loved their 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 G2 lenses and they are a fantastic option for a budget photographer getting going who cant justify the 2000+ costs of the mainline nikon/canon/sony lenses.
I use both of those on my D850. They work great. Bit the bullet and bought the Z mount Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 for my Z9 though.
With the Z6iii hitting this week, this lens fits squarely into that “prosumer” market segment. 👍🏽
As a Z50 user im waiting for the 17-70 2.8 for Z bodies , 70-300 without vr is kinda useless to me.
At full price I wouldn't. Being the last Z50 user on the continent i'll just stick with my very good 50-250mm.
I have had the 24-200 for just over 2 years now and I have really enjoyed it for my own personal uses. I have even used them in some of our wedding films, and they handle it just fine. But as I look more at wiidlife and sports shooting, that 100-400 is becoming very enticing. Personally, this lens would not interest me, but it is nice to see a Z mount Tamron lens finally being out in the world.
You can just get a Canon 70-300 "L" lens (the high-end white one) on eBay for $600-700 and an EF-Z adapter and you'll have top quality for the same price.
@@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas all EF lenses work perfectly on it with full autofocus and everything, even better than Nikon's own F-mount lenses on the FTZ adapter, according to Jared himself.
A more affordable alternative is the "Canon 70-300 ii usm", which can be found on eBay for $300-400 and has the little info screen on it, one of the only lenses with canon's "nano-ultrasonic" focusing, and still better optics than this Tamron.
Is it possible to use it on Z6i with 1.4x o 2x teleconverter with AF?
Should be but at that point you are at ISO ∞
Does it work on D40?
Hai, is this sharp for tele landscape photography?
on Sony a7c, i have it. it is very sharp. well above its price range.
Great video as usual.
Nice lens if you want the adaptor free Z lens. I was thinking about it but I already have the 28-300 and the adaptor, so I probably don't need this one. The wide 28 gives me more than the 70, so I will stick with it. The combination of the adaptor and the lens is quite heavy, but for the focal range and the quality I can get with it, I am happy to go with it. I don't think this lens is much less awkward. It might be lighter, but with the lens hood, it seems about the same.
I wonder if the image quality is affected by it being a Z mount lens as opposed to my F mount. I am new to the Z cameras so am trying things out.
Native Z mount is better that adapted F mount lens (sharpnes, focusing etc).
I had the Tamron 70-300mm Z lens since it came out and I use it with the Z9 with great results! I have even shot hummingbirds with it with great results. When I purchased it there were few other options and I have not been disappointed. Maybe I got a better one, who knows?
Basically what I expected. When the lens 1st came out for sony what was the price and how about the canon version? (never mind the canon version) Would I get this one, no because I have the 70-200 2.8?
I wouldn’t worry about the front element on the lenses if they were on long-term from the manufacturer like many of yours are.
Viltrox made a 85mm for Z mount a year ago. Would be nice to see a review of that on this channel.
@@Vemovemo1 I second. It is a good lens
I have viltrox 56mm f 1.4 and 13mm f1.4 for my Nikon Z50. Both are amazing lenses
I have that one too. It's great.
Appreciate the Nikon coverage. I’m not even a Nikon shooter. I used to be and considering going back. Currently in the Canon eco system and have been the past 6 years but I loved my Nikon CCD cameras back in the day and curious about Nikon again.
the CCD colors were amazing. But they could not do higher ISO.
@@froknowsphoto my Sony CCD was really clean at 100 iso, but the grain/noise was not unpleasant up to 400 iso
I still use my D80 from time to time!
on sony a7c this lems is fantastic. Nikon will do good now that Tamron convert their zoom to Nikon. Now there is the 50-300 VC with more range and stabilization OR the bigger and heavier 50-400 VC, soon these will be available on Nikon if it is not already done. AND the 17-28 f2.8, the 28-200, the 70-180 f2.8, the 28-75 g2 f2.8. all fantaSTIC.
Wonder when Nikon z will bring tamron 50-300
Tamron really needs to make a Z mount of the 35-150 2-2.8. I almost picked up a used Sony and this lens to have a smaller setup when I travel.
Tamron has some great lenses right now , not sure why they chose to start with this... test how much Z mount they can sell?
I mean they could have started with the 35-150 or the 150-500, much more interesting lenses.
