Nikon Z50 withTamron 100-400mm lens and Nikon TC-17e-II: Link for Image Samples: www.flickr.com/photo…ed-family/ My Summary on TC or not TC: Better with TC-17 than no TC. TC-14 may get som good results, as the decline in sharpness is evident with the TC-17. But again: The cropping to same size is the worst!
Bjarne Jensen
February 18, 2022 4:33 am
Tamron 100-400mm: Nikon tc -17e seems to work with auto focus on Nikon Z50 and Z6ll (and Z6). Any comments on that? Tab on the tc is removed.
Bjarne Jensen
February 18, 2022 4:27 am
Tamron 100-400mm: Nikon teleconverter tc-17 e ii works with auto focus on Nikon Z50 and Z6ii (and Z6). Off course in good light.😎
Chris Tsiakos
December 28, 2021 5:19 pm
I use the Nikon D5600 with the Tamron 100-400mm lens. I could say that I am a bit dissapointed having to deal with blurry pictures. Even if I put shutterspeed up to 1/1000+ sometimes my pictures get to be blurry. I am an aviation photographer and when I shoot fast moving aircraft such as fighter jets my pics are not as sharp as I would like to be.
ANIRBAN DATTA
December 17, 2021 9:15 am
I have Tamron 100-400. It works flawlessly on my Nikon D800E and D500 but not working on D750. I don’t know the reason
UrbexMark
September 8, 2020 1:32 pm
How’s it work on FTZ? And is it really optically better than the AF-P 70-300?
Autofocusross
August 15, 2020 9:52 am
On the lens, I have one, and it gives amazing results. Just two days ago I was on my deck and a bee was buzzing a lilac plant about 3 metres away. I had the camera set up at 300mm and got an f8 @ 125th using VC control setting 2. Sharp as a razor and as it was a D810, even a 100% crop showed the hair on the bees thorax and legs, and the detailed veining in the wings. the lens is amazing. As to this argument going on about a collar. Well, the centre of gravity of the lens is too far away from the camera, when zoomed in over 200mm and it does put a lot of stress on the mount – If you are handholding you have your left hand under the centre of gravity, thus, no problem. If you need to tripod it, then you MUST have a collar, You are risking damage otherwise. A little tip for you all. Two years back I had a Sigma 105mm Macro lens and that was heavy too. I shopped around for a collar and found an aftermarket cheap chinese ebay supplier selling a Metal Tripod Collar Mount Ring for NIKON AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8D. It fitted the throat of the macro lens perfectly, but did obscure the focus window slightly. I sold the lens, and bought the tamron 85mm F017 which I love, but the bracket went on my office shelf. When I saw the price tamron were asking for a bit of metal (thats all it is) I was shocked. I was also delighted to find the collar on my office shelf was a PERFECT fit for it, and it has been on the lens for best part of two years now with no problems. The rig is rock steady on a good tripod (I have a heavy Vanguard model and its perfect for this).
You dont need to spend a fortune, the collar cost me just £8.38 GBP which I think works out around ten dollars? Theres one on ebay right now, item number 264436676017
It’s normal that all lens manufacturers ask more money for the collar than the material costs, and the more genuine you go, the more you pay. Chinese copy cats have low labor costs and I simply don’t think that they will replace your lens if the aftermarket collar ever (unlikely) breaks or malfunctions and damage the lens. Everybody needs to decide if it’s worth the risk. Or if it doesn’t matter that could obscures distance scale.
Speaking of cheap aftermarket collars: RRS is also selling non-genuine collars (www.reallyrightstuff.com/plate…kon-lenses). If you’re shocked by Tamrons’ price, you probably need to prepare for a heart attack. Compared to their 250$ thingies, Tamron did price theirs reasonably.
You don’t have to agree with me but no one MUST have or use a collar for this lens. I use it with and without. With collar it’s more convenient for portrait orientation and that’s about it. Simply have a look at long lenses, they weight much more. And have collars, right? But how do you hold the camera and lens when you want to change AF-mode on Nikon and you use the lens handhold? Do you put the lens down, into the water, mud or snow? No, you’d hold the body with both necessary hands, lens pointing downwards, change the settings and are good to go.
