Tamron 150-600 vs Nikon 200-500mm (Page 4): thanks!

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

joecichjr wrote:

Excellent, and the last is spectacular
⭐💎💞💎⭐

thanks!

grandpaw

All things considered I believe I am going to hold off for awhile and see what new lenses come out. I use the longer lenses lessened less. I think for my needs now I will stick with my Tamron. I have several Nikon lenses and a few Tamron and I am very happy with my 24-70 F2.8 Tamron. I would not hesitate to purchase another Tamron in the future. Thanks evertyone for all the input!!!

Mustang1

Why is it that some people who are very opinionated do not know the difference between "your" and "you're"?

Mustang1

Those are beautiful photos. Those who advocate Nikon lenses only possibly drink only Starbucks Coffee just to be "seen" doing so. It's a sort of personal recognition they desire. Use your Tamron, and enjoy it.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Mustang1 wrote:

Those are beautiful photos. Those who advocate Nikon lenses only possibly drink only Starbucks Coffee just to be "seen" doing so. It's a sort of personal recognition they desire. Use your Tamron, and enjoy it.

I drink McDonald's coffee Mr. Know-it-all. Perhaps my recommendation of Nikon lenses over Tamron comes from my 54 years as a photographer AND from my actual experience in owning both. How much actual experience do you have? You will also find, if you're willing to go back an re-read, that I just answered the question, clearly marked as my opinion, that Nikon lenses were better. If you want to own a Tamron, please to so as many others do. Happy Holiday's.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Strodav wrote:

I have both the Tamron 150-600mm G2 and the Nikon ... (show quote)

The OP doesn’t stipulate what camera s/he has. AF performances may differ with Z cameras where focus happens on the sensor vs. separate focusing detectors.

I can assure the 200-500 works fine with Z6 and Z50.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

billnikon wrote:

It's good to know that you read all you can about a product before you buy it. In that case, you would never buy a Tamron lens.

I don’t have any Tamron lenses but I see more positive assertions than negative.

Once the human brain settles on an idea from then it invokes the “confirmation bias” unless conscious effort is spent to overcome it. In this case it means Tamron negatives loom large and remain in your brain whereas positives are dismissed.

If Tamron comes out with Z mount lenses I’ll give them a try.

I do have one very nice Sigma lens (AFS DX OS 17-50 f2.8) and had good success with their 150-500 before my Nikon 200-500. So I’ll likewise try them if they offer Z mount lenses.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

cambriaman wrote:

I owned a Sigma 150-500 and upgraded to the Nikoikn 200-500 and couldn't believe the improvement. Definitely the Nikon is the choice for excellent results.

I did the same switch five years ago. While I agree the Nikon VR, AF, and image quality are a little better on the Nikon I’m not sure it is twice as good. The price was twice at the time.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

grandpaw wrote:

I think I have decided to back off and wait to see what Nikon comes out with for the Z series. I do appreciate all the replies and info everyone has provided. Thanks, Grandpaw

Same decision I made on the new Nikon Z 100-400.

Wait on the Nikon Z 200-600 or Tamron or Sigma coming out with Z mount at 1/3 the price.

I expect the Z 200-600 will be overpriced for me. We shall see.

Meanwhile the F mount Nikon AFP FX VR 70-300 on Z6 and 200-500 work for me, the latter mostly with Z50. But I confess the Z50 two kit lenses and Z 24-200 on Z6 are what I use most.

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

IDguy wrote:

Same decision I made on the new Nikon Z 100-400.

Wait on the Nikon Z 200-600 or Tamron or Sigma coming out with Z mount at 1/3 the price.

I expect the Z 200-600 will be overpriced for me. We shall see.

Meanwhile the F mount Nikon AFP FX VR 70-300 on Z6 and 200-500 work for me, the latter mostly with Z50. But I confess the Z50 two kit lenses and Z 24-200 on Z6 are what I use most.

The Sony 200-600 comes in around 2 grand, I suspect the Nikon will also come in around 2 grand, which, if it matches the Sony, will be a very good value for the price. IMHO

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

chrisg-optical wrote:

Here's some sample pics taken with the Tamron 150-600 G2, mostly at 600mm....every time I look at them I reconsider selling the lens.....sure maybe not good enough for Sports Illustrated but very fine for me!

If my copy of the Tamron 150-600 G2 could spit out images as good as these, I would be real happy. Nothing wrong with these iamges !!

Mustang1

I go my own way. I cannot read all of the hundreds of responses entered here, including yours. I've no concern for your coffee drinking habits. Have at it. I say, "enjoy your equipment and be happy"! That is all. I have vacated this discussion.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

FiddleMaker wrote:

If my copy of the Tamron 150-600 G2 could spit out images as good as these, I would be real happy. Nothing wrong with these iamges !!

There are many variables which affect the final IQ...lens quality is only one factor. I shot these on a D7200 with RAW NEF output processed via Lr. I could tweak these even further. I highly recommend with any recent Tamron lens to get the tap in console, update the firmware to the latest, and if necessary (on a DSLR) tune the lens at the various distances (this requires some setup and patience). I have performed the update but have not adjusted the AF but intend to do that maybe in the spring.

I have watched a video in the past of a Canon DSLR owner who apparently got a bad copy of this lens (there are a few no doubt) - she could not get properly focused images even after tuning, and I think she wound up returning it or selling it. Maybe, if it is still under warranty, Tamron can look at it.