-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon 200-500 versus Tamron 150-600
- Thread starter Yochi23
- Start date
lonewolf1983
Leading Member
i had the tamron on a different system, and came close to buying another when i switched to nikon.
I chose the 200-500 instead, and yes it a bit heavier but I wanted the extra stop of light and generally dont need more than 500mm reach.
Shot 2 events with it and very happy
I chose the 200-500 instead, and yes it a bit heavier but I wanted the extra stop of light and generally dont need more than 500mm reach.
Shot 2 events with it and very happy
Kris in CT
Senior Member
You mean 1/3 stop?
lonewolf1983
Leading Member
nonquixote
Member
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 7
I think that was a wise decision. The Nikon and Sigma lenses might be a bit better than the Tamron in some respects, which could influence new purchasers, but I think that if you have one of these three already, there's just not enough difference between them to justify switching.
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
Sounds like a very good conclusion! The difference between various brands are fairly small, unless you for some reason really need fast focus, where the Sigma Sport is a winner!
Yochi23
Leading Member
Rexgig0
Veteran Member
I tried a pre-owned Tamron 150-600 on my 5Ds R, and very nearly bought it, thinking it to be a decent, if not truly excellent, optical performance for a very good price. The weight is also nicely light, comparatively. This was, if I remember correctly, during the same visit to that local camera store when we handled a Nikkor 200-500/5.6, though I did not have a Nikon camera with me that day, so the Nikkor was attached to a D7000, to match the feel and weight of my wife's current bird/wildlife camera. (Yes, she is considering the D500.)
Tord, I understand what you mean about reviewers having problems with the 200/500/5.6, as this camera store has had several of these lenses returned. One was for mechanical failure, after being OK for a short while, and two for optical issues, if I remember correctly.
The next week, we bought my wife a Nikkor 80-400G. I think the weight, and therefore better hand-hold-ability, was the deciding factor. We may well buy her a longer lens later, for shooting with a tripod. Whether that will be a 200-500/5.6 remains to be seen. I am starting to really like the idea of the Sigma 150-600 Sport.
--
I wear a badge and pistol, and make evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. I enjoy using both Canons and Nikons.
Last edited:
Antal I Kozma
Senior Member
Thanks to you all. I decided to stay with my Tamron 150-600. Attaching a photo taken 2 days ago at 600mm. F6.3, /2000, ISO 1000 with hardly any PP
Good Morning Starshine
--
https://www.facebook.com/yochi.levanon
https://www.flickr.com/photos/yochi23/
Hi,
Very nice image. Looking at it on my high res monitor my comment is as follows. The only complaint that I have heard about the Tamron is that it is a bit soft at 600mm. I have the 200-500mm Nikkor. I think that had you used the Nikkor for this image there would be a measurably greater definition in feather detail. I find that the Nikkor zoom can produce IQ very close to the 500mm f4 prime. I have that too so I base this on first hand experience.
However, the Tamron only falls behind at 600mm, so I think that you do not lose out on keeping it. The 200-500mm Nikkor is not a speedster when it comes to focusing.
Best, AIK
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
The 80-400 VR AF-S is excellent at shorter distances, and the weight is back-friendly as well.
But pointed straight against the morning sun works, too, even for distant objects:
The Sigma Sport is a real star at longer distances, and when moving the focus from near to far, and back again. Very rarely does it hunt at all, and then almost only with a CX camera attached.
--
Tord_2 (at) photographer (dot) net
Mostly Nikon V1, V2, J5, & D600, user
Last edited:
Rexgig0
Veteran Member
Beautiful!
The 80-400G being better at the shorter distances is consistent with what I have seen in other narratives. A high-quality zoom that complements the 80-400G has now become a goal. While the 200-500/5.6 has not yet been eliminated from contention, the performance of the 150-600mm Sigmas at the longer end, and at longer distance, is compelling.
--
I wear a badge and pistol, and make evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. I enjoy using both Canons and Nikons.
Yochi23
Leading Member
Thanks
I try not using the 600mm but sometimes the results does nicely surprise me
Yochi
I try not using the 600mm but sometimes the results does nicely surprise me
Yochi
I'd say there is no question the the Nikon is heavier, shorter range, and much more expensive - with no improvement on af or image quality over the Tamron.
If that is "better" then I'm left scratching my head.
