Tamron 70-300 Z-Mount Test

I recently tested a second copy of the Tamron 70-300 in Z mount on my Z7: The lens performed similarly to the first copy that I tested a few months ago, which was poorly, relative to the Nikon 70-300 P FX VR version on an FTZ adapter. My main complaint with the Tamron(s) is poor resolution of distant subjects at 300mm.

In addition, the Nikon lens exhibited better peripheral resolution with closer subjects, but that could be due to the Tamron(s) having a curved field.

I hope that Nikon is able to squeeze the goodness of their F-mount zoom into a Z-mount package the size of the Tamron.

I gave it a try when it first came out and US Amazon had a sale for $500. I came to the same conclusion, it just wasn't up to par even on a 24mp body, much less a 45. I wasn't that concerned with anything but center sharpness, but at the longest focal lengths it just wasn't there. It's such a shame because I loved the form factor. Size and weight are great, and it's a single pumper. I sold it after a couple of months.

I have two of the Tamron/Nikon designs, the 17-28 and the 70-180, and love both of them. Of course they're twice the price.

Never did like this lens, it went soft at 200mm and stayed soft to 300mm. When I went to mirrorless with my Z7 II I compared the old lens to the 70-300mm Tamron the Tamron was a much much better lens. While it didn't come close to the sharpness of the 24-120 in either AF-S or Z mount it is a lens that will make excellent 24x36 inch prints. Yes, I want lenses that Print well and see no point in lenses with ultra high resolution that I don't need. I will also note that when I purchased my Z50II I decided to trade in the 70-300 for the Tamron 50-300mm f4.5-6.3 Di III VC RXD so I could used on on the Z50II. Below is an image shot with the 50-300 on the Z50II and IMO it is quite printable.

John Ideal said:

I have two of the Tamron/Nikon designs, the 17-28 and the 70-180, and love both of them. Of course they're twice the price.

Click to expand...

I too think that the Tamron 70-180 Z-mount is a gem. It certainly outperforms my old Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR.

monte12345 said:

I decided to trade in the 70-300 for the Tamron 50-300mm f4.5-6.3 Di III VC RXD so I could used on on the Z50II.

Click to expand...

I don't see that lens available in Z mount. Are you using the Sony verson with an adapter, or are you referring to the Tamron 50-400?

I have been fortunate with the lens copy I have. It is sharp at all focal lengths and focuses quickly, even in poor light.

AWG_Pics said:

I have been fortunate with the lens copy I have. It is sharp at all focal lengths and focuses quickly, even in poor light.

Click to expand...

You're lucky, or maybe I'm just unlucky. I've read some good reviews of the lens, and I suspect that some day I'll test a third sample.

Nikon came out with the Z mount version, but they just extended focal lengths on each end and made it 28-400. It's close to the same size and weight and beats the socks off my 70-300 AF-P Nikon on the FTZ.

Bob A L said:

Nikon came out with the Z mount version, but they just extended focal lengths on each end and made it 28-400. It's close to the same size and weight and beats the socks off my 70-300 AF-P Nikon on the FTZ.

Click to expand...

The relative compactness of the 28-400 is impressive. Its superior optical performance is not surprising, given its much higher price.

Richard M Nikon said:

Bob A L said:

Nikon came out with the Z mount version, but they just extended focal lengths on each end and made it 28-400. It's close to the same size and weight and beats the socks off my 70-300 AF-P Nikon on the FTZ.

Click to expand...

The relative compactness of the 28-400 is impressive. Its superior optical performance is not surprising, given its much higher price.

Click to expand...

The optical performance of the 28-400mm is apparently not superior to the considerably less expensive Tamron 70-300mm, the subject of this thread. Per Photography Life, the Tamron is sharper, both at 200mm and at 300mm.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-28-400mm-f-4-8-vr/3

I see the Tamron is still priced at $499, less than half the price of the $1149 Nikon. (Prices from Adorama)

The 28-400mm is among the weakest of the Nikon Z lenses. While it is certainly a versatile focal length range, I have to chuckle at the notion of it "beating the socks off' much of anything.

--
Jonathan
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jtr27/

jtr27 said:

The optical performance of the 28-400mm is apparently not superior to the considerably less expensive Tamron 70-300mm, the subject of this thread. Per Photography Life, the Tamron is sharper, both at 200mm and at 300mm.

Click to expand...

That seems consistent with the relative zoom ranges.

Also, it's likely that Photography Life tested a better Tamron specimen than Bob & I did.

Richard M Nikon said:

jtr27 said:

The optical performance of the 28-400mm is apparently not superior to the considerably less expensive Tamron 70-300mm, the subject of this thread. Per Photography Life, the Tamron is sharper, both at 200mm and at 300mm.

Click to expand...

That seems consistent with the relative zoom ranges.

Also, it's likely that Photography Life tested a better Tamron specimen than Bob & I did.

Click to expand...

Sample variation certainly is "a thing," and unfortunately is not confined to inexpensive third party zooms.

For lack of more precise statistics, we have to assume there is a real "x%" probability of getting a "bad copy," regardless of the price or brand, and so purchase from reputable sellers with a good return policy.

I will say, this is the first I've heard of sample variation on the Tamron 70-300mm.

