For a Z DX body, so no IBIS, which lens would suit better? This Tamron 50-400 or Nikon’s 28-400? Viewing all comments around the weakness of Tamron’s stabilization, this becomes an important factor on a DX body, more so as on a Z50 this becomes a 600mm…
Thanks!
arunakalu
February 17, 2025 11:19 pm
I really don’t care too much about MTF char comparisons, and like to look at images. From the images you have posted here, I am very impressed about this lens (It is the photographer mainly :-). I had a Nikon z 100-400 and sold it and got the Z 400 f/4.5. Now I am missing the midrange and was looking at this lens, since it is light weight and now I see the IQ is very good too. I know the IQ of the 100-400 and the 400 f/4.5, so this is very acceptable. I like a light weight lens for travelling, as I own the 180-600 which is very heavy to tag along for mid range. Thanks for the review.
Thomas Bringgaard
February 3, 2025 8:01 am
For F-mount lens cameras I have owned Tamron 70-300mm and 150-600mm lenses. The stabilization, specially on the 150-600, was very impressive. I have owned the Tamron 100-400 for F-mount, but got rid of that lens as it was not sharp on Nikon D850. VC on that lens was very good as well. Now I bought the Tamron 50-400. Thought it could be a good allrounder for a bicycle trip. But the stabilization in combination with Z mount camera is a huge disappointment. If I get one stop stabilization that is it. I have two Z mount cameras and it is equally bad on both. On one of the Z cameras the frame stabilize, but suddenly moves position, that happens maybe every 2 seconds or so. For VC settings in camera and stills I find that if set to sport it works better than set to normal. The main problem for me is that I use AF-S and pin point focus a lot of the time. I can’t set the focus to the place I want with a non effective stabilization. After that I don’t care how sharp the lens is if stabilization is a failure. As it is a slow lens I need a rock steady stabilization down to maybe 1/50 at 400mm to be able to get focus in low light. Ironic that with the lens I don’t even get the lens collar, though that is really needed for a tripod mount to get stabilization. That lens collar is 140 Euro extra. And how to blur example water movements with a stabilization like this? Quite impossible. That was possible with the 100-400mm for F-mount. I hope that Tamron and Nikon can work out how to improve this. I also have to say that the IBIS in Nikon is a general disappointment. I have an OM-1 camera and IBIS is excellent, though it also have limitations with some lenses. I have an FTZ adapted Irix 150mm Macro lens on Z camera, There is no stabilization even it is a CPU lens with electronically controlled aperture, the camera see the shooting data and the VC can be set to on or off. When I press the shutter button and expect the IBIS stabilization to activate nothing happens. For sure Nikon could do better here. Easier to change a lens than a whole system though. Soon my Tamron 50-400 is swapped for something else. It is also disappointing that Tamron don’t want any direct feedback. All communication go through the distributor. That is not okay.
I agree that the VR of this lens is disappointing, but we knew what to expect from Tamron’s previous lenses.
I don’t know which camera you own, but the IBIS of the Z6III is fantastic. I never had any reproach to make despite my poorly stable hands, and using it with the VR of tele lenses works very well. It’s just Tamron which isn’t up to it. Perhaps it’s not easy because the body’s VR is made by another company? Or maybe it’s just why it’s cheaper.
The other letdown is the imprecise AF, but maybe it’s just my copy.
Isaac
January 27, 2025 4:31 pm
Thank you for your great review. My copy of tamron 50-400z is also not very sharp in the center area, is it possible z mount tamron 50-400 is worse than the e mount version? In other reviews online, e mount tamron 50-400 seems sharper than sony 70-200 f4 G II and e mount tamron 70-300.
Thanks, Isaac! I didn’t read any other websites’ reviews before I posted this one, so I’m not sure which one says the 50-400mm beats the Sony 70-200mm f/4 II in the center. But that strikes me as a really surprising claim on the surface given how excellent the 70-200mm f/4 II is – for a superzoom to beat it would be unprecedented. Especially if we’re talking at the longer focal lengths, where the Tamron 50-400mm is visible weaker. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Regarding your question of Z versus E, there is no reason why the central sharpness should be any different between the two different mounts on the same lens. If I test a second copy of this lens down the line, I’ll do so on our Sony lab system just for completeness. But I would not expect substantial differences between the two tests (short of the usual superzoom quirks, i.e., the two copies will likely have minor comparative strengths and weaknesses at various apertures and focal lengths).
