Nikon Z photographers who want a lightweight telephoto zoom have only a handful of options. Two of the most interesting choices are Nikon’z own Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR and the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III RXD – which is Tamron’s first official autofocus lens for the Z system. If you’re on the fence, which one of these lenses should you get? Here’s what you need to know.
Table of Contents
Size and Weight
One of the best parts of these two lenses is how small and light they are. Both lenses weigh about the same: 545 grams for the Tamron lens (1.20 pounds) and 570 grams (1.25 pounds) for the Nikon-brand lens.
That said, the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR is the smaller of the two lenses, measuring just 114 mm (4.49 inches) at its shortest focal length of 24mm. By comparison, the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 measures 148 mm long (5.83 inches) at its shortest focal length of 70mm. That difference may not matter to you, but it does make the Tamron a bit more bulky for travel.
Build and Handling
Neither of the two lenses I’m comparing today are considered high-end. That doesn’t make them bad lenses optically, but it does mean that they have some build quality and handling compromises.
One of the biggest compromises is that both lenses have externally zooming designs, where the lens barrel extends as you zoom in. Even some professional lenses do this, and it’s not a dealbreaker, but it does call for some extra caution when using these lenses in dusty or rainy environments. The Tamron lens has a single telescoping barrel, while the Nikon 24-200mm has a dual telescoping design.
Both lenses have primarily plastic exteriors, with a few key areas of metal (like the lens mounts). Using both lenses side-by-side, the plastic on the Nikon lens feels nicer to me. I haven’t experienced any major build quality issues with either lens, despite months of using them in difficult environments.
As for handling features, both lenses are way too sparse for my tastes. Neither lens even has an M-A switch! The Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 at least has a zoom locking switch, while the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 doesn’t have any buttons or switches at all. Both lenses have a zoom ring and a focus ring.
In short, I don’t think either lens has a dramatic advantage in build quality, but I do lean toward preferring the Nikon lens slightly.
Obviously, a 24-200mm superzoom is a different beast from a 70-300mm telephoto zoom. The differences in focal length alone are enough to make the “winner” of this comparison clear for a lot of photographers. If you need 24mm, go with the Nikon; if you need 300mm, go with the Tamron!
But maybe you already have other lenses that cover these focal lengths, or you’re simply more interested in in image quality considerations. Even then, I still recommend stopping to think about the focal lengths of these two lenses – the one you pick will have cascading effects on the rest of the lenses you’ll carry along.
For example, a popular two-lens kit for Nikon Z shooters is the Z 14-30mm f/4 and the Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR. Those two lenses make for a very compact kit covering everything from ultra-wide to telephoto.
Meanwhile, to cover the same range with the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3, you’d need to throw a midrange lens in your bag, or else you’ll have a gap of focal lengths in the middle. Something like the Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4, Nikon Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3, or Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 would work nicely. Although this results in a three-lens kit rather than a two-lens kit, you’ll be reaching 300mm instead of 200mm, so it’s worth considering.
Then there’s the question of f-stop. Throughout the shared focal lengths, the Tamron lens has an advantage here, gathering about 1/3 stop to 1 stop more light depending on the focal length. For low-light photography, that can make a difference… with one caveat. The Nikon 24-200mm f/4-6.3 has vibration reduction, while the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 doesn’t!
Most of Nikon’s Z-series cameras have in-body image stabilization, so it doesn’t really matter if your lens has VR or not. But if you shoot with a camera like the Nikon Zfc or Z50 that has no in-body image stabilization, the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR has a massive advantage. Image stabilization works wonders if you’re shooting handheld with a telephoto.
After all that, if you’re still undecided, read on!
Image Quality
Which lens performs better optically between the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 and the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3? It depends where you look! Let me go through our findings below.
1. Distortion
You’d probably expect a superzoom to have more distortion than a dedicated telephoto zoom… and you’d be right. Here are the two distortion graphs:
The Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 has the higher distortion numbers overall, with a whopping 5.82% barrel distortion at 24mm! Even though this is often corrected automatically in post-processing, it’s still concerningly high. Upon correcting such strong distortion, you may lose sharpness due to stretching the image back into place.
What about the shared focal length range? Here, the 24-200mm still has more distortion, although it’s a closer comparison. The main difference is that the Tamron lens has practically zero distortion at 70mm, while the Nikon lens has a very high 3.24% pincushion distortion at the same focal length. After 70mm, distortion performance is similar on both lenses, hovering around 2.5-3%.
