It's interesting, I reviewed this lens two years ago for E mount and it was a slightly different story. But now that Nikon offers an awesome native option similar to this one for a little more money...i'd probably look that direction first. How about you, agree?
I agree, the 180-600 with internal zoom is the better choice if you can afford it and have the space for it. Same with the Sony 200-600. Both lenses are tremendous for the prices and features they offer. Side note, I love these videos on the weekend to watch with a coffee in the morning- thanks Fro!
I appreciate your frustration with having to give it the "Not Recommended" review. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the Nikon 180-600 and the Tamron 150-500 Z using the Zf, or the Z6III (if it is released soon). If someone has spent the money on the Z9/Z8, they can probably find the extra $500 for the Nikon 180-600.
I've learned a lot from you and absolutely value your opinion. And while I'm not saying you're wrong in any way, I will say that I did buy this lens and have been happy with the decision. Now, there are a couple of caveats there-- 1) I'm not a pro; I have a Z8 mostly paired with a Tamron 35-150 that I use for concert photography, and that lens does a great job. Because of how well that works, I went for the 150-500 for more reach. 2) I wanted something that wouldn't break the bank as a way to carry around something with more reach, mostly to try wildlife or outdoor festival/concert photography. 3) As compelling as the Nikon 180-600 offering was, it's not nearly as portable and is significantly more expensive. I need to be able to carry both lenses in my bag, as a general use case. I've had a good experience with the lens, and it has been sharp for me. I've gotten some nice shots using it. That's not to say that I would have gone wrong spending more on the Nikon option-- but I definitely don't regret getting this one and I think it's actually extremely good value for money, at least for my use case. Maybe it's less fun to use for sports as you'd tested it; I have no idea. You did mention that it could be for some people, so credit there for acknowledging that-- but I have liked it, in the interest of fair and balanced reporting. I really enjoy your channel-- thanks for the great work.
Putting this in the main comments section in case it helps anyone else: I've learned a lot from you and absolutely value your opinion. And while I'm not saying you're wrong in any way, I will say that I did buy this lens and have been happy with the decision. Now, there are a couple of caveats there-- 1) I'm not a pro; I have a Z8 mostly paired with a Tamron 35-150 that I use for concert photography, and that lens does a great job. Because of how well that works, I went for the 150-500 for more reach. 2) I wanted something that wouldn't break the bank as a way to carry around something with more reach, mostly to try wildlife or outdoor festival/concert photography. 3) As compelling as the Nikon 180-600 offering was, it's not nearly as portable and is significantly more expensive. I need to be able to carry both lenses in my bag, as a general use case. I've had a good experience with the lens, and it has been sharp for me. I've gotten some nice shots using it. That's not to say that I would have gone wrong spending more on the Nikon option-- but I definitely don't regret getting this one and I think it's actually extremely good value for money, at least for my use case. Maybe it's less fun to use for sports as you'd tested it; I have no idea. You did mention that it could be for some people, so credit there for acknowledging that-- but I have liked it, in the interest of fair and balanced reporting. I really enjoy your channel-- thanks for the great work.
The 180-600 is going to reign in this segment for Z mount. Yes it’s big but it functions so well and being an internal zoom seems to dramatically help with handling . I find the weight to sit near the body ,and even with a zf body ,it’s a very manageable lens .
The issue is the 200-500 F mount and the 180-600 are too big to be brought into sports events when they have lens length restrictions for those of us who want to take shots at a game but aren't media credentialed. This lens fits under the length even when extended. Same for the F mount 100-400 Tamron. So it's one or the other.
I know what people say about buying old slr lenses, but you can find a Nikon 200-500 used for like $600 now. If you’re looking to save money, I’d go with that, if you’re not, I agree with Jared, save the extra $500 and go up to the 180-600.
@@montazownianr1 No, that’s not what I mean. I found mine in perfectly acceptable condition on MPB for $654 and even now I’m seeing listings on MPB and KEH for $739 and $758 respectively. Multiple on Ebay in that $6-700 range as well.
I've got this lens on Sony E-Mount and I quite like it. For me, it's a good balance of size and weight (just about) when going on long hikes for wildlife shots. Plus it's one of the few lenses that goes beyond 400mm that fit's in to my bag! However, I do remember another lens reviewer who reviewed this Tamron lens a while ago did note that at the long end, on a 42mp sensor was pushing the lenses sharpness. Good for a 24mp sensor, but less so on a sensor almost double the mp count. So maybe that explains the lack of critical sharpness at the long end?