Robert John
January 27, 2025 12:11 pm
I do agree with you that it’s a rival for the 24-200 (like you I use the 14-30 and 24-200). But the 14-30 is the one I use least as the 24-200 covers such a range of useful focal lengths. I’d imagine that there would be a lot more lens-swapping with the 50-400.
What did you make of the Sony 20-70? I’ve always liked the thought of that with a 70-300.
Thanks, Robert! I’ve actually tested the 20-70mm f/4 in the lab but don’t have the full review written. Definitely an impressive lens. 20mm performance isn’t perfect but still good.
Pieter Kers
January 26, 2025 5:06 am
I consider the Nikon 28-400 very different from this Tamron 50-400. The Nikon covers an important part of wide angle range that makes it a truly – one lens is all you need. Also it is more complex to build because of that. Then it weighs 300 gram less than this Tamron, making it a lens you can carry around, unlike the Tamron.
Yes, fundamentally they’re different for those two reasons. I’d also note the maximum aperture differences, which could matter for something like wildlife photography. Personally, I decided to bring the 28-400mm on an upcoming multi-day hike because of the weight!
duncan d
January 25, 2025 8:05 pm
hello great review as usual !!
little typo you mentioned the sony 70-200 f2 macro G II which sounds like an impressive lens !! I can’t past a screenshot here but i’m sure you’ll find it if you search for “f2” in the search bar
Thanks for the review I have been waiting for this one, since I would like to have a longer focal length than 180mm and I’m considering this lens. I am somewhat surprised that the 70-300 is sharper at some focal lengths – but 300 is simply too short for me personally. Any thoughts on the tamron 100-400 vs the 50-400? Adapter, size and weight aside, is the tamron 100-400 f-mount a good alternative to this lens or is it worth to spend the extra money and get the 50-400mm? Thanks!
The 70-300mm is a bit sharper most likely because it’s just a 4.3x zoom rather than an 8x zoom – much easier to design.
As for the Tamron 100-400mm DSLR lens, I wouldn’t get it for mirrorless unless you already own it. We actually tested it in the lab already, too – photographylife.com/revie…f4-5-6-3/2
In short, the 50-400mm is a little sharper in the corners at 100mm, about the same at 200mm, a little sharper in the center at 300mm, and sharper all-around at 400mm. Plus, the 50-400mm is practically the same weight (lighter if you count the FTZ adapter) and covers more focal lengths!
Thank you for the swift reply and your recommendation! I assumed that because of the higher price the 50-400 would still be sharper than the 70-300 even if it is a 8x zoom. In the end reach is more important to me. Thank you also for the comparison between the 100-400 and 50-400 and I will go for the 50-400.
Hans-Peter Scholz
January 25, 2025 10:00 am
Im Test fand ich nichts über die Wirksamkeit der VC des Objektivs. Bei der Benutzung des Glases hatte ich den Eindruck, dass diese weniger effektiv ist, als die VR vergleichbarer Nikon Z-Objektive, weiß jedoch nicht, ob dieser Eindruck richtig ist. Vielleicht sollte man diesen Punkt noch im Review ergänzen. Beste Grüße aus Deutschland. (In the test I found nothing about the effectiveness of the VC of the lens. When using the lens, I had the impression that it was less effective than the VR of comparable Nikon Z lenses, but I don’t know if this impression is correct. Perhaps this point should be added to the review. Best regards from Germany.)
I have the Sony version and the image stabilization isn’t very good either. Especially the view finder image annoys me as it’s pretty jumpy. Compared to the Sony 100-400 it was around 1-2 stops less effective when I compared the two lenses.
Tamron’s stabilization works very well, although I feel that Nikon lenses are a bit more consistent in stabilization performance. In other words, with Nikon, it’s easier to tell the limit beyond which you can’t go. With the Tamron, that line is a little less clear. A few days ago, while shooting from a tripod, I noticed that the photos were visibly out of focus. I had the VR set to normal. I decided to turn off the stabilization, which had a positive effect on the sharpness of the photos. When shooting handheld with the Z9 and VR normal, I was able to get sharp photos up to about 1/30s (at 400mm). 1/60s is a pretty safe time for static subjects. I dare say that with the Nikon 100-400mm I could get slightly longer shutter speeds (up to about 1/10s).
