Hi all,
I am currently building out my Z kit with the Z7ii, Z 24-120 and Z 20/50/85 1.8s. I mostly shoot nature, landscapes and wildlife. Currently living in East Africa but moving to India later this year. My wildlife photography has always been doing using M43 but I am now selling off my M43 gear to move fully into Nikon Z. I've been evaluating my options for a telephoto lens for my Nikon kit, and have narrowed it down to the 100-400, 180-600, and Tamron 150-500. I am not considering primes because, frankly, I am not familiar with shooting with long primes and I value the flexibility more than the advantages they provide.
I believe the 180-600 is too large/heavy for my use case. I travel a lot and bringing that lens along would really complicate my packing, and I also do a lot of hiking and I wouldn't want to lug that around.
So that brings me to the 100-400 vs. the Tamron. I love the compact size and the range of the Tamron. I worry about the image stabilization which I hear is not great. Additionally, I also shoot some outdoor sports like running and cycling. I think the 100-400 would be better for this because of the brighter aperture and wider focal length.
But my worry is that the 100-400 is not as strong as a wildlife lens, and when I factor in the cost of the 1.4x TC to improve the reach for this purpose, it becomes a very expensive option. Has anyway considered these 3 lenses, or better yet used them, and can speak to their benefits/downsides?
I know this question is very specific to one's use case, but I am just sourcing any and all opinions as I find them. I'm unfortunately not in a position to try them all as there is no dealer near me and I won't be near one anytime soon. Thanks.
I use a 100-400mm on my D850 but I will buy soon a Z camera to use it with 180-600 mm.In Your place I would buy for travel only zooms 17-28 mm(around 500g) 24-120 mm (around 600g) and , of course, 180-600mm(2000g) All around 4000g with camera and 6000g with backpack.For me that is not too much.Thanks.
I have the 100-400mm and it has been my mainstay for the last two and a half years. It's great for landscapes and has fast and accurate AF when shooting wildlife. I don't shoot sports but my expectation is it would work well for them. The biggest issue I've run into with wildlife is it doesn't quite have the reach that I'm looking for. The 1.4x TC gives a bit of extra reach but it doesn't come for free. It's also not cheap as you've seen.
I don't have experience with the Tamron to tell you which to get, only to say that your concerns are valid, and your use case is familiar since I also do a lot of hiking, and the 180-600 is just too big to be hauling around on my back on a whim, where I'll go with the 100-400 most days I bother bringing my camera.
Given your priorities — travel-friendly gear, flexibility, and a balance between wildlife and sports — the Z 100-400mm seems like the best fit. It’s lighter than the 180-600mm, sharper than the Tamron at the long end, and performs well for both wildlife and fast-moving subjects like runners or cyclists. Pairing it with a 1.4x teleconverter does add cost, but also gives you the versatility to extend reach when needed without committing to a bulky setup. The Tamron 150-500 is a great value option, but its AF and stabilization aren’t as refined as Nikon’s native lens, especially for action shots. Given your use case and location shifts, the Nikon 100-400 strikes a solid balance between quality, portability, and flexibility.