The Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 and the Tamron Z 150-500mm f/5-6.7 are currently the two longest telephoto zoom lenses available natively for the Z mount. Because of this, they will likely appeal to a similar type of photographer, and it’s easy to wonder which one is right for you.
I have owned the Nikon Z 180-600mm for the past several months, and I recently got the opportunity to extensively test the Tamron Z 150-500mm in Africa (as seen in our Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 review). Since these lenses are natural competitors, but also have significant differences, I thought it might be helpful to do a comparison today. Below are my thoughts on these two lenses and what I feel are the key decision-making differences.
First, lets quickly look at the sizes of both lenses (with the Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S on the left for scale):
As you can see, the thing that immediately jumps out when looking side-by-side is that the Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 is noticeably bigger. This is partly because the Nikon is an internal zoom, while the Tamron is an external zoom. (This can be both a pro and a con as detailed later). Also, the Nikon has a longer maximum focal length of 600mm rather than 500mm.
The aperture differences are quite similar. While the Tamron is slightly brighter on the wide end, and the Nikon is slightly brighter on the telephoto end, it was never enough to be noticeable in my experience with the lenses.
Table of Contents
Focal Range
The most obvious difference between these lenses is the focal ranges they cover. The Tamron has an extra 30mm on the wide end (from 150-180mm), and the Nikon has an extra 100mm on the long end (from 500-600mm). It will come down to personal preference which of those “extras” is more valuable to you.
For me, I almost always pair this lens with the Nikon Z 70-200 2.8, which is significantly brighter and sharper than either of these in their shared ranges. Given that, the wider 30mm of the Tamron isn’t something I really care about. I would have been perfectly happy if either lens began at 200mm rather than something wider.
One last note on focal range – the Nikon can use the Nikon Z teleconverters, where the Tamron cannot use any TCs. So if you would find yourself wanting to use the 1.4x and/or the 2x converters, the Nikon will be the better choice. The below image was taken with the 2x teleconverter for a total of 1200mm of reach.
Winner: Nikon
Build Quality
Both of these lenses feel good in the hand. The Nikon is not part of the premium S line, but it’s still made with material that feels high-quality. The same can be said of the Tamron, even though it’s less expensive ($1200 versus $1800).
In adverse weather, I prefer the internal zoom of the Nikon for its durability. Along the same lines, in the comments of our Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 review, we heard from a couple of readers who had mechanical issues with their Tamron lens, although I did not experience this myself. One thing I really like about the Tamron is that it comes with an Arca-Swiss foot on the tripod collar.
Winner: Nikon
Focusing
I found both of these lenses to be accurate at focusing. Regarding focusing speed, I would rate both as “good, but not the best.” The Nikon lens focuses a little faster of the two, but it’s only a small difference. However, the Tamron has the advantage of focusing more closely – down to 71 inches at the long end, rather than 95 inches at the long end for Nikon.
Winner: Nikon for speed, Tamron for close focus
Size/Weight
The Tamron is 8.4 inches long when fully retracted, and the Nikon is always 12.4 inches long (internal zooming). For me, this portability is the single largest advantage for the Tamron. Practically speaking, the difference in size when packing for a trip can be the difference between the lens fitting and not being able to bring it.
On the trip to Africa where I took most of my Tamron photos, I wouldn’t have been able to physically fit the Nikon 180-600mm in my bag along with the other things I brought. International travel is very demanding on the space in your bag, and the Tamron is clearly ahead in this respect.
As for weight, the Tamron 150-500mm weighs in at 3.79 pounds compared to the Nikon’s 4.3 pounds. Holding them side-by-side, the Tamron is noticeably lighter. However, I don’t think this difference is nearly as significant as the difference in size, especially with how well-balanced the Nikon feels.
Winner: Tamron
Handling
If you have used other Nikon telephoto zooms, the 180-600mm will feel very familiar. On the other hand, The Tamron was one of the most frustrating lenses I’ve ever used in the field. This comes down primarily to two issues that may seem minor, but that I struggled with throughout the trip.
The first issue is the locking ring. The lens locks its focal length when you push the zoom ring forward. Apparently I never realized how often I apply a small amount of outward pressure when zooming, because I accidentally locked the lens very often (or partially locked it, where the ring became hard to turn). This was always a quick fix, but to me, good camera gear should just “work” without you having to think about it. I’m sure I would get more used to it if I used the lens longer, but after weeks of daily use, that never happened.
The second issue with the Tamron is the lens hood. It feels silly to write about a lens hood, but this is the most frustrating one I have ever used. When traveling, and to take advantage of the small retracted size of the lens by reversing the lens hood. Putting it back on the right way would take extra time, since this hood does not smoothly reattach. This is the first time I believe I’ve ever written about a lens hood, other than to say that I use them. But it was so annoying in use that it changed how quickly I could use the lens.