BTW not sure why your Z9 misses , mine hardly miss a beat in sport events
In fact, this is one of three theor lenses adapted on Z mount. But 17-28 and 28-75 are branded as Nikon. All three lenses are made after Nikon's agreement. Nikon wouldn't agree with some super cool lenses because who would be buying expensive Nikon S-line lenses?
@@patrikfiser3630 There will always be loyalist who prefer badged S lines (Especially a common theme in Nikon and Canon).
Sony Has the 200-600 but still allow the 150-500, why wouldn't Nikon if they plan 200-600 too?
Or the 35-150 , Nikon , Sony or Canon wouldn't make such lenses in a million years , they are all too bland and boring companies for that.
Sure it might hurt in the short run but it can help people lure in to the brand just as with Sony , options are a good thing.
@@LOLA6ifyable yeah, but Sony jumped into market like decade ago and has such a wide portfolio. They've already paid up their investments to developing new system. Nikon is quite new in the business. They need to earn as much money as possible. Third party lenses will run this plan. Especially when they're substituting lense Nikon doesn't have in portfolio
is it suitable for Nikon d3500
Nice would be a comparison between the Tamron70-300mm and the AF-P NIKKOR 70-300 mm 😎
This is the comparison I'm thinking about.. But can't find an in person comparison of the two. Or comparing it to an older 70-200 f4 with ftz and this lens.
I own the first version of this lens, the F mount version that cost 150 euros. No VR and at 300mm nothing is in focus because everything is shaking. Even when using a tripod the result isn't that good... At 70mm is AMAZING!!!
Would u prefer the NIKON Z 50-250 or this lens?
I use my tamron 28-300 pzd f mount on my z6 and it performs great it is really sharp
It’s like you don’t want to acknowledge all the other 3rd party lenses for the Z mount.
I have the 24-200mm so no need for this lens but it's good that Tamron makes Z mount lenses.
No buttons relying on in camera IBIS. No need for buttons. But I don't know they should have added it for around the 200-300 mm range.
As a Phillies fan who must shoot from the upper deck and not the photographer's pit like SOME people (not that I'm bitter), I appreciate being able to get this lens past stadium security. They have a "thing" about lenses that look "professional" (whatever THAT means).
you're a little bitter.. lol JK
@@tcwhite0104 Yep, ALL CAPS "SOME" gives it away.
Good Review! How would the Tamron compare with the Nikon kit 24-200 lens?
I had a Nikon Z 24-200 and it is not working and right now and looking to replace it. The quality of the my old 24-200 was alright (I go better results with Nikon Z 50mm 1.8). So, is the Tamron worth it?
Actually, Viltrox has been making both f1.8 FF and F1.4 DX Autofocus Primes for Nikon Z for about two years now :)
I have the viltrox 85mm f1.8 and it is amazing!
You actually have better options for fast lenses by using the FTZ adaptor.
Okay so 15ish years ago Tamron made the 70-300 usd vc for DSLRs.
It was an F4-5.6 lens with image stabilization for 300ish usd. BTW jared did the review of this lens jumping, running and crawling in the streets. This video would be qualified as funny compared to the present video format :)
And now 15y later Tamron is delivering a slower 70-300 giving the same sharp-ish results at 300mm without image stabilization for more than twice the price.
Am I the only one understanding that something is very off here.
Well no problem I'll keep my oldest Tamron hands on.
700ish usd even 400usd for such a standard kit telezoom lens is way too much nowadays.
Hi Jared Jeremy Parr i have the canon 70-300 and has a image stabilizer and it take very good pic I would like to order your porpack 123 sometime but I don't have credit card yours truly Jer
I have the lens on Sony and I've taken some incredible images with it!
Interesting, yes i belive the AF is not what i want...
I prever using my old 80-400 Nikon with adapter
I think it wont be better or badder but i have it and should use it.....
Its 3times more expensive so it shall be better
Tamron have made 70-300 for decades for dslr.... Often bundled with a beginner body alongside the kit 18-55. I hoped they've improved as they were often sold for 99 dollars... It seems they have, as the CA was always terrible and the screw-drive was soooooooo slow!
Don't care about this lens, but I sure hope the 35-150 is on the way behind it. Don't care if it's rebranded or not, but I really want that lens
At that price it should have image stabilization.
