FULL REVIEW New TAMRON 100-400mm lens

If those three lenses are used to cover your entire telephoto band, consider selling the Nikon 70-300mm lens and fill the bottom with an 85mm f/1.4 (there are many good ones that are reasonably priced, and dxomark sharpness scores can be used to help find a good pick). Since the Tamron drops clear down to 100mm, an 85mm prime can fill that 70-100 hole very nicely. Another possibility is to fill the top.end with the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8g ed vr lens and a 2x converter. Even with the two stops lost for the doubler, since you started at f/2.8 it's still fast enough for clean autofocus. That would give 85mm for near telephoto, 100-400mm for the midrange, and 600mm for when you need a giant reach. A bonus would be to use the 300mm lens at 300mm needed range and when the light is low. I have the Tamron 100-400mm and I also think it's the bee's knees and the cat's pajamas. As far as Sigma lenses go, their Art series lenses are very nice (though their older lenses are nothing special). The Nikkon 300mm can be found on ebay for around $2500. The TC-20e.x converter is about 250 on ebay, if you don't mind used stuff. KEH is another good alternative (which I imagine you already know). You could add a TC-17e.x if you wanted 500mm. I guess those three lenses and the two teleconverters are lighter and cheaper than the original three on your desk, and give better results. The one downside is that swapping more lenses and converters to get what you want is fiddly.

Ken, I first had the Tamron 100-400 which I bought for my crop sensor camera. I recently acquired a mint Nikon D4s, and immediately bought a Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2. I like the idea of also having the Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 which I can buy slightly used for around $800. In your opinion does it make any sense to have both a 70-200 and a 100-400? If not, which would you keep? I value your opinion. You’re the best out there for lens information.

Today is 25 August 2021 I decided to by this lens although I have already Make my mind but after your this video now I finalize that I will buy Temron 100-400mm.

Thank You!

does each new 100-400 need focus calibration?

I purchased one today 10th March 21, and although I’ve only taken test shots, it’s really impressive. Many thanks for the recommendation.

For the people who like to say this lens isn't as good as X, Y, and Z, need to consider what you're paying and what you're getting. I think for $800, this is a great lens. It's certainly not going to be as sharp as the 200-500 or as versatile as Tamron's own 150-600 but for a good walkaround 100-400 wildlife telephoto lens (especially for beginners) $800 is not bad at all. I mean a Nikon AFP 70-300 which may be optically similar, is about $600 now so $800 to gain another 100mm is not bad. Put this thing on a crop sensor and now you have something like a 150-600 for $800.

I wanted to like the 200-500 and I do, and yes it is probably "better" than this one, but I wouldn't want to carry around the 200-500 as much as I would this lens. Partially because this lens is about 1/3 of the weight and about 70% of the cost. Perhaps for professionals or serious wildlife shooters, the 200-500 is better, but the 100-400 at $800 is great for beginners or people who just want to do occasional general wildlife photography. For me, using the 200-500 on a crop sensor Nikon (1.5x crop) means an equivalent angle of view of about 300-750. Great if you're doing BIFs but not so great if your subjects are closer than about 200-300mm, like at a zoo. So if you're on a crop sensor, the 100-400 is an excellent choice because you can take advantage of that crop factor to get a FF equivalent of roughly 150-600.

I do have to say I slightly disagree on the AFP 70-300 (the replacement for the AF-S G version). It's more expensive, and likely too expensive for what it is. Should be more like $400 or $450. But I feel it is sharper at telephoto lengths than the AF-S G version. When I had my AF-S version lens, I would rarely shoot it beyond about 200mm. The new one I don't mind shooting beyond 200mm (up to maybe 250mm). But I do feel that the newer AFP is a better lens, but probably not that much better that it has to be $600. Knock off about $150-200 and that's probably what the lens should be priced at, so I agree on the overpricing of that lens. The lens, I also feel addressed some of the shortcomings of the AF-S version too.

How does this lens perform when shooting Milky Way, Andromeda, Orion, and other deep sky objects etc on a tracker? Any info is greatly appreciated.

I’m glad you like the Tamron since I’m gonna be buying that one soon. However some example shots or some technical data from your photos would be very welcome too.

I bought the Tamron 100-400mm lens after seeing your video. I am absolutely delighted that I took your advice.

Hi ken, I would like to get a telephoto lens for landscape, could you recommend a lens for me? Was thinking of the Tamron 70-210 f4 or this lens!
Cheers

Hey Ken thought you might be intrested that Tamron has posted a link to this video on their website under reviews.

hi, thanks for your videos I really love them. I have a nikon 28-300 but I am not really happy about the image quality, do you think this tamron 100-400 would be an improvement or shallI stick with the nikon? thanks for your time

PaglaChoda...

i just watched this video, but think Sigma 100-400 is much better. Check it

Compare the Nikon 100-400 with the Tamron 100-400mm....more of an apples to apples

This review to me is of very poor quality.

Somebody on you tube, mentioned that he had to send 3 copies of this lens back . After that he gave up. How can that be Theoria Apophasis? Have you notice anything wrong with this lens? And he seemed so sincere

G2 version of this lens coming.