Funny story. I'm new to Nikon mirrorless. I watch a lot of reviews and so far the only two lenses I own for my mirrorless system got bad reviews from Jared and yet I am thrilled with them. Now I am considering this Tamron. I really do appreciate the points you made regarding this lens and am now leaning away from buying it and waiting...waiting and waiting for the Nikon 180-600. But, a couple of things to consider if budget is an issue. 1) Filter size for the Tamron is common and fairly small. I already have this size covered so there is significant savings there. 2) Built in Arca-Swiss mount on the tripod foot of the Tamron. That's another $100 bucks or so. So when you consider a $100 (minimum) for a filter or two and $100 for a good A-S plate you're looking at a difference of $700 between these two lenses. So $700 plus utter lack of availability of the Nikon keeps this lens on my short list.
I own both and have had the same experience as you. The Tamron only makes it in the bag as it is smaller to travel with but misses quite often in non challenging situations. My solution was to buy a bigger bag. I will second the notion of saving up for one of the native lenses or give it some time and pick up one second hand. Very disappointed after how good the 35-150mm Tamron turned out to be for Z mount.
At 500 mm seeing can be a problem, especially for F6.7 or higher. That's the nature of (moisture and hot) air. And seeing can be a problem for e.g. 3 seconds and than there is a lucky time for 0.3 seconds with clear vision.... You get what you pay for!
I have the 150-500mm in the e-mount. I was really leery of the f/5.0-6.7. My lens at about 490mm immediately drops to f/6.3. You have to bottom out the zoom stop at 500mm to see f/6.7. I've shot track & field college Nationals, softball, lacrosse, and wildlife during the day and I am very happy with the result. It's a great compliment to my 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8. I rarely use my old G-Master 70-200mm f/2.8.
Here in Finland/Europe the 180-600 costs 2100€, so the 1100 € I paid for the 150-500 was no brainer. The 150-500 is also much more compact, so I can easily carry it in my backbag, even with the lens hood on. 180-600 would be too big for that. For me the weight of the lens hasn't been an issue, even that I've skinny hands :D I've also noticed that in some cases the focus isn't exactly where it should be, but when it is, at least my copy is really sharp (with Nikon Z6 II). I agree that the zoom is quite tight. It's actually so tight, that the lens itself rotates a bit against the body. I thought there was something wrong with the lens mount in my camera, but according to Nikon service everything is as it should. One more negative thing is that the VC of the 150-500 isn't super effective. But in overall I've been quite happy with the lens. The 180-600 would be even better, but at least for me the price and size differences were the biggest points against that.
Agree to all you describe about the lens. Sharpness is really good on my Z7 all the way to 500 mm wide open. After is quick and accurate. When I compare this lens to my previous Tamron 150-600 G2 this new lens is a big step up in all regards except VR/VC where the Standard mode is less stable than the Sports mode regardless of shooting situation. The problem with critical sharpness is somewhat subjective of course but so far I have no complaints. In a couple of Jared’s pics it seems like the camera (not the lens) didn’t manage to focus on the right part of the image, for example the first image seems soft on the eye but not so much on the eye brow or the stubble.
@@hansforsstrom5772thank you for this comment. Owned the G2 for many years and sold it when switching to a Z6ii for traveling the world. Now in Japan I just bought the 150-500 and am looking forward to using it in Australia and new Zealand and everything that comes after. Was afraid the G2 was the better Glas 😂
Not native and heavier, but for a super zoom, i still love the 60-600 sigma after years. I frequently hike with it because i carry 1 camera/lens for birds to waterfalls. Mmaaayyybe carry a wide for scenery, but even then i will normally just take 4 shots and stitch unless something is moving.
The 180-600 is just such an unusually good value for IQ and build quality, they didn’t leave much room for Tamron or Sigma to compete and undercut them on price or value.
I just subscribed to the RAWtlak podcast this past Friday. I want to point out that RAWtalk is one word, not two words! There are a whole LOT of “raw talk”, two words, podcasts. From raw wood, raw steaks, raw first aid, you name it raw.
Thx for this review , i was thinking about the tamron 150-500 .. also the 100-400 s lens , and the 180-600 .. what would be the best choice for in and oudoor photography ? Im doing moste of the time sports .
I used this lens on my 40 MP Fuji X-H2 before switching to Nikon, and I was pretty happy with it. Image quality was fine, even on such a demanding sensor, and it's actually great for taking pictures of dragonflies and other insects, due to the high magnification factor. One thing I disliked was the fact that you can't lock the hood. I lost the hood twice while carrying the camera + lens around my neck and riding my bicycle, because it can't be locked and comes lose quite easily.