The price for such a standard kit zoom lens should be arpund 300ish usd.
Nothing special in this lens. Moreover it's too slow. Should be F4-5.6 like the oldest one. And yes with stabilization
24-200 is probably my most used lens. Tempted to get the 24-120 but I'm not rich. Tell me Jared if Nikon had made their own 70-300 for the Z would the AF be better? You harp on AF way too much with Nikon and have only praised them rarely for being leaps ahead of Canon and Sony when it comes to lenses. I mean Canon just basically stuck a RF mount on their EF longer focal length glass. I'm sure if Nikon did the same their Mirrorless AF would be much better. It's going to be tougher to beat up Nikon when the Z8 and mark iii versions come out with the improved AF. The ultimate Hybrid camera line up.
Watching this again, i think the reason that the Nikon version is more expensive is likely licensing. Keep in mind that Sony has a decent stake (I think 12 or 20%) in Tamron, so naturally, I would think Tamron would cut Sony a bit of a deal to make lenses since one of Tamron's stock holders IS Sony. That might not be the case, but that 's the only real logical reason I can think of.
ok
I have the Z50 and have no interest in that lens because it has no stabilization - 300mm f6.3 with no stab would require a tripod. The Kit 50-250 DX is a much better option (has built-in stab)
The z50 doesn’t have in body stabilization?
When you have the best gear and your pics are still Sus
The price of entry into the z world with such high prices for the lenses and extremely limited Third party support is a major reason why I'm still shooting with my Nikon DSLR. My Tamron 100 to 400 f mount cost me $650. I would have to adapt because I'm never going to spend over $2,000 for that sort of lens. Or any lens. I think shooting the lens DSLR style as you did is actually the best way to test the AF of this lens. Otherwise you're just testing the AF of the camera, which, as we know, gives you unsatisfactory results.
I got my Tamron 70 to 300 VC USD when it was retailing for $450. Even with inflation, 700 is pretty steep
@@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas That may make the cost more reasonable but it doesn't make getting into the system any more affordable
Z lenses are on a whole another level from old F glass even compared to the G primes.
@@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas there is as of today not a single proof about the fact that IQ of mirrorless lenses is better than DSLR IQ.
None of the mainstream RUclips togs, none of them, did any side by side comparison.
Why?
Simply because there is no such thing as better IQ of mirrorless lens than DSLR lens.
I did my own brickwall tests of Sony mirrorless vs sony DSLT with the kit lenses. And even the oldest Minolta kit zoom lenses beercan is superior than the newest Sony kit lenses.
I'll go mirrorless some day yes. It just won't be with Sony clearly.
@@actionphotopassion5082 there is always some objectively better product out there. That doesn't mean the difference is vital for my own work. In other words, one doesn't need to upgrade every time something new comes along. I am right now reprocessing images from my d90 I took in 2014. Make great prints!
@@lsaideOK hehe that's a nice idea. I also do like to give a spin to my oldest Minolta D7D sometimes. Actually those CCD sensors have something un je ne sais quoi that is irreplaceable 😍
But yeah I will go mirrorless when time will be good for what I want. I'm leaning towards Panasonic as they are the most outsiders and unexpected.
One of the explanations why the lens is more expensive for Nikon is choice ... it pisses me off how few choices there are for the Z-mount. So less competition means the ability to increase profit margins.
Very nice to see Tamron making lenses for Nikon Z system, but at this price for this kind of lens, it´s a very unattractive option. I would pick a Tamron 70-200 2.8 adapted all the way.
I want the 200-600mm VR
I think full frame nikon owners won't buy this because it isn't pro enough.. and apsc users will just get the 50-250 kit lens . Which is a pretty decent lens..
Im using a old a005 70-300 with FTZ and MF only. yes it lacks AF but it has a great OIS, and it only costs me 50 euros so, no brainer for me lol
Was toying with buying this lens , price point , but think i'll save my pennies for a Nikon crazy expensive but works really well lens.
I liked Skittles so much, I gave my new cat this name.
BOOM (oversharpens an image to hell) "that looks fantastic!"
Buying the lens, but not the camera. Will adapt to my Polaroid. Or Brownie.
