I am looking at a telephoto for my next lens, specifically hoping to acquire some longer reach to get into birding a little bit more. My 70-200 simply doesn't reduced it the majority of of the time, especially through a FX area of check out.
You are watching: Tamron 150-600 g2 vs nikon 200-500
I have been looking greatly at these 2 since they're affordable and have actually pretty solid reviews. I think my best hang-ups are the variable aperture via the Tamron, however that the slightly shorter focal size via the Nikon.
I would love to hear your personal experiences with either/both of these lenses. Also would certainly favor to watch your favourite shots via either of these lenses (bonus points if it's a wide-open shot!).
Alternatively; perform you have actually an additional concept for an affordable however effective telephoto for full-structure F mount? Shooting a D750 if that matters.
This thcheck out is archived
New comments cannot be posted and also votes cannot be cast
Sort by: best
I have individual endure with the Nikon lens. It was excellent to usage and took good images. I rented one to take photos of flying planes at an airpresent.
I have review several different comparikid short articles on these two lenses and also the reviews seem to favor the Tamron if you're shooting Nikon. The variable aperture just quantities to one third of a stop at the lengthy end, but you gain an additional 100mm of reach with the Tamron. On the G2 variation of the lens, the VR is very good and emphasis tracking is at leastern as excellent as the Nikon, per the short articles I've read.
I have a friend that uses the Tamron on his D500 and loves it. Plus the Tamron is a little bit lighter and slightly smaller sized than the Nikon. You can buy the Tamron for a tiny much less also, and also you deserve to uncover supplied Gen1 Tamrons for under $800.
That's just my 2 cents. If I was out to buy such a lens, I'd buy the Tamron myself.
I've shot the 200-500 via a Nikon D5300. I absolutely recommend the Nikon lens.
I wouldn't be so pertained to around the aperture; it's not a huge difference. On the other hand, the sharpness on the Nikon is pretty significant. You can conveniently double or triple the reach of the lens by cropping in article.
AF performance on the 200-500 is excellent. The emphasis limiter is helpful, considering that it permits you to shoot via fences and also various other close obstructions without the AF system coming to be puzzled. It has the full-time hands-on override, yet I really never felt the have to use it. Focus speed isn't as fast as the 70-200 or the newest 70-300 AF-P, yet it's even more than great sufficient.
If you're on FX, I'd indicate also nabbing the TC-14III; the lens absolutely has actually the optics for a teleconverter. Another excellent alternative is to pick up a D7200 for the times you need a little more reach. The added resolution of the APS-C sensor allows you to chop to truly staggering ranges (2000+mm FX equivelent FOV is entirely achievable.)
On the various other hand, FX gives you a little bigger FOV at the brief finish. 200mm can occasionally be unusably long; having the alternative to remove the TC or to go without when you desire to shoot huge subjects or closer subjects deserve to be handy.
VR functions well on this lens, and also hand-organized shots come out excellent. Weight/fatigue/mass can be a little of an problem though. A monopod most likely isn't a negative principle, and you certainly want a good over-the-shoulder sling, with a 2nd hook for the tripod collar.
See more: Unable To Change Syndication Settings On A Video Which Has Not Monetized.
One various other warning is that the 200-500 gets the majority of attention. Get provided to comments, concerns, and also jokes around the lens. On the plus side, world will certainly commonly acquire the hell out of your method as soon as it comes out.