2. Vignetting
Like with distortion, I’d usually expect a superzoom to have more vignetting than a dedicated telephoto zoom. In this case, however, the opposite is true. Here are the graphs:
That’s a lot of data to digest, so allow me to simplify things a bit. The highest measurement we recorded was indeed on the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3, with 2.47 stops of vignetting wide-open at 24mm. However, in the shared zoom range, the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 outperforms the Tamron lens at every focal length. It never gets above 1.16 stops of vignetting from 70mm to 200mm, while the Tamron lens reaches 1.72 stops in the same range.
3. Lateral Chromatic Aberration
Lenses can behave unpredictably when it comes to chromatic aberration, so I was really interested to test which one of these two would win here. It turns out to be the Tamron, at least in the shared range of focal lengths. Here are the full charts:
Looking at the range from 70mm to 200mm, the Tamron lens significantly outperforms the Nikon Z lens in chromatic aberration. That said, once you zoom all the way into 300mm with the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3, it has just as much CA as the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR. Thankfully, lateral chromatic aberration is pretty easy to fix in post-processing with minimal side effects, but both lenses have some iffy performance here, depending on the focal length.
4. Sharpness
Now the moment you’ve been waiting for – sharpness! I’ll focus on comparing the two lenses in their shared zoom range (70-200mm), because you already know which lens is sharper at 24mm, and which lens is sharper at 300mm :)
We’ll start with 70mm:
As you can see from the graph above, it’s a pretty close comparison – although, make sure that you’re comparing the right apertures against one another! The Nikon lens is already at f/6 at this point, while the Tamron lens is at its maximum aperture of f/4.5. On balance, the Nikon lens is a bit sharper at 70mm, especially in the corners. However, the differences narrow at f/11 and f/16, and they weren’t huge in the first place.
Now for 105mm / 100mm:
This time, central and midframe performance are slightly better on the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 overall. However, the corners of the frame significantly favor the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR. For whatever reason, the Tamron lens goes through a bit of a weak spot in the corners around 100mm. Nikon is definitely the winner here.
Lastly, here’s 200mm:
This time, central sharpness is extremely similar, but the Tamron lens is much better in both the midframes and corners. That makes for a really interesting situation! The sharper lens of these two is 100% dependent upon your focal length. At the wider focal lengths from 70mm to 100mm, I much prefer the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3. However, at 200mm, the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 is the clear winner. At the end of the day, the sharper lens for you comes down to which focal lengths you expect to use more often.
Value
Both of these lenses are budget options, with the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR selling for $900 and the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 for $700. (However, these prices don’t account for sales, which are pretty frequent on both lenses.)
I think that both of these lenses are slightly overpriced if you buy them at MSRP, but they become good values during any typical sale. Also, I wouldn’t say that one lens is clearly a better value than the other. Even though the Nikon Z lens is $200 more expensive, that’s usually what you’ll get with a Nikon-brand lens compared to a Tamron-brand lens – especially since it has vibration reduction.
You can check the current prices, and support my testing efforts at Photography Life, at the following B&H affiliate links:
- Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR at B&H – Check prices and current sales
- Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 for Nikon Z at B&H – Check prices and current sales
Conclusion
In most of the areas that matter, it’s a toss-up as to which lens is better between the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR and the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3. The main difference isn’t in build quality, value, or even image quality; it’s simply focal length. And the “better” lens in that regard will vary from photographer to photographer.
Personally, I ended up getting the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR for my own photography, since it allowed me to replace my Z 24-70mm f/4 S and keep my bag extremely light for travel photography. However, I also don’t run into many situations where 300mm would be useful to my photography. If you expect that you will encounter such situations, even occasionally, I would lean toward the Tamron lens. It’s easy to find lightweight zooms and primes in the midrange of focal lengths, but there aren’t a lot of 300mm lenses that are nearly as light as the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3.
I hope this helps! Feel free to ask me anything about these two lenses in the comment section below, and I’ll do my best to answer.
One thing to note is that the Tamron is weather sealed to a far greater degree than the Nikon. There are gaskets and seals throughout, vs just a gasket at the mount. May not seem like much but it can be a boon to some, and may be the very feature that decides the deal.
I am a new Z8 owner, having shot for years with 2 each of Nikon D750 and 2 each of Nikkor 28-300mm f 3.5-5.6. I used one body and lens for time lapses and used the 2nd body and ens for shooting while waiting for the timelapse. I sold one of the D750’s to get the Z8 and still have both 28-300 lenses. I cannot find a Z8 lens to compare with my old 28-300’s.