Setting aside copy to copy variation, both the Tamron 70-300mm and Nikon 28-400mm are of course consumer grade lenses by design, meaning that we have to have realistic expectations.

That doesn't mean there aren't differences between the two, both in performance and in value for the money. And I personally find it easier to have realistic expectations at $499 than at $1149.

Richard M Nikon said:

jtr27 said:

The optical performance of the 28-400mm is apparently not superior to the considerably less expensive Tamron 70-300mm, the subject of this thread. Per Photography Life, the Tamron is sharper, both at 200mm and at 300mm.

Click to expand...

That seems consistent with the relative zoom ranges.

Also, it's likely that Photography Life tested a better Tamron specimen than Bob & I did.

Click to expand...

I replaced my beloved 70-300mm AFp, (which I actually got just before it officially shipped) with the Tamron. I loved the Nikon and tried them side by side. Optically they were about the same, the Tamron possibly a hair better above 150mm and the Nikon by about the same below 100mm. With IBIS it's fine - in fact with the latest bodies it's better than the adapted Nikon.

The Nikon feels better made and works with third party Tcons, in an emergency. Having VR is a no brainier, if I was planning on using it with the DX bodies. Ditto if I still wanted it for F-mount.

The size and weight of the Tamron wins out for my use but otherwise no big deal.

jtr27 said:

Richard M Nikon said:

jtr27 said:

The optical performance of the 28-400mm is apparently not superior to the considerably less expensive Tamron 70-300mm, the subject of this thread. Per Photography Life, the Tamron is sharper, both at 200mm and at 300mm.

Click to expand...

That seems consistent with the relative zoom ranges.

Also, it's likely that Photography Life tested a better Tamron specimen than Bob & I did.

Click to expand...

Sample variation certainly is "a thing," and unfortunately is not confined to inexpensive third party zooms.

For lack of more precise statistics, we have to assume there is a real "x%" probability of getting a "bad copy," regardless of the price or brand, and so purchase from reputable sellers with a good return policy.

I will say, this is the first I've heard of sample variation on the Tamron 70-300mm.

Setting aside copy to copy variation, both the Tamron 70-300mm and Nikon 28-400mm are of course consumer grade lenses by design, meaning that we have to have realistic expectations.

That doesn't mean there aren't differences between the two, both in performance and in value for the money. And I personally find it easier to have realistic expectations at $499 than at $1149.

Click to expand...

On my Z7, Zf and Z6iii it is quite good at all ranges. Maybe I got lucky. It is lite and fast enough for the situations I use it in.

Richard M Nikon said:

I recently tested a second copy of the Tamron 70-300 in Z mount on my Z7: The lens performed similarly to the first copy that I tested a few months ago, which was poorly, relative to the Nikon 70-300 P FX VR version on an FTZ adapter. My main complaint with the Tamron(s) is poor resolution of distant subjects at 300mm.

In addition, the Nikon lens exhibited better peripheral resolution with closer subjects, but that could be due to the Tamron(s) having a curved field.

I hope that Nikon is able to squeeze the goodness of their F-mount zoom into a Z-mount package the size of the Tamron.

Click to expand...

When I tested one about a month ago, I felt for $500 it was maybe OK. I mean in some respects, at the longer FLs I felt it did about the same job as the 70-300 AFP I had bought (And returned) but the telephoto end might have been slightly better but I was mostly doing genreal shooting (a few test charts and things around the house and at the local cameras store, so nothing real-world I guess).

My hope is that Nikon does make their own version however I am starting to doubt this though as it seems as they are using Tamron to fill gaps in the line that they don't really want to pursue or to allow for cheaper alternatives to the Nikon options (a good example is the 50-400 and the 100-500 Tamrons). My concern though is that now that we have the 28-400 and also the 24-200, Nikon may not be inclined to make a consumer telephoto zoom because of those two lenses.... and I mean think about it, we are now 7-8 years into this system and still no 70-300 and yet now Canon and Sony (and others) have one, but not Nikon. The only thing Nikon has is the Tamron version.

--
* PLEASE NOTE: I generally unsubscribe from forums/comments after a period of time has passed, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. *

Megadap seems to have this adapter "tuned" to adapt Sony Brand lenses where everything functions perfectly. With Tamron there are some gotcha's. Good news it will work once you figure out the gotcha's in regards to Image Stabilization. In my case it's an In Lens Stabilization ONLY adapter and on the Full Frame Nikon's you must turn the VR Off in the camera to get the in lens stabilization working. The primary reason for purchasing the 50-300 was that it provides stabilization for my Z50II and on my Zf or Z7 II when I remember to turn the VR off. I will also note that I have a suspicion that Tamron disables the IBIS in my Zf with my Nikon Mount 150-500mm lens. Because the Zf is capable of up to 7 stops of Image Stabilization using the IBIS. However this particular lens only produces about 3-4 stops of stabilization when mounted on the Zf. As for why Tamron would do this, it's very simple. Synchronizing In Lens Stabilization with IBIS is likely a very complex bit of communication and Tamron hasn't been able to do this at the present time.

Another member tested his adapter with his Sony zooms and in regards to image stabilization you are able to used the image stabilization features as you would expect them to work. If the lens has an OIS on/off switch turning that off results in the IBIS in the camera working, turn it on and set to Sport and you get In Lens and In Body stabilization.