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).
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.
bg5931
January 25, 2025 7:46 am
I am trying hard to get myself interested in this (to replace my 100-400, enabling me to assemble that two-lens travel kit), but what I actually want is a more compact but high-quality 70-300 (or thereabouts) to complement the longer lens, not replace it.
I’m really hoping this is the year Nikon finally releases a lens like that!
Steven Sparks
January 25, 2025 7:23 am
I took this lens on our Europe riverboat cruise in October. It was perfect for shooting the passing scenery from the boat; not having to change lenses. Results were splendid.
I haven’t tested that lens in the lab yet but look forward to doing so! I’ll be testing a lot more lenses for Sony and Canon this year, especially now that I’ve put every available Nikon Z lens through the lab.
Dmitry
January 24, 2025 10:43 pm
Thanks for the review! I had this lens in my purchase options in order to be able to use the 400 mm focal length with my Z7. I recently bought a Sigma 100-400 for the F mount. It’s a pity that you didn’t use it in comparison. And yes. It’s a good thing I didn’t buy the Z28-400.
Thanks Dmitry! Unfortunately, we haven’t tested the Sigma 100-400mm in the lab (although we did do a field test at one point). I don’t want to speculate on which one would be sharper head-to-head, although both are plenty sharp for large prints.
Dan
January 24, 2025 10:36 pm
This came just in time for me before we head to Japan. I just moved from my D750 which I was using prime Nikon ais and voightlanders. I just recently made the mirror less move and bought the z8 and the Nikon 24-120 4s. I’ve gotten so used to image quality of this fantastic lens, that I think the 100-400 and 14-30 will complete my kit. Being able to crop images with this much detail is so appealing and I don’t mind using a three lens arsenal. As always, really appreciate the work you do, thanks!
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).
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.
I am trying hard to get myself interested in this (to replace my 100-400, enabling me to assemble that two-lens travel kit), but what I actually want is a more compact but high-quality 70-300 (or thereabouts) to complement the longer lens, not replace it.
I’m really hoping this is the year Nikon finally releases a lens like that!
I took this lens on our Europe riverboat cruise in October. It was perfect for shooting the passing scenery from the boat; not having to change lenses. Results were splendid.
That sounds like the ideal time to use a zoom with such versatile focal lengths. Hard to “zoom with your feet” when that would put you in the river!
Very interesting review. What about comparing it to tamron 50-300 (even if not Z unfortunately) which is significantly lighter?
I haven’t tested that lens in the lab yet but look forward to doing so! I’ll be testing a lot more lenses for Sony and Canon this year, especially now that I’ve put every available Nikon Z lens through the lab.
Thanks for the review! I had this lens in my purchase options in order to be able to use the 400 mm focal length with my Z7. I recently bought a Sigma 100-400 for the F mount. It’s a pity that you didn’t use it in comparison.
And yes. It’s a good thing I didn’t buy the Z28-400.
Thanks Dmitry! Unfortunately, we haven’t tested the Sigma 100-400mm in the lab (although we did do a field test at one point). I don’t want to speculate on which one would be sharper head-to-head, although both are plenty sharp for large prints.
This came just in time for me before we head to Japan. I just moved from my D750 which I was using prime Nikon ais and voightlanders. I just recently made the mirror less move and bought the z8 and the Nikon 24-120 4s. I’ve gotten so used to image quality of this fantastic lens, that I think the 100-400 and 14-30 will complete my kit. Being able to crop images with this much detail is so appealing and I don’t mind using a three lens arsenal. As always, really appreciate the work you do, thanks!
Thanks, Dan! Every lens you list is pretty awesome, and I think you’ve got a great setup for Japan.
Yes.