The lens mount can handle higher weight than the Tamron anytime.
But with the collar the risk increases, that the mirror vibration do more harm to your pictures as the source of moving energy now has a lever (the distance form collar connection point to mirror) to move the sensor more than if it’s just sitting in the center of the tripod. In all my tests, no matter what kind of collar for relatively lightweight tele lenses (70-200/4, 300/4 PF-E and the 100-400 Tamron) the collar increased motion blurr when used on a high MP cam. Of course, the obvious workaround is using LV and silent shutter – if possible.
And the design Tamron uses is much better than the other two lenses feature with their plastic housings. As I said, you don’t have to agree, as well as I don’t have on your MUST.
Now, the decentering Nasim talked about: I just checked how centered the lens remains when adjusting it on 400 mm on a certain point (center AF point, with 100% LV zoom, VC off and using a geared head) and the zooming back to 100 mm. The point doesn’t remain on it’s place, it went a bit lower. As to be expected in this price range. So it already is not perfectly centered in itself. And if the lens goes a bit down due to gravity, it won’t harm the picture: It’s not equally sharp at the borders wide open and I’m not shooting brick walls anyway. So, yes, there will be a small deformation, but since weight is attached on both sides of the mount, the collar can’t help against that.
That thing makes a connection between camera body and lens, so the mount is free of stress. Don’t believe? Good. Let me show you: sojujo.smugmug.com/Tests…t/n-9vvkC5
By hovering over the pictures you can see their titles. VC was always off, self-timer, shutter speed was 1/30 sec. From left to right: 1. Long lens support, LiveView, silent shutter. (at that settings all other pictures would also be free of motion blurr) 2. Long lens support 3. Lens collar 4. Camera directly attached to tripod head.
Right, VC on would have helped as well, and who would use a DSLR on a tripod without at least mirror up? Well, all owners of cameras without mirror-up and without electronic shutter in LV.
The previous review was missing MTF charts and all relevant data. More images have also been added to the review, so it is a pretty significant update.
Joachim
August 5, 2020 4:51 pm
I’m sorry, guys at PL, but each time an elder article resurfaces it’s because “something” has been changed. And you never mention what. You really don’t expect the peopel who already read the first version, to go through the whole article again?
It would be nice if you put some editors notes of edited parts on the first page. It’s not taht I’m not interested in the changes, I just don’t want to read it over again.
Two things coming into my mind: 1. Dvir recommends the purchase of the “somewhat pricey” tripod collar. I disagree on both :) 130 $ is not pricey given the fact that the tripod collar comes with an inbuilt arca plate, so no extra costs for them (although these items are cheap). But I still don’t think the lens needs a tripod collar. In my tests the collar didn’t improve anything.
2. It might be time to include also mirrorless systems into lens tests. Especially because on the Nikon side of things, it will be a long wait until we see a 100-400 reaching the shelves. In one of my elder comments I mentioned the (too) long development time of a FW upgrade for Z cameras. The 150-600 got one 10 months earlier, Canon EOS R got one 7 months earlier. And the performance on Z could be better.
Well, especially regarding item 2 it’s a question of perspective ;-) If you are talking about testing non-Z and third party FX lenses on mirrorless bodies – if possible – you might be right. If – on the other hand – you look back how much has been written about Z lenses, Z bodies and other mirrorless systems and for how long there haven’t been lens reviews for Nikon F lenses, although there are a couple very interesting new ones, I think there is only one answer to this: Resources @ PL. I think these guys are doing a tremendous job considering the fact that they also have other things to do than just feeding this website.
Something I agree with ist your point with the updates of articles. Some time ago the date of issue was missing on some articles. In the meatime all articles – as far as I have seen – now have a date of issue. But being able to see the changes would be great. The only thing that is obvious today are updates of sharpness tests as with the updated measurements the design of the diagrams changed. However, this only helps with older lenses that were tested before changing to the new diagram layout.
