I just got the Tamron 50-400mm for the Nikon Z mount. My idea was to have it as a lens to use on my Nikon Z6III.
I found the lens to be a little longer and a lot heavier than I had expected. The bad thing about an online world for buying items is that you often can't tell exactly how something will look and feel as opposed to the old days when we would go to a camera store and try out a lens in person before we bought it.
But with that said, I think I will keep it, I just need to adjust my expectations that it is the length and weight that it is. And actually, when thinking about it, the weight is a good thing, because to me that means better glass is used. And better means sharper hopefully.
This is an upgrade to the old 100-400mm lens that had been around for years. I once in a while was tempted to get one years ago as I wanted something that still had some reach, but wasn't as big as my Tamron 150-600mm.
This lens is solid, and feels solid. It has VR built into the lens, which not all Tamron lenses for the Z mount have. So that was a nice addition. I probably wouldn't have gotten it if it didn't have VR.
According to other reviews I have read, the 50-400mm is sharper all around then the older 100-400mm. Which I have actually found with every Z mount lens compared to it's older DSLR version, the newer lenses are sharper.
One main advantage the 50-400mm has over the 100-400mm is that it is wider, being that it starts at 50mm. Now personally, I would prefer my walk around lens to start at 24mm, so 50mm seems a bit too tight. But it could be fun to get used to. I already have the Nikon 24-200mm lens for my Nikon Z8. That lens is pretty close to perfection. Totally sharp throughout, it's quick, got a great range, and I was so tempted to buy a 2nd one for the Z6III as I really do love that 24-200mm so much. But I just couldn't see having 2 of them, I like my backup or 2nd body to have a zoom range that is different then my main camera.
Nikon does make a 28-400mm lens. It's almost 24mm, so the range would have been great. From reviews it's a nice lens, it's pretty sharp and not soft like the older super zooms were. But it's not quite as sharp as the 24-200mm, and worse, at 400mm it's f8, which is really slow and would be horrible for dim lighting. But still I looked at the 28-400mm just to make sure I was checking all of the bases.
I got the lens tonight, after dark. So the only thing I could test it on today was the moon.
The moon is a bit small at 400mm. I cropped it, but it really dropped it's resolution. It's still super sharp, but the lens may not be my go to moon lens, but it did work. If I was to want to use it on the moon, I would probably swap it to my Z8, so that it had more resolution for cropping. In fact, I think I will try that after I post this.
I will try to add more info later.
Here is the moon.
I found the lens to be a little longer and a lot heavier than I had expected. The bad thing about an online world for buying items is that you often can't tell exactly how something will look and feel as opposed to the old days when we would go to a camera store and try out a lens in person before we bought it.
But with that said, I think I will keep it, I just need to adjust my expectations that it is the length and weight that it is. And actually, when thinking about it, the weight is a good thing, because to me that means better glass is used. And better means sharper hopefully.
This is an upgrade to the old 100-400mm lens that had been around for years. I once in a while was tempted to get one years ago as I wanted something that still had some reach, but wasn't as big as my Tamron 150-600mm.
This lens is solid, and feels solid. It has VR built into the lens, which not all Tamron lenses for the Z mount have. So that was a nice addition. I probably wouldn't have gotten it if it didn't have VR.
According to other reviews I have read, the 50-400mm is sharper all around then the older 100-400mm. Which I have actually found with every Z mount lens compared to it's older DSLR version, the newer lenses are sharper.
One main advantage the 50-400mm has over the 100-400mm is that it is wider, being that it starts at 50mm. Now personally, I would prefer my walk around lens to start at 24mm, so 50mm seems a bit too tight. But it could be fun to get used to. I already have the Nikon 24-200mm lens for my Nikon Z8. That lens is pretty close to perfection. Totally sharp throughout, it's quick, got a great range, and I was so tempted to buy a 2nd one for the Z6III as I really do love that 24-200mm so much. But I just couldn't see having 2 of them, I like my backup or 2nd body to have a zoom range that is different then my main camera.
Nikon does make a 28-400mm lens. It's almost 24mm, so the range would have been great. From reviews it's a nice lens, it's pretty sharp and not soft like the older super zooms were. But it's not quite as sharp as the 24-200mm, and worse, at 400mm it's f8, which is really slow and would be horrible for dim lighting. But still I looked at the 28-400mm just to make sure I was checking all of the bases.
I got the lens tonight, after dark. So the only thing I could test it on today was the moon.
The moon is a bit small at 400mm. I cropped it, but it really dropped it's resolution. It's still super sharp, but the lens may not be my go to moon lens, but it did work. If I was to want to use it on the moon, I would probably swap it to my Z8, so that it had more resolution for cropping. In fact, I think I will try that after I post this.
I will try to add more info later.
Here is the moon.