Thank you sir
I got this lense and it came with a uv filter
This on a z50 is great I'd bet
I will use it for still imaging rather than sports
Ya, in this case it’s clearly the lens that’s hindering the Z9’s excellent AF system. I’m glad this lens exists for the more casual shooters, but it’s not for me.
And Tamron at least could have included a usb port plug to seal the open hole in the side of this lens. 🤷🏻♂️
My biggest complaint about this lens is that it lacks VC (vibration control or basically image stabilization) which IMO is a boneheaded mistake by Tamron. I would have gladly paid another $100 for the lens if it had some sort of in-lens stabilization because beyond about 100mm IBIS becomes less effective (or ineffective in some systems).
Agree completely. I frquently use my Tamron 70-210 f/4 lens w. VC and it is a superb lens.
Great quality lens
sad part is ive had my z6 for like 4 years now this might be the my first lens i try and save up for lol until i can afford the 2.8 70-200 one day xD
I'd like to ask when exactly the presets aren't On Sale as I'd like to give you the full cost, please, they are on sale for 5 years already 😩 Anyway tho, always agree with those reviews as they are total truth, hqha
Simple. When fro pack 4 comes out. Go look at fropsbk 1. It’s $50 Same with 2
Seems like canon stomps this range with the RF 100-400. Sure it's a bit darker but it also has more reach, much better AF motors, better IQ, and Stabilization. And it's $50 cheaper.
@@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas I've had fantastic results with the RF 100-400. From what I can decipher from the review It is much sharper than this Tamron. You also have fantastic stabilization that more than makes up for the 1 stop less light.
Nice review as always... Just love your style... AWESOME!!!
I want your opinion on one thing... Nikons seem to take slightly longer to get into focus when compared to Canon or Sony...I assume the speed of the motors being used in Nikon lenses are just slower... And could this motor speed be a bigger cause than the focusing tech in the camera as to why Nikon is lagging in focus tracking??? What do you say???
It’s sad that in 2023 when Canon and Sony have autofocus that simply works perfectly every time Nikon users still lie to themselves that Nikon autofocus works lol
My man Jace was tired after that run toward the camera!
Great Lens review, but if I may, why do you keep harping on Nikon's AF system? We get it, you hate it and it could be better. WTF has that got to do with the lenses you review?
15 years ago, I switched from Canon and Pentax to Nikon because I fell in love with Nikon's lenses and, I confess, I loved the look of their pro cameras. I shoot mostly portrait and fashion and I can tell you, Nikon pro-sumer and pro cameras & compatible lenses rule. I don't care about wildlife, but I do understand that others do, so I sit through those parts of any lens review - does it lessen my view of Nikon gear? No! Why should it? The AF flaws, which you point out, while real, have nothing to do with lens itself.
To flip it around, should the lens then be highly touted as "always spot on and tack sharp" because Nikon's AF gets it right every time in my use-case situation, i.e. when I use it handheld on a fashion or portrait shoot and I nail every shot? No, of course not.
My point is that your audience is not dumb, so stop harping on something that may make the new comers to Nikon equipment question their judgement in buying gear that could potentially be the best equipment they have purchased because they don't shoot action shots or wildlife.
Just tone it down the Nikon AF rhetoric, please! You're not wrong, but your constant ridiculing of it is making you look like a Nikon hater. We in your established audience base know that you are not, but the new viewers might not.
Have a great day, Jared, and I do look forward to more content from you.
He always has trouble with everything Nikon, we get it.... Smh
First third party lens? You know that's incorrect, yes?
It’s not incorrect. It’s the first third party that’s authorized. .
Glad Nikon allows third party to make z lenses.
@@jorgepinogarciadelasbayonas cool
Worked good enough on my Sony e-mount
HEY CANON...ARE YOU LISTENING!!!
Looks like a cheap lens having slow AF motors.
The 70-200 is quick, the 70-300 looking sluggish.
If only Canon would allow 3rd party RF mount lens development..😒😒
Why? Canon's RF 100-400 IS is a spectacular lens for $500. Tamron wouldn't likely sell this in an RF mount even if they could. They'd have to put it around $300 or less to compete.
@jorgepinogarciadelasbayona9729 I have the RF100-400 and it is very dark.
Since I have the R7, having an RF mount from either Tamron or Sigma 70-300 would give me a lot more flexibility.