100% agreed! I purchased two copies of this lens, thinking the first was a lemon. However, the second was not much better. The size is extremely attractive, and it actually fit in my bag, right alongside the Tammy Z 35-150 2/2.8 (which, on the other hand, is extraordinary!!!). The performance though was subpar and unpredictable…and soft. Both copies were returned and will wait for the 180-600 when it becomes available…maybe in 2026?!? 😂
Not only does this lens not have a VR button (unlike the Sony version), I think that the optical VR has been disabled by Tamron for the Z-mount. I tested this lens on a brick wall with my Z5 and noticed that with IBIS turned on I only got 1 stop improvement compared to no IBIS. That's why I returned the lens.
I pre-ordered this lens and I REALLY wanted to like it. When it came in though, I put it on my camera & there was a LOT of rotational play between the camera body & the lens. There was so much play that I was concerned that maybe the contacts might mis-align. I refused to accept it, and ultimately, I got a 100-400 that was brought in on a trade-in that was in Like New condition (for about the same price as I would have paid for a new 180-600.
I also have that same issue with the rotational play between body and the lens. There is quite similar rotation with some of my Nikkor Z lenses also, but it's much more noticeable with the 150-500, because of the longer length and tight zoom ring. I sent my Z6 II body to warrant service, but according to Nikon the body is between tolerances.
One concern I had with this lens was the fit on the Z mount. There's were a couple user reviews on the B&H website which mentioned loose fit on the camera body, but I guess Tamron resolved that?
I’m just waiting for a Z mount Sigma 60-600 Sport… I love my f mount but I’m tired of the adapter… even more tired of forgetting to put it in my bag only to show up at a shoot without it…
I had this lens on X mount for a little bit. Didn't keep it because of the tight zoom ring. Every time I zoomed in and out the force I had to put on it decoupled the lens from the mount slight enough to turn off my EVF glitching the camera out.
A mon avis, le problème des images floues vient de la stabilisation de l'objectif Tamron. J'ai un gros taux de réussite en matière de netteté lorsque je règle la stabilisation sur 2 (mode sport) même en images fixes idem pour le Tamron 50-400 mm.
I was thinking about to buy this one. Now I’m not sure anymore. I guess I ‘ll switch over to the 180-600. I was always satisfied with the Nikon lenses. Thanks for your work !
How I see it, if you don't want to spend too much and have already a 200-500 then keep it, if you don't have it then get the tamron, if you can spend more get the 180-600.
Interesting enough, I accumulated the money and bought it right from the store. It's absolutely beast of a lens. The big size is compensated by perfect handling and internal zoom. IQ is great for a zoom lens, especially at 400mm and 500mm.
I have tested this lens last year and I didn‘t like it either. I had the same problems with sharpness and aperture. I also didn’t like the handling and the quite cheap looking/ feeling body of the lens (including the zoom ring). I mostly shot wildlife and landcape. I am glad that I did NOT buy it.
It's Z mount and full frame. You will get even softer results than those shooting on full frame bodies. Get yourself an old Nikkor F mount 600mm lens instead. Or try get a nice Nikkor F 300mm lens with a teleconvertor
Hi Sir. Could you please make a video comparison between Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 aps-c & Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 FE. As the FE lens has dropped its price, now it's less than the Aps-c in India.
I own the 180-600 and love it. I’ve owned Tamron in the past but sold them all off when I moved to the Z mount bodies. One lens I am looking forward to a Z mount on is the sigma 60-600 for using as a cinema lens on my Z9 to be a super cheap version of the Canon 50-1000.
None of the big Tammies -- or Sigmas -- are good for team sports photography. They are too heavy and bulky, so keep the tripod collar on and use a support. Yeah, they'll do, if that's all you have have. But, they they are so much better suited to sit-and-wait situations like wildlife, motor sports, and surfing. If you miss a shot, it's no big deal. There'll be another chance in a few minutes.
It’s probably the lens that isn’t sharp. I have the 150-600 g2 ef that I use on my R6. It is not “tack” sharp and seems to be worse over time. My last bird shoot 2 weeks ago, it missed A LOT
You need to do a better job with these. The lens is super sharp in AF-S, the problem is that it keeps doing this micros stuttering thing when you’re shooting AF-C. It is a legit problem for sure, but one that I hope is reported and fixed.
I see it as a trade off between the Tamron and the native lenses - Tamron feels more solid, is more compact, cheaper. The Nikkor 180-600 is larger and more expensive, but offers slightly better IQ, more reliable AF perhaps, internal focusing, and 100mm more reach. I believe the Tamron has better weather sealing, the Nikkor does not. Hey, if you have a bigger wallet and a bigger kit bag, go for the Nikon. The Tamron does have it's uses for travel, being more compact, though. Another YT channel pointed that out. It boils down to what you are shooting, and whether you're a pixel peeper.
