Although I showed on the previous page of this review that the Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 doesn’t have any major weaknesses where sharpness is concerned, some other telephotos still resolve more detail than it. Here’s how it compares to some of the prevailing options throughout the focal length range.
150-180mm
In the shared aperture range, these three lenses are all very close to one another in the 150-180mm range. I wouldn’t stress over any of these differences. However, if I had to rank them, the order would be:
- Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8
- Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3
- Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7
That said, I doubt that any of the differences here would be visible in real-world photos, except possibly the Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8’s midframe advantage at f/5.6 specifically. The lenses are extremely close to one another at these focal lengths, and all of them are sharp.
200mm
Since there are so many lenses on the market which reach 200mm, I’m limiting the list below to lenses that also reach at least 300mm on the long end. Otherwise the comparison at this focal length would be excessively long.
- Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S
- Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3
- Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3
- Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7
- Nikon Z 28-400mm f/4-8
Even though the Tamron comes in fourth in this comparison, it’s very close to the Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3, to the point that it almost counts as a tie. The middle three lenses are all in the same ballpark as each other. Meanwhile, the #1 lens is clearly sharper, and the #5 lens is clearly weaker than the rest.
300mm
- Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S
- Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3
- Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 and Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 (tie)
- Nikon Z 28-400mm f/4-8
The story is pretty similar this time, although the difference between each lens is a little slimmer. Even the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 isn’t as convincing of a winner at 300mm. And the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 does slightly out-resolve the two lenses below it, but only at the narrower apertures of f/11 at f/16. At maximum aperture, all three of those lenses are effectively tied.
400mm
- Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 S
- Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3
- Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S
- Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7
- Nikon Z 28-400mm f/4-8
The middle three lenses at 400mm are all very similar to each other again, although the Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 takes a surprising (though slight) victory over the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S. Technically the Tamron is a little less sharp than the other two, but you’d rarely see it in practice. Unsurprisingly, the Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 S is clearly the sharpest, and the Nikon Z 28-400mm f/4-8 is clearly the weakest.
500mm
Not nearly as lenses reach 500mm, so this comparison is a little slimmer. The Nikon 500mm f/5.6E PF is clearly sharper than the two zooms, but that’s to be expected. I would rank the sharpness like this:
- Nikon 500mm f/5.6E PF
- Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3
- Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7
However, it’s very close once again. The center and midframe regions are roughly tied between the Nikon and the Tamron zooms – if anything, the Tamron is a hair sharper – while only the corners show an advantage to the Nikon 180-600mm. Given that the corners will usually be out of focus at 500mm, I leave it up to you to decide how relevant these differences actually are.
As a whole, even though the Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 never escaped third and fourth place in these comparisons, the reality is not bad at all. It nips at the heels of the Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 throughout the zoom range – to such a degree that I think it will hardly ever be visibly worse in real-world images – while costing and weighing significantly less.
I consider this a victory for the Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7, at least in the price-to-performance department. The only lenses that are clearly sharper are $2500+ and/or prime lenses.
The next page of this review sums up everything and explains the pros and cons of the Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7. So, click the menu below to go to “Verdict”:
Table of Contents