Tamron 100-400

heartyfisher

I think its the weight... that tips the balance ... heh ..(sorry couldn't help myself ...)

I have happily used the old 200-400 F5.6 Tamron for years.. have been wanting to upgrade that for a while..
The things I disliked about it has been
1) the size and weight
2) the lack of VR and thus need a huge tripod. my little travelers tripod helps stabilize it but not good enough and carrying the big one just adds to the size and weight of the whole system
3) Not sharp enough wide open.. its not bad but i am getting terribly spoilt by the 70-200 F4.
4) Range 200-400 is nice enough but you kind of want more..

So comparing the 100-400 Tamron and the 200-500 Nikkor with these criteria,
1) The Tammy looks to have a huge advantage in lightness and size while the Nikkor is the same size or bigger!
2) The Tammy is usable without a tripod. Nice for travel photography.. Most people using the 200-500 I see seem to still carry a big tripod. For the tammy, if have to carry a tripod, my relatively small traveler's tripod should be good enough.
3) Both the Nikon and Tammy seem great wide open, much better than my old 200-400 especially the CA. NAS/GAS bites hard here...heh..
4) Range: 400 on DX seems good enough for me.. When using my 200-400 I find the wide end limiting me more. Using "digital zoom" at the long end is pretty good these days! Especially with a sharp lens.

Other criteria..
1) The Nikkor 200-500 CANT be used on the Nikon1 cameras. Not sure if the Tamron can but there is hope that it can.
2) The new Tamron TC works with the 100-400 .. could be cool to stick a 1.4x TC on it.. gets to 560mm F9. although its in the "will probably never happen" bucket ;-) still one of the new TC's may fall off ebay sometime in the next 10 years.. heh!

3) I have been fairly happy with my 85mm f1.8 VC Tamron.. so the new Tamron build quality and tech seems nice enough that I am happy to risk a "third party" lens.

4) I am seriously considering the 16-80 nikkor. so that pairs well with the 100-400, the 200-500 not as much. Especially, since I already know I find 200 a little limiting on the wide end. Another thing I know about myself is that I tend to gravitate to about the 170mm DX FOV. Which is reachable with both the 100-400 and the 16-80 (with digital zoom,almost) But, I am a bit worried I wont like the 80mm limit. I have the old 18-70 dx lens. I was a little bit frustrated with the long end when I used it. However, those days the "digital zoom" was much more limiting than now, and 16mm DX is nice.

Old tamron 200-400 @400 f8 on D500

Hiker

heartyfisher said:

Yup I think this lens is creeping to the top of the "list" ..

If I think about it I'll download a sample photo.

Hiker

Capt_Spaulding said:

If I can ask, what tips the scales away from the 200-500 Nikkor?

The Tamron is $600. less, very important to me, and half the weight. I am really impressed with the sharpness. Unfortunately yesterday when I went out to try it all the wildlife I normally see on any given day decided to go into hiding!! So I wasn't able to capture any shots without fencing. That $600. saved? That will help me get a good tripod/head, L bracket, and a CP filter for my Sigma 24-105!

Capt_Spaulding

Good points all. Thanks guys. I bought a nikkor 70-200 f4 back in December. So far it has proven to be incredibly sharp. No pictures of knives for fear of damaging the sensor. My plan now will be to see what my needs are over the next 5 to 6 months. If after that, I conclude I'm still in need of extra range, I'll give the tammy a hard look. For the moment the price differential has shrunk. B&H is listing it at $800.

thanks again,

Hiker

Capt_Spaulding said:

Good points all. Thanks guys. I bought a nikkor 70-200 f4 back in December. So far it has proven to be incredibly sharp. No pictures of knives for fear of damaging the sensor. My plan now will be to see what my needs are over the next 5 to 6 months. If after that, I conclude I'm still in need of extra range, I'll give the tammy a hard look. For the moment the price differential has shrunk. B&H is listing it at $800.

thanks again,

I promise I'll post some pictures!!! Soon!!!

Capt_Spaulding

I did a bit more research, reading the Angry Photographer's (somewhat superficial) review and Dustin Abbott's more lengthy and in depth piece. I have not seen a Nikkor 200-500 in the metal, and was shocked by how large it is when the AP compared them side by side. I can see why the size issue is daunting. I can't imagine using that baby in the field for any length of time. I'll be looking forward to pics. take care.

PB_PM

The AF-S 200-500 Nikkor isn't big or overly heavy for a telephoto, it's actually kind of smallish. If you think it is big you've never handled a truly big/heavy lens. I could see hand holding that little Nikkor no problem for a while. On the other hand, I wouldn't do it long with real big guns like my AF-S 200-400mm F4 VR, Sigma 150-300mm F2.8, or the even larger super telephotos that I've rented.

I'm amazed at how small the Sigma and Tamron meg-zoom lenses are. With the Nikon you are paying (weight and cost) for the fixed aperture throughout the zoom range. Of course you pay in another way with the third party stuff, by way of large variable apertures, massive extending barrels, slower AF (compared to the real big guns) and eventually zoom creep as they age.

heartyfisher

The size of the 200-500 is not really "daunting" but that lens is in a different category from the 100-400 tamron. I would still like one. But for the type of photography i do.. I think the 100-400 suites me better as a replacement for the old 200-400 f5.6 Though I do like the extra reach.. who knows i may grab one instead and keep my 18-140 to pair it with.. :-) its been a nice "kit lens"..
...
..
heh .. maybe not..