Joachim, the review has been significantly changed. MTF, vignetting and chromatic aberration chart data has been added, something that was previously missing. Spencer also added a bunch of new images to the review.
In terms of mentioning changes, we don’t really have a way to automatically do that, so the only way is to type it in somewhere in the review. Probably something we should start doing, although not sure where it would be suitable best.
To put a journal with changes at the beginning of changed articles can’t be that complicated. Put yourself in our shoes, dear Nasim: We readers can’t compare the old with the new version as soon as the old version is removed. I don’t keep versions of any lenstests on my HDs. So, for those who already read the full test, it might be (and for me: it is!) time-consuming to read through all passages.
Nasim, I think it would suffice to simply add your short paragraph from your reply above at the beginning of an updated review. No need to get complicated.
In regards to the tripod collar – I disagree with you. The lens is heavy, and puts quite a bit of stress on the mount, especially when using the FTZ adapter. Looking at the lens from the side, it was almost “hanging” from the mount, pushing it down. This is not good!
What do you mean by mirrorless systems? We have been testing practically every Nikon Z lens, and will soon start publishing Fuji X and GFX lens reviews.
Every lens tested going forward will be tested on the same Nikon Z7 body for consistency reasons, so that we can compare F and Z lenses side-by-side. That’s what we have been doing lately, including this lens review.
No problem with disagreeing, Nasim. Just to put that “heavy” word in perspective:
Tamron 100-400: 1135 grams (on 199 mm, center of gravity at app. 125mm when fully extended)
Zeiss Otus 85/1.4: 1140 grams Zeiss Otuss 8/1.4: 1390 grams Zeiss Otus 100/1.4: 1405 grams Sigma 85 Art (old version): app. 1200 grams, app. 125 mm long Sigma 35/1.2: app. 1100 grams, 136 mm long. Sigma 14-24/2.8: 1150 grams.
None of these lenses feature a collar.
So, these days, “heavy” is a relative term. The mounts do have to handle more weight.
So, there are a couple of heavier lenses out there without a collar. And I say, it doesn’t matter for the Tamron. Mounts are there to be stressed and I never read a weight limit for the mount – did you?
The other way around: I can mount the D850 with battery grip, large battery and L-bracket: 1650 grams. So, what good is the collar then, when the lens has to hold a camera much heavier than itself? ;)
Especially with the FTZ adapter, no stress at all is brought to the camera’s mount if you put the adapter on your tripod. Apparently the FTZ’s awkward long design below the camera’s bottom plate is meant to be used that way.
And the Z mount bis much larger and therefore could take even more weight.
But anyway, I also disagree on Dvir’s finding of ” the somewhat pricey” collar: Anybody who wants one gets a very well made item with Arca plate included. Nikon asks 200$ for their 300 mm PF E collar. No additional costs and weight for a tripod plate plus a nice handle to carry the lens (as the 150-600 also has). I’m using the lens 90 % handhold as it is very lightweight. I see the collars from Sigma and Tamron giving much more value than genuine Nikon collars, at lower prices.
And by “testing with mirrorless bodies” I meant: For a long time (until September 2019) the lens was simply useless on a Z body. At the time of the first publishing (March 2019) it still was useless, but no word about that in the old version, if I’m not mistaken. I take it as a given that Z lenses work with Z bodies, but as there are not much Z lenses at the moment it is a valuable information if an attractive lens like that Tamron doesn’t work with a not exactly brandnew mirrorles body (at that time). Of course, you can’t test every combination
Joachim, it is not just the weight itself that matters, but also the lens length, which the Tamron 100-400mm is a pretty long one. That’s why it puts a bit too much stress to the mount and “hangs”. When testing this lens, I tried to push it up a little while it was mounted, and I saw there was quite a bit of play. This is not good, and not good for testing either. The lens was pushing the mount and decentering it a little as a result. I tried to prop it up with something underneath, but it didn’t turn out to be a practical solution, because the lens had to be moved back and forth on the macro rail to get the best possible MTF results.