For what it’s worth, the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 lens – which I also brought on my trip to Africa – doesn’t have either of these issues. It was a very well-handling lens, and I wish that Tamron had taken more design cues from it.
Winner: Nikon
Image Quality
Spencer has published full reviews of both of the Tamron and the Nikon lenses, so I won’t go into the technical differences. What I would say is that overall the Nikon has better image quality, but it wasn’t a huge difference. Although the Nikon wins this category, it wouldn’t be a major factor in my decision making because of how close it was.
For fun, I’ve included below a shot of roughly the same scene taken a few seconds apart with the two lenses at 400mm to give a comparison (with the Nikon Z 400 f/2.8 TC added as well). This isn’t a test of sharpness but just an example of how the background blur, contrast, and overall look that you get from these two lenses is very similar. Whereas the Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 TC can blow out the background much further, thanks to its wider maximum aperture.
Winner: Nikon, slightly
Value
The Nikon retails for $1700, and the Tamron for $1299. A $500 difference is significant, and it could be a major decision-making factor for some photographers.
Both of these lenses represent an excellent value for what you get. The Nikon is the more advanced lens in most ways, and that’s reflected in the price. I believe that you will find either lens to be a good choice for the price. If you’re on a budget, go with the Tamron – if you have some extra savings, go with the Nikon.
Winner: Tie
Summary
To summarize the strengths of each lens that I see as a potentially deciding factor between the two, I would list them as:
Nikon Z 180-600mm Strengths
- 100mm more reach on the longer end (and teleconverter compatibility)
- Internal zoom construction
- Better handling experience (as detailed above)
- A little better optically
Tamron Z 150-500mm Strengths
- Significantly smaller when fully retracted (by 4 inches)
- Lighter (by 1/2 pound)
- Less expensive (by $500)
- Focuses more closely
The bottom line is that I liked both lenses. It was a lot of fun being able to use two lenses that are relatively similar on paper, but very different in actual use. Personally, I am glad I own the Nikon. But with the smaller size, lighter weight, and lower cost of the Tamron, it makes just as much sense depending on your needs. Like I said in the Value section, I think that both lenses are priced very well for what they offer.
Let me know if you have any questions or if your experiences with either of these lenses are different from mine!
Pricing and Availability
If you’re planning to purchase either of these lenses, you can support our lens testing efforts by buying it through our affiliate links below.
Photography Life gets a small percentage of each purchase made through the links above, even if you buy something else, without costing you anything extra.
Thanks for the article. I have the Tamron G2 150-600 mm lens which I’ve used with my Nikon Z7 camera since 2019. I’m very happy with both photographing beach sports. And never had any problems with lens lock but agree with you about hood mounting. It’s always a hassle attaching it and I put it on before going to the shore. I have a good sling since camera and lens are both heavy. By the way, I’m looking forward to my first Safari next month in Tanzania.
Thanks for the comment – and have a great time on Safari!! It’s an unbelievable experience. The 150-600 will serve you very well on the Safari. Feel free to shoot me a message if you have any questions about the trip (what to bring, etc).
This is a very good review as usual. I always rely on reviews from yu guys before deciding on which glass yo buy. One thing missing on your review, which hopefully you can either post in comment, or later, is the eprformance of both lenses for capturing birds in flight. How well do they behave, sharpness, etc.
Hi Alvaro,
Thanks for the question. Looking at these lenses purely for which one would yield better bird in flight photos, the Nikon would win. It has the extra 100mm of reach, is slightly sharper, and has a somewhat better vibration reduction/EVF viewing.
Of course, there are other factors as well, such as size/weight/price that would make a compelling case for the Tamron. But pure reach and image quality, the Nikon would win.
Hope that helps!
I have had the 180-600mm Nikon for a few months coupled with the Z9 and WOW! what a combo it is, it’s definitely a fast shooter at a track meet on 20fps burst. I’m excited for the new firmware update later this month for the ” enhanced AF acquisition” I’m brand loyal to Nikon for over 2 decades and have to say your spot on with your article. I look at Third Party lenses all the time and their getting better but for the time being I’m sticking to my gut on Nikon lenses.
Glad you are enjoying the 180-600 – so am I!