Danke Libor Vaicenbacher, für die Ergänzung, die meine Erfahrungen bestätigt. Da ich das Objektiv auch an DX einsetze, merke ich schon, dass das Sucherbild oft unruhiger ist, als bei den Z-Nikkoren mit VR. Das ist bei mir der wichtigere Aspekt. Die Zeiten sind ohnehin in der Regel kurz, da ich meist bewegte Objekte fotografiere.
James W
January 25, 2025 7:59 am
Thanks for the review. I think I may well have ended up with this lens instead of the 70-300mm, had this been out last November. It does have a more landscape-usable wideangle end, and goes from 50mm to 400mm. I love a good 50mm for family pictures, and this sounded perfect for the typical outings.
The Tamron 70-300mm does seem otherwise sharper (except with the wideangle-end full-frame edges and corners), quite a bit lighter, and a lot more budget friendly. But it does make me yearn for even more reach at times – a lot more, and OIS as well, when I’m out trying to take bird photos. A touch short FL and smaller subject size appears to further complicate EXPEED 6 autofocus as well.
Still, it is pretty interesting how well that lens holds up with one ED element and zero aspherics as a classic budget telephoto zoom, versus a superzoom with all the not-quite-but-comparatively-exotic stuff inside.
The 70-300mm is a bit sharper all-around, probably because it’s an easier type of lens to design in the first place (as a 4.3x zoom versus an 8x zoom). Considering that it’s also lighter and less expensive, I think your choice of lens was a good one, tempting though the 50-400mm may be.
I expect I would have regretted it the other way around had I went with the 50-400mm for putting up with the compromises, or not “simply” skipping to the 180-600mm (or some used F-mount equivalent) in another bout of FL-longing. After all, if 300mm is “a tad too short” then 400mm is probably not that much more:)
I suppose there is always greener grass elsewhere.
P. S. It may make for an interesting comparison between this lens and the Nikon Z 180-600mm between 200mm and 400mm FL as well, considering how that lens is in the same price bracket, if just a little bit different in use case.
Hi Spencer,
For a Z DX body, so no IBIS, which lens would suit better? This Tamron 50-400 or Nikon’s 28-400? Viewing all comments around the weakness of Tamron’s stabilization, this becomes an important factor on a DX body, more so as on a Z50 this becomes a 600mm…
Thanks!
I really don’t care too much about MTF char comparisons, and like to look at images. From the images you have posted here, I am very impressed about this lens (It is the photographer mainly :-). I had a Nikon z 100-400 and sold it and got the Z 400 f/4.5. Now I am missing the midrange and was looking at this lens, since it is light weight and now I see the IQ is very good too. I know the IQ of the 100-400 and the 400 f/4.5, so this is very acceptable. I like a light weight lens for travelling, as I own the 180-600 which is very heavy to tag along for mid range. Thanks for the review.
For F-mount lens cameras I have owned Tamron 70-300mm and 150-600mm lenses.
The stabilization, specially on the 150-600, was very impressive.
I have owned the Tamron 100-400 for F-mount, but got rid of that lens as it was not sharp on Nikon D850. VC on that lens was very good as well.
Now I bought the Tamron 50-400. Thought it could be a good allrounder for a bicycle trip.
But the stabilization in combination with Z mount camera is a huge disappointment. If I get one stop stabilization that is it. I have two Z mount cameras and it is equally bad on both. On one of the Z cameras the frame stabilize, but suddenly moves position, that happens maybe every 2 seconds or so. For VC settings in camera and stills I find that if set to sport it works better than set to normal.
The main problem for me is that I use AF-S and pin point focus a lot of the time. I can’t set the focus to the place I want with a non effective stabilization. After that I don’t care how sharp the lens is if stabilization is a failure.
As it is a slow lens I need a rock steady stabilization down to maybe 1/50 at 400mm to be able to get focus in low light. Ironic that with the lens I don’t even get the lens collar, though that is really needed for a tripod mount to get stabilization. That lens collar is 140 Euro extra.
And how to blur example water movements with a stabilization like this? Quite impossible. That was possible with the 100-400mm for F-mount.