Tamron need to adapt better to the Z mount. I read in the comments the 35-150 is awesome , but I have some issues with mine. The AF can be a bit flaky and slower than 24-70 2.8 , and for some reason takes the camera a bit longer to boot with , than with any native glass. Tamron send us a FW update for the 150-500 and 35-150.
Doubt it , mine rarely miss a beat. only on specific situations with native glass. ( and I don't change the setup on every occasion) Perfect? no , but works really well on 98% of my scenarios. I'll try a Sony soon to compare.
Speaking of the 180-600, Nikon get your sh*t together and start getting them out. You can't find the damn lens anywhere and people have been waiting almost as long as people waited for a Z9.
Not necessarily If he had been using the 180-600, he would have been aware of it's size from the beginning, and probably been a bit farther back. The issue he was complaining about wasn't the overall size of the lens. He was complaining about how much of a difference there is between not zoomed, and zoomed, mixed with how tight the zoom throw is, and how that made his composition more of a challenge than with other lenses
Not gonna lie, I no longer trust your reviews ever since you've been in the pocket of Canon. It's a shame, used to love your content, especially as someone who owns every possible camera; Canon, Nikon, Sony, RED, Black Magic, etc... but I have zero brand loyalty, but I want objective reviews.
he complaining that 3.7lb heavy lends. he should go out get sigma sport F mount 120-300mm F/2.8 on Z9. i hand hold that beast no monopod or tripod. also i will hold for half of whole soccer game. do not put it down at all.
On the contrary, the 50-400 has quickly become a go-to and recommended lens by many landscape photographers. Is it perfect? No. But it is excellent. And inexpensive. Several other Tamron lenses have gained very respectable reviews, too. They’ve really upped their game in recent years. But even the old Tamron 28-200 zoom that I owned in film days 30+ years ago was good enough for decent prints.
I disagree. I have the 17-28 and 35-150 and I have taken over 20000 photos with them, no issues, super sharp, and very fast focus with A7 IV. I do have it at the back of my mind that I need to replace the 17-28 with 16-35 GM, but never for 35-150. It seems like an irreplaceable lens to me for now.
I’m still happy with the performance of their DSLR 100-400 for what I paid. They typically deliver better bang-for-buck than first party options and these days can compete head-to-head with first party options, like the 35-150 f2-f2.8.
It's interesting, I reviewed this lens two years ago for E mount and it was a slightly different story. But now that Nikon offers an awesome native option similar to this one for a little more money...i'd probably look that direction first. How about you, agree?
I agree, the 180-600 with internal zoom is the better choice if you can afford it and have the space for it. Same with the Sony 200-600. Both lenses are tremendous for the prices and features they offer. Side note, I love these videos on the weekend to watch with a coffee in the morning- thanks Fro!
I appreciate your frustration with having to give it the "Not Recommended" review.
It would be interesting to see a comparison of the Nikon 180-600 and the Tamron 150-500 Z using the Zf, or the Z6III (if it is released soon). If someone has spent the money on the Z9/Z8, they can probably find the extra $500 for the Nikon 180-600.
I've learned a lot from you and absolutely value your opinion. And while I'm not saying you're wrong in any way, I will say that I did buy this lens and have been happy with the decision. Now, there are a couple of caveats there-- 1) I'm not a pro; I have a Z8 mostly paired with a Tamron 35-150 that I use for concert photography, and that lens does a great job. Because of how well that works, I went for the 150-500 for more reach. 2) I wanted something that wouldn't break the bank as a way to carry around something with more reach, mostly to try wildlife or outdoor festival/concert photography. 3) As compelling as the Nikon 180-600 offering was, it's not nearly as portable and is significantly more expensive. I need to be able to carry both lenses in my bag, as a general use case.
I've had a good experience with the lens, and it has been sharp for me. I've gotten some nice shots using it. That's not to say that I would have gone wrong spending more on the Nikon option-- but I definitely don't regret getting this one and I think it's actually extremely good value for money, at least for my use case. Maybe it's less fun to use for sports as you'd tested it; I have no idea. You did mention that it could be for some people, so credit there for acknowledging that-- but I have liked it, in the interest of fair and balanced reporting.
I really enjoy your channel-- thanks for the great work.
Putting this in the main comments section in case it helps anyone else: I've learned a lot from you and absolutely value your opinion. And while I'm not saying you're wrong in any way, I will say that I did buy this lens and have been happy with the decision. Now, there are a couple of caveats there-- 1) I'm not a pro; I have a Z8 mostly paired with a Tamron 35-150 that I use for concert photography, and that lens does a great job. Because of how well that works, I went for the 150-500 for more reach. 2) I wanted something that wouldn't break the bank as a way to carry around something with more reach, mostly to try wildlife or outdoor festival/concert photography. 3) As compelling as the Nikon 180-600 offering was, it's not nearly as portable and is significantly more expensive. I need to be able to carry both lenses in my bag, as a general use case.