True, mounts can take quite a bit of load, but it is one thing to have a heavy short lens (all of the ones you listed are fairly short), which there are many, and totally different when you have a long lens that is fairly front-heavy.
If you hand-hold the lens, this is not an issue, because you are going to be holding the lens with the left hand and removing the stress mount. But when shooting from a tripod, a lens collar is something I would certainly recommend. The pricey collar comment isn’t mine, and I agree that it is not particularly pricey given that it is Arca-Swiss. But everyone feels differently when it comes to accessories. Perhaps Dvir referred to the cost relative to the cost of the lens…
In regards to mirrorless lens tests, Dvir published this review when using it with a Canon DSLR. Spencer and I tested it with the Nikon D780 and Z7 camera bodies, much later. At the time of updating the review, Tamron had already pushed firmware updates, so we didn’t have to deal with any firmware issues. The only issue I encountered was when testing the Tamron SP 17-35 f/2.8-4, which didn’t work without updating the firwmare first. I had to buy the Tamron Tap-in console to make it work on the Z7.
Just when calculating the momentum a lens puts on a mount, it’s not the absolute length but the distance of the center of gravity to the mount.
The Otus 100 measures 129 mm length, has a very huge (and therefore heavy) front element and weighs 300 grams more than this Tamron. That was the reason to mention the center of gravity fully extented (at a length of 265 mm, 125 are not even the half distance.
A shorter, yet heavier and particular front-heavier lens can put as much stress to the mount as the longer, lighter an rear-heavier Tamron.
The reason I’m reacting to the collar has nothing to do with the Tamron. There’s a Nikon collar for the 70-200/4 which is the same as for the 300/4 PF E. That one IS pricey and showed more vibration effects than the lenses mounted without collar. Why? The barrel it’s mounted on is a hollow plastic tube, the whole thing can swing. That’s not the case with Tamron’s collar, but still, if there’s a heavy camera hanging behind the lens, it will cause the same decenterring effect.
Best would be a stiff rail to which the camera is mounted and which can support the front end. Collars can be second best solutions.
Link for image samples captured with the Nikon Z50, Tamron 100-400 and Nikon TC-17e-II:
www.flickr.com/photo…ed-family/
Nikon Z50 withTamron 100-400mm lens and Nikon TC-17e-II:
Link for Image Samples: www.flickr.com/photo…ed-family/
My Summary on TC or not TC: Better with TC-17 than no TC. TC-14 may get som good results, as the decline in sharpness is evident with the TC-17. But again: The cropping to same size is the worst!
Tamron 100-400mm: Nikon tc -17e seems to work with auto focus on Nikon Z50 and Z6ll (and Z6). Any comments on that? Tab on the tc is removed.
Tamron 100-400mm: Nikon teleconverter tc-17 e ii works with auto focus on Nikon Z50 and Z6ii (and Z6). Off course in good light.😎
I use the Nikon D5600 with the Tamron 100-400mm lens. I could say that I am a bit dissapointed having to deal with blurry pictures. Even if I put shutterspeed up to 1/1000+ sometimes my pictures get to be blurry. I am an aviation photographer and when I shoot fast moving aircraft such as fighter jets my pics are not as sharp as I would like to be.
I have Tamron 100-400. It works flawlessly on my Nikon D800E and D500 but not working on D750. I don’t know the reason
How’s it work on FTZ? And is it really optically better than the AF-P 70-300?
On the lens, I have one, and it gives amazing results. Just two days ago I was on my deck and a bee was buzzing a lilac plant about 3 metres away. I had the camera set up at 300mm and got an f8 @ 125th using VC control setting 2. Sharp as a razor and as it was a D810, even a 100% crop showed the hair on the bees thorax and legs, and the detailed veining in the wings. the lens is amazing. As to this argument going on about a collar. Well, the centre of gravity of the lens is too far away from the camera, when zoomed in over 200mm and it does put a lot of stress on the mount – If you are handholding you have your left hand under the centre of gravity, thus, no problem. If you need to tripod it, then you MUST have a collar, You are risking damage otherwise. A little tip for you all. Two years back I had a Sigma 105mm Macro lens and that was heavy too. I shopped around for a collar and found an aftermarket cheap chinese ebay supplier selling a Metal Tripod Collar Mount Ring for NIKON AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8D. It fitted the throat of the macro lens perfectly, but did obscure the focus window slightly. I sold the lens, and bought the tamron 85mm F017 which I love, but the bracket went on my office shelf. When I saw the price tamron were asking for a bit of metal (thats all it is) I was shocked. I was also delighted to find the collar on my office shelf was a PERFECT fit for it, and it has been on the lens for best part of two years now with no problems. The rig is rock steady on a good tripod (I have a heavy Vanguard model and its perfect for this).
