I showed on the previous page of this review that the Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 is sharper than expected, but what does that mean in context? Here’s how it compares at various focal lengths to other popular lenses that you may be considering.
50mm
There aren’t a lot of telephoto zooms that also go as wide as 50mm, but there are some:
Among the three lenses above, the Tamron 50-400mm and the Nikon Z 24-200mm are effectively tied at 50mm. If anything, it’s remarkably similar performance given all the differences between these two lenses. The Nikon Z 28-400mm f/4-8 is a little worse by comparison, especially in the midframes and corners at f/5.6.
I’ll also add a few other various lenses for context:
The Tamron 50-400mm is on the weaker side among these various alternatives, but its performance also isn’t totally out of place. It holds its own against the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 G2 or the Sony FE 20-70mm f/4 G, for example.
70mm
The Tamron 50-400mm definitely doesn’t reach the same heights as other 70mm lenses, but it also never falls to the lows we’ve seen from some zooms at this focal length. I would continue to put it at about the level of the Nikon Z 24-200mm zoom (maybe a hair weaker in the center at a given aperture). The most interesting comparison is against Tamron’s own 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6; the 50-400mm is actually a little better in the corners, although it’s worse in the center.
Of course, zooms like the Sony 70-200mm f/4 Macro G II and Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S blow these other lenses away.
100mm
‘
The Tamron 50-400mm continues to be at a very similar level to the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3, which isn’t a bad thing in the 100mm range. The corner performance is better than we measured on the Tamron 70-300mm and the Nikon Z 28-400mm, and it’s not even far behind the older Sony 70-200mm f/4 G. (The newer Sony 70-200mm f/4 Macro G II is a clear step up, though.) Central performance continues to be one of the weaker points of the Tamron 50-400mm relative to the competition.
200mm
Although the performance of the Tamron 50-400mm slows at 200mm, so does the sharpness of most of the other lenses here. The 50-400mm now loses to the Nikon Z 24-200mm in the center but beats it in the corners, while continuing to beat the Nikon Z 28-400mm across the frame. The strongest lenses at 200mm continue to be the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S, the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S, and the Sony 70-200mm f/4 Macro G II.
300mm
300mm is not the strongest focal length of the Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3, but that’s also something you could say about the other lenses here. The 50-400mm is only marginally weaker than the Tamron 70-300mm at this focal length, and it’s meaningfully sharper than the Nikon Z 28-400mm f/4-8. Of the bunch, only the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 looks very sharp at 300mm – and it, too, has lost some punch relative to the wider focal lengths.
400mm
The story is essentially the same at 400mm. The Tamron 50-400mm beats the Nikon Z 28-400mm f/4-8 and loses to the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. This isn’t the sharpest focal length for any of these three lenses, though. If you want excellent sharpness at 400mm, it’s better to go with a prime lens. I doubt that many people are directly deciding between the Tamron 50-400mm and a high-end prime like the Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5, but I still put it in the test above for reference.
And that’s a wrap! The Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 never took a crown in the tests above, but it also avoided a last-place finish at every focal length. It’s probably in the bottom 1/3 of sharpness among telephoto zooms, but it’s never unusable by any stretch. I’d be comfortable making pretty large prints from the Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-5.6, even at its weakest focal lengths. For an unprecedented zoom that covers both 50mm and 400mm, it’s hard to ask for more than that.
The next page of this review sums up everything and explains the pros and cons of the Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3. So, click the menu below to go to “Verdict”:
Table of Contents