Capt_Spaulding

Thanks PB. I guess it depends on perspective. I've seen guys at race tracks carting around what look like Palomar telescopes on the front of multiple cameras. I just wasn't prepared for how big the 200-500 appears to be. Motor racing aside, I don't have much contact with the professional photographic world other than this forum. So chalk it up to naivete. Thanks for the "schooling."

Edit: I could use some range beyond my 70-200. We'll see where things go from here.

One quick question. Does the 200-500 zoom internally?

Capt_Spaulding

never mind the zoom question.

PB_PM

Capt_Spaulding said:

Thanks PB. I guess it depends on perspective. I've seen guys at race tracks carting around what look like Palomar telescopes on the front of multiple cameras. I just wasn't prepared for how big the 200-500 appears to be. Motor racing aside, I don't have much contact with the professional photographic world other than this forum. So chalk it up to naivete. Thanks for the "schooling."

Edit: I could use some range beyond my 70-200. We'll see where things go from here.

One quick question. Does the 200-500 zoom internally?

We all have our moments of learning, it’s hard to tell how meassive the leneses are from videos and pictures. It doesn’t dawn on you until you see them compared, and in person! I remember 8 years ago when I started with sports and wildlife with the first Gen AF-S 300mm F4, thinking it was big and heavy (it’s a 70-200mm F2.8 sized lens), then I saw someone with a 600mm F4 VR, and later with the 800mm F5.6, it was shocking. A lot of people with those lenses move them around with hand trucks on the trails at the bird sanctuary I frequent, (typically people who are retired).

Hiker

I've been working late nights and trying to figure out how to download a picture on this site is frustrating to me at least. I promise it will happen soon.

Jeff

PB_PM

You cannot upload pictures directly to this site, you need a third party image host.

heartyfisher

Hiker said:

I've been working late nights and trying to figure out how to download a picture on this site is frustrating to me at least. I promise it will happen soon.

Jeff

check out the thread .."How to Post a Photo on Photo-A-Day- NEW INSTRUCTIONS"

However those instructions seem a bit more complicated than needed..

I usually just
* go to the picture i want to post in my flickr account.
* Copy the link
* and then in this post here just click on the "attach file" icon above when editing and paste the URL.

Pistnbroke

Well I just bought one ..not here yet..its on its way from France ..what tips it against the 200-500 ..well its for the wife ..bit smaller and lighter but the 200--500 is £1000+ and I got the tamron for £465...they seem to be advertised here in UK at about £750 by some suppliers. I already have the tam 150-600

Capt_Spaulding

@Pistnbroke Pls let us know your thoughts after you wring it out. Thanks

Pistnbroke

I always let you know my thoughts !!!!
Plan is to work the focus back and forth a few hundred times and then set the fine focus adjust at 400mm then do some comparisons with the 300 f4 and 150-600 and let you know if I sent it back...but they say its very sharp,,we will see

Pistnbroke

the 100-400 arrived today about 2 pm ...A D810 was at the top of the pile in the floor safe so I used that .Checking fine focus on a sloping target the results were excellent .Not only did it not need any adjust (or maybe -1) I was able to use some of the finer graduation on the target I have never resolved with other long lenses. So sharpest I have ever had. Will test tomorrow on a D7100 and compare to the 150-600. There is a super moon so that will be a good target. Daughter has gone for spinal surgery so life in turmoil looking after her kid etc. I thought I would need a tap in console so ordered one from Germany but it looks like I wasted my money. Still no charge for the MRI scans or Spinal surgery in this country so must not complain.
will let you know how we go with the Moon.

Capt_Spaulding

@Pistnbroke Thanks. Best wishes for a speedy recovery for your daughter.

Pistnbroke

I said I would compare the 100-400 with the G1 150-600.
first I needed +7 on the FFA (not using dock) to get the focus right at 400mm wide open . then I tried the G1 at 400mm ...no difference in the image quality. At 600mm the image was degraded compaired to 400mm. So if you cropped into a small bird you would be better with the 100-400 or the G1 at 400mm . Have not checked at 500mm etc ( yet)
I then checked what FFA the G1 was on and it was +6. ( using a D7100)
This has implications for the dock but I will write about that when I have tested it.
I also need to compare the two lenses on the D810.
I did try a 1.4 Kenko teleplus 300 on the 100-400 and on both the 7100 and 810 the display in the LCD whet crazy flashing ....works "OK" with the G1
Hope this helps

Pistnbroke

Put an analysis of using the doc on its own thread

Capt_Spaulding

The fun and games with the dock notwithstanding, what's the lens like? I read a bolded sentence that advised buy Nikon Lenses, but ...

thanks

Pistnbroke

Yes I added some more information and lost the whole lot and certainly if you don't want the frustration of trying to get it to work on multiple bodies buy a Nikon lens.
I even built a giant focus chart from a length of 4x2 leaning at 30 deg to my fence 20m away with a ruler on it to check infinity settings.
All the reviews I read say that its as good as the canon and better than the sigma .
Its certainly very sharp wide open...I have read markings on charts I never seen before but I have yet to try it on some birds ..you don't get many in urban UK these days..will go up to the canal and see if I can find some ducks and let you know

Capt_Spaulding

I have two bodies, a D7200 and a D610 and am not sure I'd buy the dock. I'm still considering the Tammy, but am slowly drifting toward the 200-500 5.6. Thanks for the reports and sorry about the hassle. Good luck with the lens.

Pistnbroke

I carry the 150-600 but the 100-400 is for the wife as its a lot lighter. so the 200-500 would be a good choice for you if you can carry the weight.