You dont need to spend a fortune, the collar cost me just £8.38 GBP which I think works out around ten dollars? Theres one on ebay right now, item number 264436676017
It’s normal that all lens manufacturers ask more money for the collar than the material costs, and the more genuine you go, the more you pay. Chinese copy cats have low labor costs and I simply don’t think that they will replace your lens if the aftermarket collar ever (unlikely) breaks or malfunctions and damage the lens. Everybody needs to decide if it’s worth the risk. Or if it doesn’t matter that could obscures distance scale.
Speaking of cheap aftermarket collars: RRS is also selling non-genuine collars (www.reallyrightstuff.com/plate…kon-lenses). If you’re shocked by Tamrons’ price, you probably need to prepare for a heart attack. Compared to their 250$ thingies, Tamron did price theirs reasonably.
You don’t have to agree with me but no one MUST have or use a collar for this lens. I use it with and without. With collar it’s more convenient for portrait orientation and that’s about it. Simply have a look at long lenses, they weight much more. And have collars, right? But how do you hold the camera and lens when you want to change AF-mode on Nikon and you use the lens handhold? Do you put the lens down, into the water, mud or snow? No, you’d hold the body with both necessary hands, lens pointing downwards, change the settings and are good to go.
The lens mount can handle higher weight than the Tamron anytime.
But with the collar the risk increases, that the mirror vibration do more harm to your pictures as the source of moving energy now has a lever (the distance form collar connection point to mirror) to move the sensor more than if it’s just sitting in the center of the tripod. In all my tests, no matter what kind of collar for relatively lightweight tele lenses (70-200/4, 300/4 PF-E and the 100-400 Tamron) the collar increased motion blurr when used on a high MP cam. Of course, the obvious workaround is using LV and silent shutter – if possible.
And the design Tamron uses is much better than the other two lenses feature with their plastic housings. As I said, you don’t have to agree, as well as I don’t have on your MUST.
Now, the decentering Nasim talked about: I just checked how centered the lens remains when adjusting it on 400 mm on a certain point (center AF point, with 100% LV zoom, VC off and using a geared head) and the zooming back to 100 mm. The point doesn’t remain on it’s place, it went a bit lower. As to be expected in this price range. So it already is not perfectly centered in itself. And if the lens goes a bit down due to gravity, it won’t harm the picture: It’s not equally sharp at the borders wide open and I’m not shooting brick walls anyway. So, yes, there will be a small deformation, but since weight is attached on both sides of the mount, the collar can’t help against that.
What could and will help is that device: www.reallyrightstuff.com/core/…2d4815cfc1
That thing makes a connection between camera body and lens, so the mount is free of stress. Don’t believe? Good. Let me show you: sojujo.smugmug.com/Tests…t/n-9vvkC5
By hovering over the pictures you can see their titles. VC was always off, self-timer, shutter speed was 1/30 sec. From left to right:
1. Long lens support, LiveView, silent shutter. (at that settings all other pictures would also be free of motion blurr)
2. Long lens support
3. Lens collar
4. Camera directly attached to tripod head.
Right, VC on would have helped as well, and who would use a DSLR on a tripod without at least mirror up? Well, all owners of cameras without mirror-up and without electronic shutter in LV.
Why re-publish the old review?
The previous review was missing MTF charts and all relevant data. More images have also been added to the review, so it is a pretty significant update.