I've had a good experience with the lens, and it has been sharp for me. I've gotten some nice shots using it. That's not to say that I would have gone wrong spending more on the Nikon option-- but I definitely don't regret getting this one and I think it's actually extremely good value for money, at least for my use case. Maybe it's less fun to use for sports as you'd tested it; I have no idea. You did mention that it could be for some people, so credit there for acknowledging that-- but I have liked it, in the interest of fair and balanced reporting.
I really enjoy your channel-- thanks for the great work.
Its a pretty solid low cost option in all reality.
The 180-600 is going to reign in this segment for Z mount. Yes it’s big but it functions so well and being an internal zoom seems to dramatically help with handling . I find the weight to sit near the body ,and even with a zf body ,it’s a very manageable lens .
Exactly.
I'd also push birders to the 180-600 too as a birder myself.
The issue is the 200-500 F mount and the 180-600 are too big to be brought into sports events when they have lens length restrictions for those of us who want to take shots at a game but aren't media credentialed. This lens fits under the length even when extended. Same for the F mount 100-400 Tamron. So it's one or the other.
I know what people say about buying old slr lenses, but you can find a Nikon 200-500 used for like $600 now. If you’re looking to save money, I’d go with that, if you’re not, I agree with Jared, save the extra $500 and go up to the 180-600.
You mean like 900$ now for Nikon AF-S 200-500mm F/5.6E VR ED
@@montazownianr1 No, that’s not what I mean. I found mine in perfectly acceptable condition on MPB for $654 and even now I’m seeing listings on MPB and KEH for $739 and $758 respectively. Multiple on Ebay in that $6-700 range as well.
@@montazownianr1 no, I mean $600. I bought mine for $654 on MPB and found similar listings ranging from $650-700 on mpb and Keh
I've got this lens on Sony E-Mount and I quite like it. For me, it's a good balance of size and weight (just about) when going on long hikes for wildlife shots. Plus it's one of the few lenses that goes beyond 400mm that fit's in to my bag!
However, I do remember another lens reviewer who reviewed this Tamron lens a while ago did note that at the long end, on a 42mp sensor was pushing the lenses sharpness. Good for a 24mp sensor, but less so on a sensor almost double the mp count. So maybe that explains the lack of critical sharpness at the long end?
Funny story. I'm new to Nikon mirrorless. I watch a lot of reviews and so far the only two lenses I own for my mirrorless system got bad reviews from Jared and yet I am thrilled with them.
Now I am considering this Tamron. I really do appreciate the points you made regarding this lens and am now leaning away from buying it and waiting...waiting and waiting for the Nikon 180-600.
But, a couple of things to consider if budget is an issue. 1) Filter size for the Tamron is common and fairly small. I already have this size covered so there is significant savings there. 2) Built in Arca-Swiss mount on the tripod foot of the Tamron. That's another $100 bucks or so.
So when you consider a $100 (minimum) for a filter or two and $100 for a good A-S plate you're looking at a difference of $700 between these two lenses.
So $700 plus utter lack of availability of the Nikon keeps this lens on my short list.
I own both and have had the same experience as you. The Tamron only makes it in the bag as it is smaller to travel with but misses quite often in non challenging situations. My solution was to buy a bigger bag. I will second the notion of saving up for one of the native lenses or give it some time and pick up one second hand. Very disappointed after how good the 35-150mm Tamron turned out to be for Z mount.
At 500 mm seeing can be a problem, especially for F6.7 or higher. That's the nature of (moisture and hot) air. And seeing can be a problem for e.g. 3 seconds and than there is a lucky time for 0.3 seconds with clear vision.... You get what you pay for!
I have the 150-500mm in the e-mount. I was really leery of the f/5.0-6.7. My lens at about 490mm immediately drops to f/6.3. You have to bottom out the zoom stop at 500mm to see f/6.7. I've shot track & field college Nationals, softball, lacrosse, and wildlife during the day and I am very happy with the result. It's a great compliment to my 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8. I rarely use my old G-Master 70-200mm f/2.8.
YESSS THANK YOUUUU so glad you reviewed this one.
you're welcome
Here in Finland/Europe the 180-600 costs 2100€, so the 1100 € I paid for the 150-500 was no brainer. The 150-500 is also much more compact, so I can easily carry it in my backbag, even with the lens hood on. 180-600 would be too big for that. For me the weight of the lens hasn't been an issue, even that I've skinny hands :D
I've also noticed that in some cases the focus isn't exactly where it should be, but when it is, at least my copy is really sharp (with Nikon Z6 II). I agree that the zoom is quite tight. It's actually so tight, that the lens itself rotates a bit against the body. I thought there was something wrong with the lens mount in my camera, but according to Nikon service everything is as it should.
