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.