In the meantime, I pre-ordered the 180-600mm Nikkor instead of renting a 600mm for an upcoming African safari in October. My dilemma is what to buy for the Z8. Presently I am using one of the 28-300’s with FTZ mounts on the Z8. My 28-300mm is a great walking around lens that just about covers all of my needs.
Photographylife did reviews of both 24 200 Z and 28 300 F and in term of sharpness there is like not contest at all. The new Z mount is significantly sharper than the F mount and you will certainly notice such high diference on a high MP camera like the Z8. If you still have 2 of those 28 300 I would sell one for sure to cover part of the money and wait for the 24 200 to be on sale/rebate. I didn’t got myself a 24 200 because I’m not a big fan of superzooms and I’m hoping that Tamron will release a version of their 28 200 that, according to the reviews, is even sharper than the Nikon and 1 stop faster during most of the zoom range. The Nikon reduce the max aperture very fast and the Tamron do it very slow giving at least 1 stop advantage from 28 to 112mm and 2/3 stop until 146mm (the Nikon is already f6.3 at 85mm while the Tamron is f4.5 at 85mm and don’t turn to 5.6 until 147mm).
Thanks for the review. I have the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 and as you stated the sharpness isn’t that great. I prefer to use the Z 50mm 1.8. When I look at my photo it seem I usually stay under 75mm. I don’t use the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 as often as I thought. I would probably stay away from the Tamron lens. I own a Tamron and Sigma lens and used them with the D7200. I don’t like using the FTZ adapter. I can see using the Z 24-70mm f/4 S .
Interested to know how the Tamron compared to the z 100-400 at 300mm?
I’ll publish that comparison tomorrow! I ran into a brief snag while wrapping up my review of the Tamron, so I decided to publish this article and the Tamron’s raw sample gallery early.
The 100-400 is better at 400 than the Tamron is at 200. I shall not expect miracles from the smaller lens at its longest focal length.
The Z5 and Z24-200 bundle is good, the Z7 and Z24-200 bundle is already more controversial.
1. At 45 megapixels, all aberrations are better visible against a background of greater detail.
2. Clearly visible problems in the corners up to 35 mm, and the overall loss of sharpness after 135 mm. In general, you can get more useful detail than on the Z5, but the serious difference between the extreme positions of the frame and even the periphery is clearly noticeable.
3. My lens has a small decimation that is small noticeable on the Z5 and significantly in the bottom on the Z7 by 24 mm.
4. Even with all the identified problems with the Z24-200 and Z7 bundle, which Nasim and you Spencer warned about, I am satisfied) Now I am collecting statistics on the focal length in my best pictures to understand where it makes sense to move on.
To me the greatest asset in the Z7+24-200mm combo is that you can just switch to DX mode and get the extra 100mm while getting rid of the softer corners.
I don’t have cameras to test, but how does the Z7 downscaled to 24mp compare to the Z5?
Feels like it. I haven’t done a literal comparison of Z5 and Z7 yet, it’s long and tedious. So far, I’m just running all my lenses through the Z7 in turn and see what happens. On the Z5, the pattern is more “synthetic” and less noisy. In DX, the Z7 gets 20 megapixels. Only yesterday I used Z 40mm 2.0 in DX mode, I am generally satisfied.
Halo Spencer, interesting article. I own the Nikon 70-300mm 4.5 -5.6 VR AF-P in combination with the Nikon D810 which I am very satisfied with. If I want to switch to the Z system, do I have to use the adapter, would it be worth switching for 1 of the two z lenses? Thanks in advance for answer. Regards, Danny (from Belgium)
Danny, hello. I switched to the Z system having a D800 almost two years ago. And I still use Tamron 35 1.4 and Sigma 150 2.8 via an adapter. Plus, I occasionally use old manual lenses through another adapter.
Now I am the owner of two cameras Z5 and Z7. 45 megapixels are demanding of the resolution in the corners. It is very difficult to give recommendations without knowing what you are shooting and for what resolution at the exit.
To understand the Tamron 35 1.4, it will probably be replaced by the Z35 1.2S, but for now I am using and rejoicing, since the Tamron 35 1.4 was developed for 45-50 megapixel cameras.
Sigma 150 2.8 On the Z5 is tolerable, I rarely shoot macro, and for the body lens scenario I bought a Z24-200. I didn’t wear Sigma on the Z7, but I suspect there will be no records) D800 and almost all the objects with the bayonet F I sold)