One more negative thing is that the VC of the 150-500 isn't super effective. But in overall I've been quite happy with the lens. The 180-600 would be even better, but at least for me the price and size differences were the biggest points against that.
Agree to all you describe about the lens. Sharpness is really good on my Z7 all the way to 500 mm wide open. After is quick and accurate. When I compare this lens to my previous Tamron 150-600 G2 this new lens is a big step up in all regards except VR/VC where the Standard mode is less stable than the Sports mode regardless of shooting situation. The problem with critical sharpness is somewhat subjective of course but so far I have no complaints. In a couple of Jared’s pics it seems like the camera (not the lens) didn’t manage to focus on the right part of the image, for example the first image seems soft on the eye but not so much on the eye brow or the stubble.
Yeah people dismiss weight and price like you should just go out and buy the best regardless.
But for what it is the 150-500 is great.
@@hansforsstrom5772thank you for this comment. Owned the G2 for many years and sold it when switching to a Z6ii for traveling the world. Now in Japan I just bought the 150-500 and am looking forward to using it in Australia and new Zealand and everything that comes after. Was afraid the G2 was the better Glas 😂
Not native and heavier, but for a super zoom, i still love the 60-600 sigma after years.
I frequently hike with it because i carry 1 camera/lens for birds to waterfalls. Mmaaayyybe carry a wide for scenery, but even then i will normally just take 4 shots and stitch unless something is moving.
The 180-600 is just such an unusually good value for IQ and build quality, they didn’t leave much room for Tamron or Sigma to compete and undercut them on price or value.
I LOVE my 180-600 mm on my Z8
@@Mr09260 gonna buy this combo soon too, great value for long range shooting. might get the 800mm f/6.3 as well
Good on you for just stating it straight up.
I just subscribed to the RAWtlak podcast this past Friday. I want to point out that RAWtalk is one word, not two words!
There are a whole LOT of “raw talk”, two words, podcasts. From raw wood, raw steaks, raw first aid, you name it raw.
"More than two shakes and you're playing with it" ... I see what you did there! 😂
Yea😂😂😂😂😂😂
"Lens Creep" should be your new T-shirt.
I'd buy.
You'll get arrested with that lens, FBI will mistake it for a bazooka! :P
Thx for this review , i was thinking about the tamron 150-500 .. also the 100-400 s lens , and the 180-600 .. what would be the best choice for in and oudoor photography ? Im doing moste of the time sports .
I used this lens on my 40 MP Fuji X-H2 before switching to Nikon, and I was pretty happy with it.
Image quality was fine, even on such a demanding sensor, and it's actually great for taking pictures of dragonflies and other insects, due to the high magnification factor. One thing I disliked was the fact that you can't lock the hood. I lost the hood twice while carrying the camera + lens around my neck and riding my bicycle, because it can't be locked and comes lose quite easily.
Thanks for the direct and honest review on this. Going to be saving for the Nikon version now.
thanks for your honest opinion.
Always!
100% agreed! I purchased two copies of this lens, thinking the first was a lemon. However, the second was not much better. The size is extremely attractive, and it actually fit in my bag, right alongside the Tammy Z 35-150 2/2.8 (which, on the other hand, is extraordinary!!!). The performance though was subpar and unpredictable…and soft. Both copies were returned and will wait for the 180-600 when it becomes available…maybe in 2026?!? 😂
Not only does this lens not have a VR button (unlike the Sony version), I think that the optical VR has been disabled by Tamron for the Z-mount. I tested this lens on a brick wall with my Z5 and noticed that with IBIS turned on I only got 1 stop improvement compared to no IBIS. That's why I returned the lens.
I pre-ordered this lens and I REALLY wanted to like it. When it came in though, I put it on my camera & there was a LOT of rotational play between the camera body & the lens. There was so much play that I was concerned that maybe the contacts might mis-align. I refused to accept it, and ultimately, I got a 100-400 that was brought in on a trade-in that was in Like New condition (for about the same price as I would have paid for a new 180-600.
I also have that same issue with the rotational play between body and the lens. There is quite similar rotation with some of my Nikkor Z lenses also, but it's much more noticeable with the 150-500, because of the longer length and tight zoom ring. I sent my Z6 II body to warrant service, but according to Nikon the body is between tolerances.
Ooh! Ooh! Great Lightroom mini-tutorial!