I noted this on Patreon when I commented on the Tamron’s MTF results but I’ll reiterate it here- it’s great that such an option exists for the entry level wildlife or sports photographer. I’ve been doing photography for 20+ years and the Tamron is my first super-tele lens. As I’ve never worked with such a long lens before, only having used 55-200/70-300 compact tele zooms, the thought of carrying around something with the bulk and weight of the Nikon 180-600 or Sony equivalent for long zoom was intimidating, and I am still working on building up the technique necessary to use such a large lens. Being able to get into things with a compromise lens where I wasn’t spending quite as much money if I decided I hated it and not struggling to bring myself to pull it out has meant my enthusiasm has stayed high.
Yes, I need a solution for longer focal lengths eventually. Yes, I wil probably want something better sealed against the elements eventually. More than likely when those things come to pass I’ll probably still keep this lens in my kit, though. When paired with my selection for what else is in my Z6 II kit, the Nikkor 24-70 S f/4 and Tamnikon 70-180 f/2.8, I can fit and carry it all for a days adventure without being too bogged down and cover a pretty wide array of subjects. For the enthusiast looking to have a simple kit that doesn’t completely demolish the budget a pairing like the Sony A6700 and the Tamron is REALLY compelling. It’s relatively affordable and makes it really easy to get great sports and wildlife images. I almost bought this setup but decided to step back up to full frame due to other types of shooting I do.
Not saying you did this here, but I think often reviews get bogged down viewing things from the “professional” use standpoint. From that I’ve seen quite a few just completely trash the Tamron. Okay, fine, it’s not up to your standards, but the truth is it’s potentially a great tool for a lot of enthusiasts looking to step up into the world of super-telephoto photography.
Hi Jojo,
It sounds like the Tamron was the perfect choice for you! Your setup would be an awesome lightweight, very versatile kit.
I agree with you regarding the “professional” use standpoint. I tried to write this article as a comparison between these two lenses for what I would consider “normal” use. If I was doing more extensive travel with a lens like this, I would probably choose the Tamron instead of the Nikon, because that size difference really did make a big impact in use (as I mentioned in the article, my 180-600 would not have physically fit in my bag with everything else I was taking to Africa, so the Tamron was the difference between taking a telephoto zoom and not being able to).
Glad you are enjoying the Tamron!
I took a different tack…I got the Nikkor Z VR S 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 and a 1.4x teleconverter. Lighter than both (1435g vs 1955g and 1720g) and just as sharp in practice. Yes I paid more: I cried once, paid once, and will smile every day for years every time I use it. There is no “right” lens, there is just our choice for our personal needs and means.
That’s definitely another good choice, and glad you are enjoying the 100-400! It’s in a different price range (especially when adding in the teleconverter as well), which is why it was excluded from this comparison. And I completely agree with you about finding the right gear for our needs/budgets.
I went for the Z 100 – 400 with the option on 1.4 and 2.0 TC’s
I just really like the option to produce a image of a subject at a Macro Type of Capture at a very close focal distance and then immediately move on to capture images at Telephoto distances.
A Camera user really can focus at a Zoom of 300-400mm on a Dragon / Damson Fly at 1 mtr, and then lock onto a Hedge Bird at 15 -20 mtrs in a second or three.
On the Z9, I am yet to discover an older image taken of a similar subject, similar conditions, with my 400 2.8G on a DSLR that has bettered the 100 – 400 at similar aperture and focal length.
At my level of Photography that is a win.
The Internal Zoom Control on the 180 – 600 does have its attraction.
I do intend on having a Z PF Prime in use in the not too distant, but this will lack the versatility of the 100 – 400.
Thank you for this excellent comparison! Having used both lenses recently (and purchased the Nikon 180-600 two weeks ago), I have to say that I found this comparison to be very accurate. However, there is one topic I would like to highlight, which is image stabilization. Using VR Sport (which I normally use) I think that the Nikon is slightly ahead, but using VR Normal, for videos and slower shutter speed photos, I think the Nikon 180-600 is way ahead of the Tamron 150-500.
Thanks for sharing your experience with these lenses! That’s really helpful insight on the image stabilization – thanks!
I think your article is very well balanced with respect to photography. However, lenses are more and more often used for video applications in particular if you look at the most recent camera releases of Nikon. What always struck me as excellent on the Z180-600 was the video stabilization with and without Tc’s (I only use the 1.4 times Tc on this lens but based on you picture above I should try the 2 times Tc). How would you compare the two lenses here ?
And finally is this lens not also and probably even more so a competitor to the 100-400 when used with a Tc ?
The tests for the 100-400 look a lot better at the shorter focal lengths, and my own experience with the lens suggests that it is indeed very, very good between 100 and maybe 250 mm (still good out to 400 mm, but not as good). With the TC, it is not all that great. It is also a fair bit lighter. So, IMO, these two serve somewhat different purposes. Shooting primarily wildlife, the Tamron (or Nikon 180-600) would seem to be a better choice, while I would choose (and have chosen) the 100-400 for my use, which is more landscapes than animals.
