Thanks to your videos, I decided to buy this Tamron. I knew that the Nikon 28-400 was not sharp enough for me and that the Nikon 100-400 was too expensive. Delivery in a few days. Thank You. Btw I bough lens holder aswell
This lens is far cheaper then Nikon's 100-400 and slightly lighter too. I think this Tamron is a good compromise for what it offers. I'm eyeing their 35-150 especially. Thank you for your input Sir!
It was very nice to see an option come in for this focal length slot. I've been impressed with it so far and agree that it is a good compromise for what it offers.
I'll do a longer video talking about the Nikon 28-400mm and 100-400 and the Tamron 50-400mm, but in my opinion, the Tamron 50-400mm is a pretty solid lens. It just *feels* better than the 28-400mm and faster as well. If using it as the only lens, I'd get a touch worried that 50mm might not be wide enough. When I used the 28-400mm I never felt like I couldn't get a wide enough focal length, I had a couple of cases with the 50-400mm, I felt just a bit cramped at 50mm. With that said, pair the 50-400 with a 14-30 or a 24-70 and you have a super nice two lens kit. Longer video on the topic coming in a few weeks!
@@ken9576 Yeah, for the same price you get a pretty nice lens and only lose a bit off the wide end of things compared to the 28-400. The 28-400 size and weight is nice, I've been able to get some good pictures with it! So it has its place!
Great review of the usability of the lens. The super technical is as you mentioned, nit-picking. Knowing if it is a good purchase for general usage is helpful in the decision-making process for a purchase. You tested in the only place in Ohio I miss...
Cedar Falls is my favorite in the park! Yep - I'm always most interested in how the lens works in practice. I was pretty happy after this first outing with the lens. I am thinking it is a great option for people wanting a more affordable way into that 100-400 focal length in the Nikon world - just need to get some more time with the lens in the next week or two!
@@JeffreyTadlockPhotography I also noted and like your screensaver of the Superstition Mountains from what looks like a view from Lost Dutchman SP. It's amazing how the Arizona skies light up the area. I just got back from a trip through that area.
@@jonreed1905 With all my Arizona trips last year, I really became enamored with the Lost Dutchman area and the Superstitions in general. Did lots of exploring out there on my trips! Hard to beat Arizona!
Thanks! I was pretty impressed with the lens as a viable option to the more expensive Nikon 100-400. The location is Hocking Hills State Park in Ohio, specifically at Cedar Falls.
I have looked at a lot of reviews on this lens and it does not look that sharp at longer distances. I just don't see the tack sharp image that the old nikkor 80-400 has. I would like to buy it, but would not sell the old beast until I compared them. I use a Z7 with the Z mount converter on my 80-400.
That makes sense to be sure before getting rid of the 80-400mm lens. I've never had that lens to compare to, but I know it seems to be the lens people are comparing this one to as they either move to mirrorless, or consider moving away from an adapted lens.
Er so I'm supposed to buy a lens that weighs over a kilogram for my Z mount and it does not come with an integral tripod mount? Ha no sale Tamron, not even with a $120 afterthought!
It is definitely a disappointment, but - I spent an extra $100 on a foot for my Nikon 100-400 because the OEM foot wasn't ArcaSwiss compatible. On the old Sigma 100-400 I had, it didn't come with a tripod collar/foot either and in that case the 3rd party ones weren't great, as it restricted rotating the lens to portrait orientation. For the price point of the Tamron, even adding another $120 still puts it in a good price point option compared to something like the Nikon 100-400. (and there might be less expensive 3rd party collar options for it that are viable). So annoying, yes. Deal breaking, no.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks to your videos, I decided to buy this Tamron. I knew that the Nikon 28-400 was not sharp enough for me and that the Nikon 100-400 was too expensive. Delivery in a few days. Thank You. Btw I bough lens holder aswell
I think the Tamron 50-400mm is a great choice. It performed very well for me when I had it out, nice solid construction. Enjoy the new lens!