I hope that Tamron and Nikon can work out how to improve this. I also have to say that the IBIS in Nikon is a general disappointment. I have an OM-1 camera and IBIS is excellent, though it also have limitations with some lenses.
I have an FTZ adapted Irix 150mm Macro lens on Z camera, There is no stabilization even it is a CPU lens with electronically controlled aperture, the camera see the shooting data and the VC can be set to on or off. When I press the shutter button and expect the IBIS stabilization to activate nothing happens.
For sure Nikon could do better here. Easier to change a lens than a whole system though.
Soon my Tamron 50-400 is swapped for something else.
It is also disappointing that Tamron don’t want any direct feedback. All communication go through the distributor. That is not okay.
I agree that the VR of this lens is disappointing, but we knew what to expect from Tamron’s previous lenses.
I don’t know which camera you own, but the IBIS of the Z6III is fantastic. I never had any reproach to make despite my poorly stable hands, and using it with the VR of tele lenses works very well. It’s just Tamron which isn’t up to it. Perhaps it’s not easy because the body’s VR is made by another company? Or maybe it’s just why it’s cheaper.
The other letdown is the imprecise AF, but maybe it’s just my copy.
Thank you for your great review. My copy of tamron 50-400z is also not very sharp in the center area, is it possible z mount tamron 50-400 is worse than the e mount version? In other reviews online, e mount tamron 50-400 seems sharper than sony 70-200 f4 G II and e mount tamron 70-300.
Thanks, Isaac! I didn’t read any other websites’ reviews before I posted this one, so I’m not sure which one says the 50-400mm beats the Sony 70-200mm f/4 II in the center. But that strikes me as a really surprising claim on the surface given how excellent the 70-200mm f/4 II is – for a superzoom to beat it would be unprecedented. Especially if we’re talking at the longer focal lengths, where the Tamron 50-400mm is visible weaker. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Regarding your question of Z versus E, there is no reason why the central sharpness should be any different between the two different mounts on the same lens. If I test a second copy of this lens down the line, I’ll do so on our Sony lab system just for completeness. But I would not expect substantial differences between the two tests (short of the usual superzoom quirks, i.e., the two copies will likely have minor comparative strengths and weaknesses at various apertures and focal lengths).
I do agree with you that it’s a rival for the 24-200 (like you I use the 14-30 and 24-200). But the 14-30 is the one I use least as the 24-200 covers such a range of useful focal lengths. I’d imagine that there would be a lot more lens-swapping with the 50-400.
What did you make of the Sony 20-70? I’ve always liked the thought of that with a 70-300.
PS I liked you testing this lens on both a Z6 and Z9. It’s interesting to see the effect the camera has on the AF.
Thanks, Robert! I’ve actually tested the 20-70mm f/4 in the lab but don’t have the full review written. Definitely an impressive lens. 20mm performance isn’t perfect but still good.
I consider the Nikon 28-400 very different from this Tamron 50-400. The Nikon covers an important part of wide angle range that makes it a truly – one lens is all you need. Also it is more complex to build because of that. Then it weighs 300 gram less than this Tamron, making it a lens you can carry around, unlike the Tamron.
Yes, fundamentally they’re different for those two reasons. I’d also note the maximum aperture differences, which could matter for something like wildlife photography. Personally, I decided to bring the 28-400mm on an upcoming multi-day hike because of the weight!
hello great review as usual !!
little typo you mentioned the sony 70-200 f2 macro G II which sounds like an impressive lens !! I can’t past a screenshot here but i’m sure you’ll find it if you search for “f2” in the search bar
cheers !
Thank you, good catch! I just fixed it.
Thanks for the review I have been waiting for this one, since I would like to have a longer focal length than 180mm and I’m considering this lens. I am somewhat surprised that the 70-300 is sharper at some focal lengths – but 300 is simply too short for me personally. Any thoughts on the tamron 100-400 vs the 50-400? Adapter, size and weight aside, is the tamron 100-400 f-mount a good alternative to this lens or is it worth to spend the extra money and get the 50-400mm? Thanks!
The 70-300mm is a bit sharper most likely because it’s just a 4.3x zoom rather than an 8x zoom – much easier to design.