The image is shot at 600mm, the Nikon can't match it because it doesn't have a 600mm.
Shoot the Tamron at 500mm, and you have a contest.
Antal I Kozma
Senior Member
I understand that, however, why do you carry a lens that is not up to task at its longest focal length? Where you want to use it most, likely. It has been discussed by many on the net that the Nikkor is simply an optically superior lens to the Tamron. Just do a good search on the subject.
Beyond its optical quality the Nikkor also offers superior VR, good close up magnification and an overall sturdier construction. That said, The Tamron is cheaper than the Nikkor and its optical quality serves many just fine.
I have no dislike towards Tamron, had a few lenses of theirs through my years behind the camera. However, this particular long zoom just does not cut it for me. I have tested it shortly after it came out and decided to stay away from it. I tested Sigma's offerings too. The Sigma S is quite good, its weight distribution kept me from buying it. It is too front heavy. Then Came the Nikkor and it seemed like meeting all my criteria.
I use the 200-500mm Nikkor alongside my 500mm f4E FL prime. Optically it is very good just that its AF speed is nowhere close to the prime lens. Regardless, the zoom has its own advantages so I use both lenses, selectively depending on circumstances.
Best regards, AIK
This is the conclusion of a photography life article:
"If you handed me any of these lenses two years ago and told me they cost less than two grand I would be delighted by the results. They aren’t a challenge to Nikon and Canon’s supertelephoto primes, but for the price these give great value. Now that there are three to pick from, the obvious question is which one to choose. I’ll summarize the pros and cons first, then give some suggestions on which lens will be good for which shooters.
Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Contemporary
Pros – good center sharpness from near to far throughout the zoom range; quick autofocus.
Cons – soft corners, especially at longer focal lengths; shaky viewfinder image with image stabilization engaged; focus hunting; poor tracking for birds in flight; poor manual focusing. Also reverse zoom and focus from Nikon if you care about that.
Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3
Pros – good sharpness overall and best of bunch corner to corner at longer distances; fast accurate autofocus; decent tracking for birds in flight; decent image stabilization.
Cons – prone to occasional frustrating autofocus freeze-ups; big time dust pump; reverse focus from Nikon. Sample variation a concern.
Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6
Pros – Razor sharp up close; reliable accurate autofocus; tracks birds in flight well; good image stabilization.
Cons – soft at long distances, especially in the corners at longer focal lengths; big and bulky; large VR shift; initial AF acquisition is slower than Tami or Sigi; less range and shorter reach than Sigi or Tami.
Nikon Shooters
For all around shooting – wildlife plus landscapes – I suggest Tami as the best compromise"
Nikon 200-500mm vs Tamron 150-600mm vs Sigma 150-600mm C
photographylife.com
Well, we can play this game. Here's an except from Photography Life's review of the 200-500mm f/5.6 (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr/4)
As seen from the previous page of this review, the 200-500mm VR outperformed both Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary and Tamron 150-600mm VC at 500mm. What’s more impressive, is how the lens behaves when coupled with the Nikon TC-14E III 1.4x teleconverter. Unlike the 80-400mm VR, the 200-500mm VR worked admirably with the 1.4x TC, with fast and relatively accurate autofocus performance. This means that the lens could be compared to both Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary and Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm as well. And as I have demonstrated, the 200-500mm VR with the 1.4x teleconverter is capable of actually challenging the two lenses in sharpness, something I honestly did not expect to see.
Or we can acknowledge that all the recent crop of consumer super telephoto zooms offer very good performance and excellent value. If a photographer can't make a good image shooting with any one of 'em, it ain't the lens's fault.
As seen from the previous page of this review, the 200-500mm VR outperformed both Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary and Tamron 150-600mm VC at 500mm. What’s more impressive, is how the lens behaves when coupled with the Nikon TC-14E III 1.4x teleconverter. Unlike the 80-400mm VR, the 200-500mm VR worked admirably with the 1.4x TC, with fast and relatively accurate autofocus performance. This means that the lens could be compared to both Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary and Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm as well. And as I have demonstrated, the 200-500mm VR with the 1.4x teleconverter is capable of actually challenging the two lenses in sharpness, something I honestly did not expect to see.
Or we can acknowledge that all the recent crop of consumer super telephoto zooms offer very good performance and excellent value. If a photographer can't make a good image shooting with any one of 'em, it ain't the lens's fault.
vbuhay
Veteran Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum