IDguy Loc: Idaho

Anyone compare these on Nikon Zs?

I'd use mostly on Z50 but also on Z6. I might get a 1.4 TC. The Sigma and Tamron currently need FTZ but might come out with Z mount. They are 1/3 the price of Nikon.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The Tamron does score higher on Imatest and does have an engineered optional tripod collar .....https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-597795-1.html
.

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

The Tamron 100-400 is a very nice lens that pairs well with the Z 50, and weighs about a pound less (and is much less expensive) than the Nikon Z 100-400. However, using any long lens on that small body does take a little getting used to.

I tried it with the Tamron TC at one point (on a D500), and the results were not as good as merely cropping the image taken without the TC.

Lagoonguy Loc: New Smyrna Beach, FL

I have only used my Tamron 100-400 with a D7100 and it is an excellent light weight and inexpensive lens. It compliments my D500 & Nikon 500 PF lens.

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

Like in most things, you get what you pay for. If I were you, and I am not. I would wait for the Nikon Z 200-600, or get a Nikon 200-500 and the adapter. Both are MUCH better options than cheap third party junk, IMHO.

KenProspero

Nikon Z-5 Shooter.

I did a lot of internet research on these and other lenses. Here's what I found:

1. Choosing between the Sigma and the Tamron is probably a coin flip. The Sigma may be a hair sharper (unless it isn't), while the Tamron may be better if you plan on using a 1.4 teleconverter (again, unless it isn't). Originally, the Sigma may have worked better with the FTZ, but if you upgrade the firmware, probably not a problem these days. (Always make sure you double check the compatability lists for any third-party lens).

2. Either the Nikon 80-400 or the 200-500 are good options. If you buy them used, they're not much more expensive than either the Tamron or the Sigma. Depending on which review you read, these may be a tad sharper than either the Sigma or the Tamron -- but reviewers differ on this.

3. The Nikon 80-400 is about a pound heavier than either the Sigma or Tamron, the Nikon 200-500 is more than two pounds heavier than these lenses.

4. Tamron sells a Collar for its 100-400. Sigma does not (and claims you don't need it) because of the weight of the lens. FWIW, Sigma claims that some of the third party collars may damage the lens if rotated. If you get the Nikon FTZ 1 -- the Tripod attachment can be used to balance the weight of the camera lens.

5. Ultimately, I bought the Sigma. Reason -- I eliminated the Nikons because of weight and I found a very good price for a "like new" version on one of the reputable used sites so the Sigma was significantly less expensive.

Photo quality.

I'm still getting used to the lens, but here are a couple of my test shots. Judge for yourself.

(Download)


(Download)

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Based on my past experience relatively modern third-party lenses for Nikon were optically indistinguishable from native equivalent glass, although the focus speed and accuracy lagged behind.

Currently I use a Tamron 70-180 along with excellent native glass on my A9II and A7R4 and it performs as well as the native glass with the possible exception of the Sony 135 1.8 which is an outstanding lens.

BTW I used the Nikon 200-500 for some and agree it's a great value but in my opinion that is as far it goes.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

I have the 200-500 which is fine but big and heavy. If they price it reasonably (doubtful) I will switch it for the Z 200-600. Thinking 100-400 for smaller and lighter.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Thanks for that link.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Thanks for the images and inputs. The robin is kinda noisy but I know that isn’t a lens problem.

Nicholas J DeSciose

That man knows what he’s talking about

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I expect the 200-600 to come in at a little less than the 100-400 Z mount.

speedmaster Loc: Kendall, FL

I'm a casual, amateur photographer using a Sigma 150-600mm, with a Z50, and very happy with it.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Very nice image. But not a lens I’m interested in.

Doc Mck Loc: Terrell,Texas

A lot of us dead beats get by pretty good with cheap 3rd party junk. We consider folks who pay 3 times for name brand stuff to be fools.