I’m sorry, guys at PL, but each time an elder article resurfaces it’s because “something” has been changed. And you never mention what. You really don’t expect the peopel who already read the first version, to go through the whole article again?
It would be nice if you put some editors notes of edited parts on the first page. It’s not taht I’m not interested in the changes, I just don’t want to read it over again.
Two things coming into my mind:
1. Dvir recommends the purchase of the “somewhat pricey” tripod collar. I disagree on both :) 130 $ is not pricey given the fact that the tripod collar comes with an inbuilt arca plate, so no extra costs for them (although these items are cheap). But I still don’t think the lens needs a tripod collar. In my tests the collar didn’t improve anything.
2. It might be time to include also mirrorless systems into lens tests. Especially because on the Nikon side of things, it will be a long wait until we see a 100-400 reaching the shelves. In one of my elder comments I mentioned the (too) long development time of a FW upgrade for Z cameras. The 150-600 got one 10 months earlier, Canon EOS R got one 7 months earlier. And the performance on Z could be better.
Well, especially regarding item 2 it’s a question of perspective ;-) If you are talking about testing non-Z and third party FX lenses on mirrorless bodies – if possible – you might be right. If – on the other hand – you look back how much has been written about Z lenses, Z bodies and other mirrorless systems and for how long there haven’t been lens reviews for Nikon F lenses, although there are a couple very interesting new ones, I think there is only one answer to this: Resources @ PL. I think these guys are doing a tremendous job considering the fact that they also have other things to do than just feeding this website.
Something I agree with ist your point with the updates of articles. Some time ago the date of issue was missing on some articles. In the meatime all articles – as far as I have seen – now have a date of issue. But being able to see the changes would be great. The only thing that is obvious today are updates of sharpness tests as with the updated measurements the design of the diagrams changed. However, this only helps with older lenses that were tested before changing to the new diagram layout.
Joachim, the review has been significantly changed. MTF, vignetting and chromatic aberration chart data has been added, something that was previously missing. Spencer also added a bunch of new images to the review.
In terms of mentioning changes, we don’t really have a way to automatically do that, so the only way is to type it in somewhere in the review. Probably something we should start doing, although not sure where it would be suitable best.
To put a journal with changes at the beginning of changed articles can’t be that complicated. Put yourself in our shoes, dear Nasim: We readers can’t compare the old with the new version as soon as the old version is removed. I don’t keep versions of any lenstests on my HDs. So, for those who already read the full test, it might be (and for me: it is!) time-consuming to read through all passages.
Nasim, I think it would suffice to simply add your short paragraph from your reply above at the beginning of an updated review. No need to get complicated.
Thanks! Will definitely consider doing that going forward.
In regards to the tripod collar – I disagree with you. The lens is heavy, and puts quite a bit of stress on the mount, especially when using the FTZ adapter. Looking at the lens from the side, it was almost “hanging” from the mount, pushing it down. This is not good!
What do you mean by mirrorless systems? We have been testing practically every Nikon Z lens, and will soon start publishing Fuji X and GFX lens reviews.
Every lens tested going forward will be tested on the same Nikon Z7 body for consistency reasons, so that we can compare F and Z lenses side-by-side. That’s what we have been doing lately, including this lens review.
No problem with disagreeing, Nasim. Just to put that “heavy” word in perspective:
Tamron 100-400: 1135 grams (on 199 mm, center of gravity at app. 125mm when fully extended)
Zeiss Otus 85/1.4: 1140 grams
Zeiss Otuss 8/1.4: 1390 grams
Zeiss Otus 100/1.4: 1405 grams
Sigma 85 Art (old version): app. 1200 grams, app. 125 mm long
Sigma 35/1.2: app. 1100 grams, 136 mm long.
Sigma 14-24/2.8: 1150 grams.
None of these lenses feature a collar.
So, these days, “heavy” is a relative term. The mounts do have to handle more weight.
So, there are a couple of heavier lenses out there without a collar. And I say, it doesn’t matter for the Tamron. Mounts are there to be stressed and I never read a weight limit for the mount – did you?
