Nikon 200 - 500 mm lens Versus the Tanron 150 - 500 mm lens (Page 2): I think you'll find that the current crop of 150-600 advanced models (Sigma Sport and Tamron G2) will outshine the...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

clgonzo wrote:

Has anyone read a reliable and definitive account of the similarities and differences (pros and cons) between the Nikon 200-500 mm SWM VR ED IF lens versus the Tamron 150 - 500 full 15m, AF MF, and VC lens -- not the newest version of this Tamron lens?

Thanks in advance for responses.

I think you'll find that the current crop of 150-600 advanced models (Sigma Sport and Tamron G2) will outshine the 200-500. This past summer I got a hold of each contender - the original 150-600 Tamron, Nikon 200-500, Sigma Contemporary and the Sigma Sport. I wanted something hand-holdable for those days when I am feeling lazy, the light is good and I don't want to lug around the 600F4 and the big tripod and head. Long story short - the Sport was the only one in the bunch that gave me image quality that was similar to what I was getting with the 600mmF4. Not bad for an $1800 lens, so I bought it. The second choice, the Nikkor 200-500 was good, a third stop faster and a couple of pounds lighter, but the IQ was not quite what I was looking for. The Contemporary and Tamron were not in the same class at all. Now, I did this before the G2 was widely available. I have a friend that has one for his Canon 5DMkIII and his results are as good as mine with the Sport, so I would strongly consider this lens if I were doing it over today - it is as good as the Sport, and a bit lighter and $400 cheaper - what's not to like about that?

Oh, for some background reading you might want to take a look at this:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr

It basically comes to the same conclusion, but provides better detail and compares some of these with and without teleconverters.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I never shot anything with a Tamron lens, but I have the 200-500. I consider it my go-to lens for long focal lengths. The photos are nice and sharp and the VR is outstanding, allowing me to shoot at 500mm hand held down to 1/25 second.

edhjr Loc: Needham, MA

G2?

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

Steve Perry wrote:

I've never owned the Tamron, but I've had quite a few e-mails from people about it and they all complain about the same thing - it's not sharp. Get the Nikon, you won't be sorry.

Steve, mine arrives Friday. Yahoo

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

clgonzo wrote:

Has anyone read a reliable and definitive account of the similarities and differences (pros and cons) between the Nikon 200-500 mm SWM VR ED IF lens versus the Tamron 150 - 500 full 15m, AF MF, and VC lens -- not the newest version of this Tamron lens?

Thanks in advance for responses.

If you are referring to the Tamron 150-600, there are two models. The 150-600 (original) is ok, but not as sharp as the 200-500. But the Tamron G2 is a bit of a game changer - it is visibly sharper, which you may or may not see depending on the camera resolution.

You can't go wrong with the Nikon, but if you don't mind the 1/3 stop loss of light, and you want a lens that has dust and moisture sealing, weighs a little more, has a docking feature that lets you fine tune lens performance and update firmware, has a 6 year warranty and is sharper, then the Tamron 150-600 G2 is a better choice.

This review discusses a number of lenses compared to the 200-500.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr

And these articles compare the Sigma Sport to the G2 - and the other contenders and you can see that they are more or less equivalent.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=19903

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/tamron_sp_150_600mm_f5_6_3_di_vc_usd_g2_review/rivals/

I personally tested the original Tamron, Nikon, and both Sigma 150-600s and liked the Sport, Nikon then the Contemporary in that order. I ended up with the Sport.

You can see some of the pictures I've taken with it here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gene_lugo/

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

jimneotech wrote:

I must agree. The Nikon 200-500 is a great lens.

I agree, the 200-500 5.6 vr is a wonderful sports lens. I use it when the sun is shining.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

clgonzo wrote:

Has anyone read a reliable and definitive account of the similarities and differences (pros and cons) between the Nikon 200-500 mm SWM VR ED IF lens versus the Tamron 150 - 500 full 15m, AF MF, and VC lens -- not the newest version of this Tamron lens?

Thanks in advance for responses.

[deleted]

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

The Nikon 200/500 f/5.6 is a very good lens.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

clgonzo wrote:

Has anyone read a reliable and definitive account of the similarities and differences (pros and cons) between the Nikon 200-500 mm SWM VR ED IF lens versus the Tamron 150 - 500 full 15m, AF MF, and VC lens -- not the newest version of this Tamron lens?

Thanks in advance for responses.

Hi. You can buy my older Tamron 150-600 lens. It's been fixed twice by Tamron, a 5-year warranty that just expired, as the auto focus went out twice! I don't us it all. After the first time I got it fixed I loaned it to someone who then told me they could not get it to focus. So, had it fixed again. It sits in storage. Love my Nikkor 200-500, use it all the time.

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

via the lens wrote:

Hi. You can buy my older Tamron 150-600 lens. It's been fixed twice by Tamron, a 5-year warranty that just expired, as the auto focus went out twice! I don't us it all. After the first time I got it fixed I loaned it to someone who then told me they could not get it to focus. So, had it fixed again. It sits in storage. Love my Nikkor 200-500, use it all the time.