One concern I had with this lens was the fit on the Z mount. There's were a couple user reviews on the B&H website which mentioned loose fit on the camera body, but I guess Tamron resolved that?
I’m just waiting for a Z mount Sigma 60-600 Sport… I love my f mount but I’m tired of the adapter… even more tired of forgetting to put it in my bag only to show up at a shoot without it…
Perhaps the Tamron plays nicer on the E mount because Sony owns 15% OF Tamron. Sony adds a little extra sauce...perhaps.
I need a good E-mount alternative tho. Any recommendations?
I had this lens on X mount for a little bit. Didn't keep it because of the tight zoom ring. Every time I zoomed in and out the force I had to put on it decoupled the lens from the mount slight enough to turn off my EVF glitching the camera out.
A mon avis, le problème des images floues vient de la stabilisation de l'objectif Tamron. J'ai un gros taux de réussite en matière de netteté lorsque je règle la stabilisation sur 2 (mode sport) même en images fixes idem pour le Tamron 50-400 mm.
Good point - using the proper VC mode matters with Tamron lenses, especially at higher shutters like 1/1600.
I was thinking about to buy this one. Now I’m not sure anymore. I guess I ‘ll switch over to the 180-600. I was always satisfied with the Nikon lenses. Thanks for your work !
How I see it, if you don't want to spend too much and have already a 200-500 then keep it, if you don't have it then get the tamron, if you can spend more get the 180-600.
Can't wait to put it on my Zf. The perfect companion for my 40mm f2. :)
They look plenty sharp to me.
"Don't play with it too much" should be on the next t-shirt.
I wonder if a firmware update will fix any of the focusing/sharpness issues
I guess I better save up for the nikon 100-400.
Waiting for the 180-600 to be in stock since forever. Was thinking about the Tamron option, will continue to wait I guess.
Just gotta order it on the website and they’ll ship. Waited 1 month for mine which isn’t bad
I've waited for mine for 3 months, but it was worth it!!! totally in love with my 180-600!!
@@photography_by_mnl absolutely agree. It is an amazing lens.
Interesting enough, I accumulated the money and bought it right from the store. It's absolutely beast of a lens. The big size is compensated by perfect handling and internal zoom. IQ is great for a zoom lens, especially at 400mm and 500mm.
I feel like these longer zoom tamron lens get soft at further out distances. It seems to be a thing people have been complaining about.
Question: How does your preset work with wildlife and in PS and NOT LRC? Thanks!
I was about to protest, but then I looked at other options on KEH for the Nikon F mount; I deleted my comment real quick...
Thank you very much for your reviews, they are very much appreciated
any time
@froknowsphoto - When you tested this lens, was your Z9 on the latest firmware? I am wondering if that would make a difference on the focus.
The firmware would be irrelevant, regardless. Nothing in the firmware changed how the auto focus worked from the last firmware
I have tested this lens last year and I didn‘t like it either. I had the same problems with sharpness and aperture. I also didn’t like the handling and the quite cheap looking/ feeling body of the lens (including the zoom ring). I mostly shot wildlife and landcape. I am glad that I did NOT buy it.
Yeah I'm looking forward for this one for my Nikon D3300.
It's Z mount and full frame. You will get even softer results than those shooting on full frame bodies. Get yourself an old Nikkor F mount 600mm lens instead. Or try get a nice Nikkor F 300mm lens with a teleconvertor
@@jakilahmoulien9070 Sure man... awesome advice. Thanks for your help
Thanks for being so FRONEST
I have this on Sony and it works pretty good..
Does Nikon not give you the focal length in the VF or am I missing something?
It does not
I wish both focal length and distance were reported in the VF, and in the EXIF wish they included distance as well - maybe I missed it?
Hi Sir.
Could you please make a video comparison between Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 aps-c & Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 FE. As the FE lens has dropped its price, now it's less than the Aps-c in India.
I own the 180-600 and love it. I’ve owned Tamron in the past but sold them all off when I moved to the Z mount bodies. One lens I am looking forward to a Z mount on is the sigma 60-600 for using as a cinema lens on my Z9 to be a super cheap version of the Canon 50-1000.
Love were getting z lenses from third party
None of the big Tammies -- or Sigmas -- are good for team sports photography. They are too heavy and bulky, so keep the tripod collar on and use a support. Yeah, they'll do, if that's all you have have. But, they they are so much better suited to sit-and-wait situations like wildlife, motor sports, and surfing. If you miss a shot, it's no big deal. There'll be another chance in a few minutes.
It’s probably the lens that isn’t sharp. I have the 150-600 g2 ef that I use on my R6. It is not “tack” sharp and seems to be worse over time. My last bird shoot 2 weeks ago, it missed A LOT
Maybe Tamron will put that USB-C port to good use and provide a software update to address this… unless it’s the glass itself..
