Tamron 150-600/Nikon 300 f/4 and 1.4x Comparison

Woodyg3

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
Okay, here's a quick comparison between the Tamron 150-600mm shot at 420mm, vs my trusted and well loved Nikon 300MM f/4 with a 1.4X Nikon teleconverter. These shots were hand held, so take that into consideration. Pics were taken with a D7100 and there was no post processing of any kind, other than the crop.

Here's the Tamron at 420 full frame first, then 100% crop.

420Test 241.jpg
420Test 242.jpg

Now the Nikon full and cropped.

420Test 243.jpg
420Test 244.jpg
 
Woodyg3

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
Just for fun, here are the 100% crops with levels adjusted and a "normal" amount of sharpness added in Aperture. The first is the Tammy, the second the Nikon.

420Test 245.jpg

420Test 246.jpg
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
Interesting that the Tamron produces a significantly darker image. Could it be that the Nikon is capturing more light at the same exposure?
 
Last edited:
Woodyg3

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
Rick M said:
Interesting that the Tamron produces a significantly darker image. Could it be that the Nikon is capturing more light at the same exposure?
Click to expand...

The RAW files are a lot more similar than the post processed ones are, so it could partially be my post processing. The Nikon lens does seem to produce a little more satuation and contrast, though.

I still need to get the Tamron out in the field and do some real world shooting. Between the weather and work, I just haven't had a chance.
 
4

480sparky

Senior Member
Rick M said:
Interesting that the Tamron produces a significantly darker image. Could it be that the Nikon is capturing more light at the same exposure?
Click to expand...

I'd say it could be due to manufacturing tolerances. F/11 usually isn't exactly f/11.0000000000.

Suffice it to say that even two identical lenses, even with consecutive serial numbers, could produce significantly different exposures.
 
M

Moab Man

Senior Member
Woody, so much can be lost when putting it up on the web. Could you give some analysis. Let's say 1-10. Nikon setup is 5 in the middle, the benchmark. Rating the Tamron, how does it compare: sharpness, saturation, contrast, overall image quality, etc...
 
H

hrstrat57

Senior Member
Further thoughts here Woody? About to sell off the rest of my Minolta Maxxum / Sony A mount glass and gear to fund purchase of Nikon 300 AF-S F4 and 1.4 TC.
@Woodyg3
 
Woodyg3

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
The Nikon lens and TC are a tad sharper, but the Tamron is no slouch. I can get very sharp results with it. I'm spending most of my time using the Tamron for its extra reach and the convenience of the zoom. It has VC, Tamron's version of VR, which is also a nice plus. I just wish the Tamron focused closer and weighed a little less. But, hey, it's got to be the lightest 600mm lens on the market, and it's very reasonably priced.

The 1.4 TC does make the Nikon 300MM f/4 slightly less sharp. By itself, the 300 is a SUPER sharp lens, and at f/4 it's pretty fast, too. If you don't need the extra reach, the 300 by itself is a fantastic lens. I'm not saying the 300 with TC is not sharp, it is. It's just not quite the super sharp prime lens from heaven sharp that the 300 is by itself. :)

There, I've made things clear as mud. One thing I think I can say is that I think most people would be quite satisfied with either of these lenses.
 
Top