As for the Tamron 100-400mm DSLR lens, I wouldn’t get it for mirrorless unless you already own it. We actually tested it in the lab already, too – photographylife.com/revie…f4-5-6-3/2
In short, the 50-400mm is a little sharper in the corners at 100mm, about the same at 200mm, a little sharper in the center at 300mm, and sharper all-around at 400mm. Plus, the 50-400mm is practically the same weight (lighter if you count the FTZ adapter) and covers more focal lengths!
Thank you for the swift reply and your recommendation! I assumed that because of the higher price the 50-400 would still be sharper than the 70-300 even if it is a 8x zoom. In the end reach is more important to me. Thank you also for the comparison between the 100-400 and 50-400 and I will go for the 50-400.
Im Test fand ich nichts über die Wirksamkeit der VC des Objektivs. Bei der Benutzung des Glases hatte ich den Eindruck, dass diese weniger effektiv ist, als die VR vergleichbarer Nikon Z-Objektive, weiß jedoch nicht, ob dieser Eindruck richtig ist. Vielleicht sollte man diesen Punkt noch im Review ergänzen. Beste Grüße aus Deutschland.
(In the test I found nothing about the effectiveness of the VC of the lens. When using the lens, I had the impression that it was less effective than the VR of comparable Nikon Z lenses, but I don’t know if this impression is correct. Perhaps this point should be added to the review. Best regards from Germany.)
I have the Sony version and the image stabilization isn’t very good either. Especially the view finder image annoys me as it’s pretty jumpy. Compared to the Sony 100-400 it was around 1-2 stops less effective when I compared the two lenses.
I’ll ask Libor to chime in here with his thoughts. I think he’d be very familiar with the real-world vibration reduction performance of this lens.
Tamron’s stabilization works very well, although I feel that Nikon lenses are a bit more consistent in stabilization performance. In other words, with Nikon, it’s easier to tell the limit beyond which you can’t go. With the Tamron, that line is a little less clear. A few days ago, while shooting from a tripod, I noticed that the photos were visibly out of focus. I had the VR set to normal. I decided to turn off the stabilization, which had a positive effect on the sharpness of the photos. When shooting handheld with the Z9 and VR normal, I was able to get sharp photos up to about 1/30s (at 400mm). 1/60s is a pretty safe time for static subjects. I dare say that with the Nikon 100-400mm I could get slightly longer shutter speeds (up to about 1/10s).
Danke Libor Vaicenbacher, für die Ergänzung, die meine Erfahrungen bestätigt. Da ich das Objektiv auch an DX einsetze, merke ich schon, dass das Sucherbild oft unruhiger ist, als bei den Z-Nikkoren mit VR. Das ist bei mir der wichtigere Aspekt. Die Zeiten sind ohnehin in der Regel kurz, da ich meist bewegte Objekte fotografiere.
Thanks for the review. I think I may well have ended up with this lens instead of the 70-300mm, had this been out last November. It does have a more landscape-usable wideangle end, and goes from 50mm to 400mm. I love a good 50mm for family pictures, and this sounded perfect for the typical outings.
The Tamron 70-300mm does seem otherwise sharper (except with the wideangle-end full-frame edges and corners), quite a bit lighter, and a lot more budget friendly. But it does make me yearn for even more reach at times – a lot more, and OIS as well, when I’m out trying to take bird photos. A touch short FL and smaller subject size appears to further complicate EXPEED 6 autofocus as well.
Still, it is pretty interesting how well that lens holds up with one ED element and zero aspherics as a classic budget telephoto zoom, versus a superzoom with all the not-quite-but-comparatively-exotic stuff inside.
The 70-300mm is a bit sharper all-around, probably because it’s an easier type of lens to design in the first place (as a 4.3x zoom versus an 8x zoom). Considering that it’s also lighter and less expensive, I think your choice of lens was a good one, tempting though the 50-400mm may be.
Thanks.
I expect I would have regretted it the other way around had I went with the 50-400mm for putting up with the compromises, or not “simply” skipping to the 180-600mm (or some used F-mount equivalent) in another bout of FL-longing. After all, if 300mm is “a tad too short” then 400mm is probably not that much more:)
I suppose there is always greener grass elsewhere.
P. S. It may make for an interesting comparison between this lens and the Nikon Z 180-600mm between 200mm and 400mm FL as well, considering how that lens is in the same price bracket, if just a little bit different in use case.