You need to do a better job with these. The lens is super sharp in AF-S, the problem is that it keeps doing this micros stuttering thing when you’re shooting AF-C. It is a legit problem for sure, but one that I hope is reported and fixed.
On the E mount, might as well get the 200-600😅
I see it as a trade off between the Tamron and the native lenses - Tamron feels more solid, is more compact, cheaper. The Nikkor 180-600 is larger and more expensive, but offers slightly better IQ, more reliable AF perhaps, internal focusing, and 100mm more reach. I believe the Tamron has better weather sealing, the Nikkor does not. Hey, if you have a bigger wallet and a bigger kit bag, go for the Nikon. The Tamron does have it's uses for travel, being more compact, though. Another YT channel pointed that out. It boils down to what you are shooting, and whether you're a pixel peeper.
Tamron need to adapt better to the Z mount.
I read in the comments the 35-150 is awesome , but I have some issues with mine.
The AF can be a bit flaky and slower than 24-70 2.8 , and for some reason takes the camera a bit longer to boot with , than with any native glass.
Tamron send us a FW update for the 150-500 and 35-150.
It’s probably
More to do with Nikons af than anything.
@@froknowsphotosuch a stereotypical response from you. Hah.
Doubt it , mine rarely miss a beat.
only on specific situations with native glass.
( and I don't change the setup on every occasion)
Perfect? no , but works really well on 98% of my scenarios.
I'll try a Sony soon to compare.
Dan catching strays 😂💪
rf 100-500 being the best lens out of these options
Tamron has released a firmware update for the lens which addresses the autofocus issues.
The Nikon lens in the used or refurb market will probably close that $500 gap, and make the Tamron moot.
The Nikon 180-600 now costs $700 more than the Tamron. It went up rather quickly.
After first five minutes of review… Feels like I can’t watch it anymore 😂😂 No single positive news 🤣🤣
Maybe it failed the sniff test because of your breath? what did you eat before doing the video? LOL ;-)
Speaking of the 180-600, Nikon get your sh*t together and start getting them out. You can't find the damn lens anywhere and people have been waiting almost as long as people waited for a Z9.
To me it looks like the same Tamron rear or forward focus points. They are almost never spot on.
Hi everybody
hi
Awesome
Dude.. the 180-600 is even longer than the zoomed out Tamron. You would have still hit the pole.
Not necessarily
If he had been using the 180-600, he would have been aware of it's size from the beginning, and probably been a bit farther back.
The issue he was complaining about wasn't the overall size of the lens. He was complaining about how much of a difference there is between not zoomed, and zoomed, mixed with how tight the zoom throw is, and how that made his composition more of a challenge than with other lenses
Not gonna lie, I no longer trust your reviews ever since you've been in the pocket of Canon. It's a shame, used to love your content, especially as someone who owns every possible camera; Canon, Nikon, Sony, RED, Black Magic, etc... but I have zero brand loyalty, but I want objective reviews.
soft IQ and slow autofocus like most of these third party telephoto zooms....
Dude is predisposed against it from the get-go, zero amount of objectivity. Yeah, that will be another nice round of Fro "Review".
Can't trust lens sniffers
ISO 4000 is never going to look critically sharp.
Aspiring wildlife photographer from India, can I get a shout-out??😊
"bird arms" lol FRO does not know bird anatomy
Focus issues on a Nikon.... Shocking.
he complaining that 3.7lb heavy lends. he should go out get sigma sport F mount 120-300mm F/2.8 on Z9. i hand hold that beast no monopod or tripod. also i will hold for half of whole soccer game. do not put it down at all.
Tamron is never a good option…there’s always better options.
it actually can be these days. They have some very nice option.
On the contrary, the 50-400 has quickly become a go-to and recommended lens by many landscape photographers. Is it perfect? No. But it is excellent. And inexpensive. Several other Tamron lenses have gained very respectable reviews, too. They’ve really upped their game in recent years. But even the old Tamron 28-200 zoom that I owned in film days 30+ years ago was good enough for decent prints.
I disagree. I have the 17-28 and 35-150 and I have taken over 20000 photos with them, no issues, super sharp, and very fast focus with A7 IV.
I do have it at the back of my mind that I need to replace the 17-28 with 16-35 GM, but never for 35-150. It seems like an irreplaceable lens to me for now.
@@froknowsphoto nah
I’m still happy with the performance of their DSLR 100-400 for what I paid. They typically deliver better bang-for-buck than first party options and these days can compete head-to-head with first party options, like the 35-150 f2-f2.8.