This lens is far cheaper then Nikon's 100-400 and slightly lighter too. I think this Tamron is a good compromise for what it offers. I'm eyeing their 35-150 especially. Thank you for your input Sir!
It was very nice to see an option come in for this focal length slot. I've been impressed with it so far and agree that it is a good compromise for what it offers.
I think I would choose this lens over the 28-400. Looking for an all-rounder.
I'll do a longer video talking about the Nikon 28-400mm and 100-400 and the Tamron 50-400mm, but in my opinion, the Tamron 50-400mm is a pretty solid lens. It just *feels* better than the 28-400mm and faster as well.
If using it as the only lens, I'd get a touch worried that 50mm might not be wide enough. When I used the 28-400mm I never felt like I couldn't get a wide enough focal length, I had a couple of cases with the 50-400mm, I felt just a bit cramped at 50mm.
With that said, pair the 50-400 with a 14-30 or a 24-70 and you have a super nice two lens kit.
Longer video on the topic coming in a few weeks!
If this was out before I bought the 28-400mm I would have gone this route
@@ken9576 Yeah, for the same price you get a pretty nice lens and only lose a bit off the wide end of things compared to the 28-400.
The 28-400 size and weight is nice, I've been able to get some good pictures with it! So it has its place!
@@JeffreyTadlockPhotography great job ! Looking forward to watching the longer video. Thank you.
Great review of the usability of the lens. The super technical is as you mentioned, nit-picking. Knowing if it is a good purchase for general usage is helpful in the decision-making process for a purchase. You tested in the only place in Ohio I miss...
Cedar Falls is my favorite in the park!
Yep - I'm always most interested in how the lens works in practice. I was pretty happy after this first outing with the lens. I am thinking it is a great option for people wanting a more affordable way into that 100-400 focal length in the Nikon world - just need to get some more time with the lens in the next week or two!
@@JeffreyTadlockPhotography I also noted and like your screensaver of the Superstition Mountains from what looks like a view from Lost Dutchman SP. It's amazing how the Arizona skies light up the area. I just got back from a trip through that area.
@@jonreed1905 With all my Arizona trips last year, I really became enamored with the Lost Dutchman area and the Superstitions in general. Did lots of exploring out there on my trips! Hard to beat Arizona!
great video and now a lens on my wish list. Could you please identify the location you are at? I could not pick it up as you said it so quickly :)😀
Thanks! I was pretty impressed with the lens as a viable option to the more expensive Nikon 100-400.
The location is Hocking Hills State Park in Ohio, specifically at Cedar Falls.
I have looked at a lot of reviews on this lens and it does not look that sharp at longer distances. I just don't see the tack sharp image that the old nikkor 80-400 has. I would like to buy it, but would not sell the old beast until I compared them. I use a Z7 with the Z mount converter on my 80-400.
That makes sense to be sure before getting rid of the 80-400mm lens. I've never had that lens to compare to, but I know it seems to be the lens people are comparing this one to as they either move to mirrorless, or consider moving away from an adapted lens.
Did I miss a video about the FLM GE-63 geared head? That's a heckuva nice mount.
Sorry... back to the Tamron 50-400... 😄
Haven't missed it! That video is in the works - most likely next week's video, maybe the following week, but coming soon!
Er so I'm supposed to buy a lens that weighs over a kilogram for my Z mount and it does not come with an integral tripod mount? Ha no sale Tamron, not even with a $120 afterthought!
It is definitely a disappointment, but - I spent an extra $100 on a foot for my Nikon 100-400 because the OEM foot wasn't ArcaSwiss compatible. On the old Sigma 100-400 I had, it didn't come with a tripod collar/foot either and in that case the 3rd party ones weren't great, as it restricted rotating the lens to portrait orientation.
For the price point of the Tamron, even adding another $120 still puts it in a good price point option compared to something like the Nikon 100-400. (and there might be less expensive 3rd party collar options for it that are viable).
So annoying, yes. Deal breaking, no.