masonite

I have a Nikon 28-300, 3.5-5.6 G zoom lens and am considering trading it in for a Tamron 18-400 3.5-5.6 zoom. Anyone have thoughts as to whether this is a good idea? I am going to Alaska next month and could use the extra reach but am afraid I would be trading sharpness for reach.

Would anyone be able to give a fair comparison between these to lenses? Thanks in advance!!

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

I cannot compare the lenses that you are talking about, but I did have a Tamron 150-600mm lens that I traded for a Nikon 200-500mm lens. The Nikon lens is far superior to the Tamron in my opinion. While I visited Alaska a few years ago, and 300mm was a reachable lens in most cases. Both of these photos were taken at 300mm or less.

(Download)


(Download)

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Once the Lone Ranger shot six bad guys with one bullet.

GreyOwl40 Loc: Quebec City

Ken Rockwell has a review of the lens where he also does some comparison to the Nikon 28 - 300.

https://kenrockwell.com/tamron/18-400mm.htm

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

Have the 18-400mm and am getting very good results with it after tuning. I would not hesitate to take mine to Alaska along with a fast prime for low light situations. Have several Tamron and Nikon lenses and recommend you stay with Nikon glass unless you are going to tune the Tamron using their Tap-in. Tamron zooms tend to need tuning out of the box or the results may be disappointing where Nikon glass is much closer. All of the Tamron zooms I have tuned, including the 150-600mm G2, have performed very well after tuning.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

You didn't mention which camera. The Nikkor 28-300 is a decent lens, I have one and use it often on my D7200. It's not in the same league as the Canon EF 28-300L, I've got one of them also, but for what it is it's pretty good. I don't have the Tamron 18-400 but a good friend and shooting buddy does. His is for Canon but they are pretty much the same lens. He likes his 18-400 and shoots with a crop sensor camera.

Someone mentioned the Nikkor 200-500. I also have that lens and for it's price it's hard to beat. If cost and lens size isn't an issue you may seriously want to consider the Nikkor 200-500. I also have the Nikon 1.4 teleconverter and it works quite well on the 200-500.

Back to the Tamron 18-400. My biggest problem is it's not one pf Tamron's top shelf lenses, it's not an SP. I have a few Tamron lenses and they are all SP lenses.

Even though the Tamron has more reach than the Nikkor, the IQ of the Nikkor is more conducive to cropping than the Tamron.

My recommendation is, go for the Nikkor 200-500 if possible. If not then get the Nikkor 28-300. It may cost a few hundred more than the Tamron but it's well worth it. Enjoy your trip and take lots of amazing photos.

dyximan

How do you tune your tamron or any other lens for that matter, Do you have to tune them per camera or is it just a general tune I have a nikon D 500 with a tamron 150 600 G2, And for the snarky ones please keep the comments to yourself if you can't be helpful be Quiet thank you.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

First, want to mention that I have both the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 and Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 G2. They are equally sharp in the center, but the Tamron is a little less sharp in the corners with a little more CA, which matters if you are shooting FX but not DX. I would not take either on a family vacation to Alaska as they are heavy and bulky. IF I was going on a photo shoot in Alaska, I would definitely take one or the other.

The tuning issue comes up every day or two and is covered in several other posts in the last couple of weeks. At 50,000’, you need to have a Tamron tap-in or Sigma USB doc, once connected you will see a table of zoom factors at certain distances, need to set up resolution target for each table entry, using Live View shots compared to AF shots then determine if that particular table entry needs adjustment, if so make the adjustment. Keep going until you are done. It can be time consuming, but well worth it when you are done.

I have 4 bodies a D850, D800, D500, and D7200. I tuned the 150-600mm G2 on the D7200, use it on the D500 and checked it on the D850. Only had to tune it once and it was fine on the other bodies. Tuned the 18-400mm on the D500 and it works find on the D7200. Only had to tune it once.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Do you have a full frame, your talking 100 mm, not all that much different. Are you talking about cropped sensor, then it's 450 vs. a field of view of 600 for the Tamron.
If you have the Nikon D850, stay with the 28-300, the crops are great off that camera.
The Tamron is .2 lbs. lighter, a couple of ounces.
The Tamron is on sale for $549.00. a hundred dollars off.
When I was in Alaska, I used my Pocket Sony which had a zoom range of 24-720 mm and it handled everything and I could keep it in a belt pouch. I can enlarge images to 16X24 without a problem and it costs less than the Tamron. Sony HX99V. It has a pop up viewfinder that makes it very easy to use outside.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

When Tamron visited Miami for a workshop at Digital Goja I attended the workshop. As to be expected, the lens you refer to was there and the Tamron reps had some beautiful shots made with that lens. Understand that only the best shots they made with the 150-600 were there.
Nikon makes the excellent 200-500 f5.6 AF-S, a lens very well made and of excellent optical qualities. I am sure you know that the 200-500 is a lens that was made specifically by Nikon to work with their camera bodies. Tamron makes lenses to work with ALL camera bodies and sometimes photographers have complained of incompatibility with their present cameras.

Do not even dream that the sharpness of images made with the Tamron will be superior to that from the Nikon lens. Ron Magill, a professional photographer for the Miami Metro Zoo and National Geographic has used the lens and he told me that he was delighted with the images he got from it. Other photographers I have talked to who have used the lens gave me similar positive comments.

Go for the 200-500 or rent it and use it. You are going to be glad you did.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I have thousands of shots with my 200-500 and the G2 using a D7100, D500 and D850 and it is usually quite difficult to tell the difference and sometimes I'm wrong! I can say that the Nikon is usually quicker to lock focus and the difference is obvious as the light grows dimmer. I have intentionally done comparisons off my tripod at the same targets, virtually minutes apart. I am not a professional, nor are most of those who view my shots .

If I had to pick one lens, I would have to go with the Nikon because of my typical low light usage.

tomcat

I'm not being snarky, but I don't tune any of my lenses. If they are not sharp, I send them back to be manufacturer for adjustments. It's free if still in warranty. This applies to my Nikon and Sigma lenses. I have a Tamron that I purchased for vacation and I rarely use it at home. It's just not sharp as I want it to be. So I am packaging it up to send to Tamron. I think the camera fine-tune is not worth the time to do. It was more of a marketing ploy for professional photographers to adjust each lens before a shoot. You are not really affecting the lens itself when you fine tune with the camera===only how the camera reacts to the OOF lens.

Dziadzi Loc: Wilkes-Barre, PA

I own a Tamron 18-400. Could you please supply me with information on "tuning" this lens?