You not only know your stuff, but also a riot to watch doing photo reviews.

Hi Ken, I am watching this in July 2019. Do you still back up your review from December 2017 or has something similar and better come along? I love my tamron 24-70 and quality shots of tamron 70-200 but find it heavy in general to hand hold and lug around especially to travel. I also want just a bit more reach. I have an old Nikon AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G and i really havent used it since I went to the Nikon D810 from the Nikon 7100. Maybe it would be a bit better in low light with the D810. I would hate to buy a similar lens as the nikkor 70-300 but my hope would be the Tamron 100-400 would produce much better quality shots. I also have an old Sigma 100-500 and it is massive and usually use it for local birding .....like my backyard or the beach, etc. It is a beast like the lens you showed in the clip as well. I would love to hear what you have to say. Thanks.

I bought 100-400 few days ago - before seeing this video. Amazing lens for it's price - 500 USD with 4year warranty.
Great sharpness both FX and DX, amazing VC - I'm able to handhold 1/40 @ 400. Crazy shit! Much lighter than my 70-200 G2.
another great lens from Tamron.

Hi Ken, I checked the lens' images on FlickR and they all kind of suck (not sharp at all). Am I mistaken or is it a "best bang for the buck" sort of evaluation? Of course a 2.8 zoom is better, yet the Tamron's results seem near unusable. Would love to see some of your test results!

how much better is this 100-400mm vs the 18-400mm lens at 400mm? trying to keep weight low

I wanna watch the review but that damm fire wallpaper is super annoying!

I’ve always looked to your reviews as great and unbiased. However, you contradict yourself so badly. I just asked you in a live discussion and you said it’s garbage and you’d never get it. What happened??

Finally received my copy (used), took 40 to 50 photos around 7:00PM (Oakland CA) with D4, No joking, photos are jaw dropping. Thanks again!!!

Hmmm.  I may have to buy the 100-400 and the 18-400.  Ok then. GO Tamron!!!!

Theoria Apophasis good morning. Is the Tamron 100-400 suitable to the Nikon D700 which I have with me? . While I am in Guangzhou China, I thought of having one at a better price. Many thanks.

if you could go for the 70 300 VR AFS or the 100-400, which would you go for?

how does the 18-400 compare to the 100-400?

And now is the perfect time to buy it. You can get it now for about 550-600 bucks. I saw ii for 540 Euros new!

Given that I really don't have the strength for the obnoxiously large 200-500 what are your thoughts on the 100-400 paired with a D850 for bird photography - bearing in mind that I'd be relying a lot on cropping the 47.5mpx sensor to get detail.

Great video

Hmmm....so sell my older version Nikon 70-300VR and get a Tamron 100-400??? Is it noticeably better than the Sigma 100-400??? Will be using it on me D700. Peace to all to enter here.

Hi Ken,
Got the Tamron 100-400mm. for around 500 GBP as 400mm primes for my D7100 are either way too expensive or poor IQ. It was great at 200mm but not at 400mm which is where I needed it. After calibrating in the camera body I found this lens very impressive at 400mm with great VC and AF. Now other areas of the zoom are softer and I don't believe I can make more that one calibration per lens in my D7100.
I like everything about the 400mm side of this lens and would be interested if you or anyone reading this has any suggestions on a good substitute - or should I just keep it for the 400mm.
The Sigma equivalent is a no no, as it has 21 elements to the Tamrons 17 a poor image stabilisation and the AF is not as good either for my birds in flight photography.

the other lens sniffer, mr. Abbott, got me here, Ken. You are both great reviewers!

Just bought this lens. It's superb. Light weight and sharp enough. Focussing speed is awesome. Thanks for your recommendation.

I think im going to buy one!

Ken, now that a little time has passed, how often does the 200-500 stay home and this replaced it in the bag? And did you end up picking one up? I expect it cant replace the 80-200 due to speed and bokeh? I would love to replace that and get the newer 70-200 f2.8 you highly recommend for the VR but thats a beast too and beyond my budget for awhile. Thanks for all you do!

In Ken Rockwell's review (also favorible) mentioned that this lens is better on Nikon cameras than Canon (I shoot N. D7100 loving it) K.R. reports that Nikon cameras remove chromatic aberration far better than Canon. I haven't heard this mentioned anywhere before and I'm wondering what your scientific non bought opinion is. And by the way thank you so very much for all your videos you have leapfrogged my skills so much further than you could ever imagine I owe you a lot and I do support you on Patreon. Your thoughts.

Doesn’t it compete with the Nikon 80-400?

I ended up picking up the tamron 100-400mm based on your advice. Very very satisfied with the AF + stabilization combo, and IQ. Thanks.

I must have a Bum copy..I have It hooked to a Nikon d500 and It isn't sharp at all and a lot of purple fringing..Tried Micro adjustment but without success,,My nikon 55-300mm AF-P does a better job...

Is the autofocus fast for flying birds?

Hey Which lens do you recommend me? Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 & tamron 100-400mm lens

Will this lens be a good match for an old nikon D300? or perhaps better use nikon 300mm F4 AF/S with 1.4 TC?