The other way around: I can mount the D850 with battery grip, large battery and L-bracket: 1650 grams. So, what good is the collar then, when the lens has to hold a camera much heavier than itself? ;)
Especially with the FTZ adapter, no stress at all is brought to the camera’s mount if you put the adapter on your tripod. Apparently the FTZ’s awkward long design below the camera’s bottom plate is meant to be used that way.
And the Z mount bis much larger and therefore could take even more weight.
But anyway, I also disagree on Dvir’s finding of ” the somewhat pricey” collar: Anybody who wants one gets a very well made item with Arca plate included. Nikon asks 200$ for their 300 mm PF E collar. No additional costs and weight for a tripod plate plus a nice handle to carry the lens (as the 150-600 also has). I’m using the lens 90 % handhold as it is very lightweight. I see the collars from Sigma and Tamron giving much more value than genuine Nikon collars, at lower prices.
And by “testing with mirrorless bodies” I meant: For a long time (until September 2019) the lens was simply useless on a Z body. At the time of the first publishing (March 2019) it still was useless, but no word about that in the old version, if I’m not mistaken. I take it as a given that Z lenses work with Z bodies, but as there are not much Z lenses at the moment it is a valuable information if an attractive lens like that Tamron doesn’t work with a not exactly brandnew mirrorles body (at that time). Of course, you can’t test every combination
Second Otus was 28/1.4, sorry for the typo.
Joachim, it is not just the weight itself that matters, but also the lens length, which the Tamron 100-400mm is a pretty long one. That’s why it puts a bit too much stress to the mount and “hangs”. When testing this lens, I tried to push it up a little while it was mounted, and I saw there was quite a bit of play. This is not good, and not good for testing either. The lens was pushing the mount and decentering it a little as a result. I tried to prop it up with something underneath, but it didn’t turn out to be a practical solution, because the lens had to be moved back and forth on the macro rail to get the best possible MTF results.
True, mounts can take quite a bit of load, but it is one thing to have a heavy short lens (all of the ones you listed are fairly short), which there are many, and totally different when you have a long lens that is fairly front-heavy.
If you hand-hold the lens, this is not an issue, because you are going to be holding the lens with the left hand and removing the stress mount. But when shooting from a tripod, a lens collar is something I would certainly recommend. The pricey collar comment isn’t mine, and I agree that it is not particularly pricey given that it is Arca-Swiss. But everyone feels differently when it comes to accessories. Perhaps Dvir referred to the cost relative to the cost of the lens…
In regards to mirrorless lens tests, Dvir published this review when using it with a Canon DSLR. Spencer and I tested it with the Nikon D780 and Z7 camera bodies, much later. At the time of updating the review, Tamron had already pushed firmware updates, so we didn’t have to deal with any firmware issues. The only issue I encountered was when testing the Tamron SP 17-35 f/2.8-4, which didn’t work without updating the firwmare first. I had to buy the Tamron Tap-in console to make it work on the Z7.
Hope this makes sense.
Of course it makes sense, Nasim.
Just when calculating the momentum a lens puts on a mount, it’s not the absolute length but the distance of the center of gravity to the mount.
The Otus 100 measures 129 mm length, has a very huge (and therefore heavy) front element and weighs 300 grams more than this Tamron. That was the reason to mention the center of gravity fully extented (at a length of 265 mm, 125 are not even the half distance.
A shorter, yet heavier and particular front-heavier lens can put as much stress to the mount as the longer, lighter an rear-heavier Tamron.
The reason I’m reacting to the collar has nothing to do with the Tamron. There’s a Nikon collar for the 70-200/4 which is the same as for the 300/4 PF E. That one IS pricey and showed more vibration effects than the lenses mounted without collar. Why? The barrel it’s mounted on is a hollow plastic tube, the whole thing can swing. That’s not the case with Tamron’s collar, but still, if there’s a heavy camera hanging behind the lens, it will cause the same decenterring effect.
Best would be a stiff rail to which the camera is mounted and which can support the front end. Collars can be second best solutions.