Very fair comment. I do agree about best use of the 100-400. Thom Hogan became less enthusiastic about his 100-400 over time.
Personally I’ve gone with primes for wildlife use. I sold my 80-400 in favour of my 300/f4D + 1.4 TC and sold my 200-500 in favour of my 500PF. Cost-wise, by buying the primes second-hand, they weren’t too expensive.
For landscapes, I went with the much cheaper 70-300E. It does – and is pretty light.
Hi Michael,
Good question. I’ve used the 180-600 for video and agree with your assessment on it. In my time with the Tamron, I did not extensively test video capability, although I would guess that this is an area where the Nikon would perform somewhat better (especially with the better VR).
It is fun to use the 2x on the 180-600 for serious reach, although it does get noticeably softer and the focus speed suffers quite a bit.
Regarding the 100-400, the main reason that’s not included in this comparison is cost. Getting the 100-400 and the 1.4x teleconverter is nearly double the cost of the 180-600, and approaching triple the cost of the Tamron 150-500, which puts it in a very different league.
Hope that helps!
When comparing New Off the Shelf Prices the 100 – 400 does have a larger cost divide.
When looking at used, in the 100-400 and Z TC as used (not too used) there are purchase opportunities, that substantially close this gap in prices.
The Internal Zoom on the 180 – 200 certainly prompted the purchasing of this lens, leaving a regular stream of 100-400’s to show regularly as used sale items.
Is there also the likelihood the Tamron will depreciated in Value in larger increments than the Nikon Brand Lens sharing similar Zoom Range.
I today have come away from image sharpness as the goal, and embraced the substantially increased rate of images that are able to be captured using the modern Z Body.
The focusing systems choices are such fun tools t have at hand, the captures per second, there is always one subject that will have an image taken worthwhile presenting, even if not the sharpest of the burst.
Thank you, Adam, for this insightful and helpful comparison of the two lenses!
Hi Beth, glad you enjoyed it!
For the first time I am seeing a biased opinion mongering in photographylife-
For example the extended length & the imbalance that is created by Tamron is not mentioned-
This comparison is fundamentally is not among equals. The close focusing by 500mm & by 600mm- should they be equal ?
Just few examples-
The different focal lengths do have an effect, but even accounting for that, the Tamron focuses more closely at a given focal length. The maximum magnification of the Nikon is 1:4, while the Tamron can reach up to 1:3.1 (albeit 1:3.7 at 500mm).
I didn’t notice a significant balance issue with the Tamron extended (especially since it’s pretty light). Regarding extended length, I noted the difference with it fully retracted since that is how it would be typically packed. Fully extended, it’s more similar to the Nikon, but still noticeably shorter.
I always attach a sling mount to one of the threads in the arca of my Tamron G2 150-600 mm lens for convenience when walking with it while holding the mount as well not to break my back.
The 180-600 is the first variable aperture zoom I have bought for a very long time. For telephotos I have been using prime lenses for about 20 years now. When I bought the Z9 I kept using my 300 F2.8 (with1.4TC) and my 500 F4 G (sometimes with the TC). Then the 180-600 came out. It was around that time that I decided to sell my F-mount gear and accept that I had simply stopped using all of it. I had several Z lenses but nothing Z for telephoto. I kept the 500F4G and traded everything else. I got enough to buy the 180-600 and the 14-30 F4S.
I would never have opted for the Tamron. The advantages of 600, the ease of use, image stabilisation and internal zoom set up far outweigh price, and weight for me. I like the ease of zooming on the 180-600, you don’t need to turn the zoom ring far. I love the image quality and sheer simplicity of the way it works.
The image quality of the Nikon lens continues to surprise me. I am sure it is the image stabilisation and the way the native Z-mount works is a factor.
In addition I have never bought a third party lens. I am not opposed to the idea as such, I have never wanted to. I am not sure why. The Tamron is less expensive and smaller but it isn’t quite as good.
I think that, for me, moving to a zoom instead of a prime for telephoto was a huge step. Going to a third party lens would probably have been just a step too far. I had thought about the 200-500 Nikon when that came out but couldn’t bring myself to buy it. I opted to continue to use the 500G4G despite the weight. The Nikon 180-600 is a native Z lens and it also removed things that prevented me buying the 200-500 especially the extending zoom. I have been to the tropics a few times and seen how easily humidity can impact a lens.
Thanks for sharing your experience with the 180-600, Martin! I’m happy with it as well and it’s in my bag regularly.