Tamron Making Z Lenses

[Danno_RIP]

Tamron is making there first official Z mount Lens. It is a 70-300 f4.5-6.3. It is a first step. Now if they can get some of the 2.8 Zooms. Here is a video with some photos. Matt Irwin is a pretty good YouTube provider on Nikon.

https://youtu.be/kJMa-4jmKqE

 

[Camera Fun]

Hopefully more models will be forthcoming soon.

 

[Clovishound]

The biggest sticking point for me buying the Z5 was the lack of affordable telephoto lenses. I will probably be in the market for a lens to bridge the gap between my 24-70 and 200-500. This might fill the bill nicely. Assuming it performs well. I don't really mind it being a little slow, as long as it is sharp and focuses well.

 

[desmobob]

I'm still shocked Nikon hasn't announced a 70-300mm (or 70-200mm) f/4 Z-mount lens on the way. (Or did I miss it?) The Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 Z lens might be a little expensive for a lot of hobbyists.

 

[Danno_RIP]

I do think the Tamron lenses will be some good lenses. I am anxious to see this lens out in the market to be reviewed. The claim is that the 28-75 f2.8 was made by Tamron and it has gotten good reviews. I would love to see a 70-200 f2.8 or f4 and that 150 to 600 would be nice.

I had Tamron for the most part with my DSLRs. I couldn’t afford the Nikon versions, and the G2 versions were good lenses. I hope they move faster than Nikon did.

 

[TwistedThrottle]

*personal rant ahead

I have the 70-300 AF-P f4.5-5.6 lens I use on my Z6 via the FTZ adapter that preforms quite well, but I would have swapped that lens for a Z mount if it was no slower than 5.6 just for the ease of not having to monkey around with the FTZ in the camera bag. Not interested in this one whatsoever. BOO Nikon for absolutely dropping the ball on this. With all the hype of the larger flange and closer distance from the sensor to the rear element allowing engineers to design faster and lighter lenses, this type of lens should have been front and center on their Z mount lens road map years ago. Only thing I can think of is that Nikon kicked out 3 new 70-300's right before they castrated DSLR lenses and didnt want the Z lens to cannibalize the sales of those lenses. Maybe they'll allow Tamron to release this and then right after that, Nikon will release the ones that everyone's been waiting years for, the 70-200 f4 and or 70-300 f5.6. Maybe the Nikon 70-300 f5.6 is dead now that they're gouging people almost 3 grand for the 100-400 f5.6- why would they release a lens more than 90% the performance yet less than 1/4 the cost? Some of the things Nikon does makes me see red.

*personal rant over

 

[Bikerbrent_RIP]

Hopefully Tokina will start making more Z lenses. My experience has been that Tokina lenses run rings around Tamron lenses! Reason! Don't forget that Tokina was stared by former Nikon People.

 

[BF Hammer]

Much like the F-mount lenses, Tamron has to reverse-engineer the AF and AE logic for the Z-mount. One wonders how different it can be if Nikon is using the same engineering team.

 

[Needa]

*personal rant ahead

I have the 70-300 AF-P f4.5-5.6 lens I use on my Z6 via the FTZ adapter that preforms quite well, but I would have swapped that lens for a Z mount if it was no slower than 5.6 just for the ease of not having to monkey around with the FTZ in the camera bag. Not interested in this one whatsoever. BOO Nikon for absolutely dropping the ball on this. With all the hype of the larger flange and closer distance from the sensor to the rear element allowing engineers to design faster and lighter lenses, this type of lens should have been front and center on their Z mount lens road map years ago. Only thing I can think of is that Nikon kicked out 3 new 70-300's right before they castrated DSLR lenses and didnt want the Z lens to cannibalize the sales of those lenses. Maybe they'll allow Tamron to release this and then right after that, Nikon will release the ones that everyone's been waiting years for, the 70-200 f4 and or 70-300 f5.6. Maybe the Nikon 70-300 f5.6 is dead now that they're gouging people almost 3 grand for the 100-400 f5.6- why would they release a lens more than 90% the performance yet less than 1/4 the cost? Some of the things Nikon does makes me see red.

*personal rant over

TT 5.6 to 6.3 is only a third of a stop given the ISO and noise capabilities of these new cameras is that really a concern?

 

[Fred Kingston_RIP]

I'm still shocked Nikon hasn't announced a 70-300mm (or 70-200mm) f/4 Z-mount lens on the way. (Or did I miss it?) The Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 Z lens might be a little expensive for a lot of hobbyists.

You know, you can buy that 70-200 f2.8 from several respected sources in used Excellent condition for ~$700 ?

I'd buy a used Nikon anything over a New Tamron anything

 

[Peter7100]

My experience has been that Tokina lenses run rings around Tamron lenses!

Totally agree Brent :encouragement:

 

[desmobob]

You know, you can buy that 70-200 f2.8 from several respected sources in used Excellent condition for ~$700 ?

I'd buy a used Nikon anything over a New Tamron anything

The Z-mount? Any I've looked at were well over $2K...
I have an older screw-drive 80-200 f/2.8 that I love on my F-mounts, but I'm thinking about a Nikkor 70-200 or 70-300 Z-mount in the future.

 

[Bikerbrent_RIP]

Thank you Peter!!

 

[Fred Kingston_RIP]

The Z-mount? Any I've looked at were well over $2K...
I have an older screw-drive 80-200 f/2.8 that I love on my F-mounts, but I'm thinking about a Nikkor 70-200 or 70-300 Z-mount in the future.

I'm guessing the only thing you'd "gain" with a Z lens over the DSLR G lens is maybe a couple ounces in weight... I'd also surmise that Nikon is going to be slow to releasing comparable "pro" lens for the Z cameras because they're sitting on 10+ years of F mount Pro lens inventory... It's difficult to develop new product lines when you're holding huge inventories of basically the same product. You can do that, but then you'd need to move that old inventory at discounted rates...and Nikon, by comparison to other companies, has always been disinclined to deeply discount any of their products... That's lessening the "value" that Nikon tries to maintain...

 

[desmobob]

I'm guessing the only thing you'd "gain" with a Z lens over the DSLR G lens is maybe a couple ounces in weight... I'd also surmise that Nikon is going to be slow to releasing comparable "pro" lens for the Z cameras because they're sitting on 10+ years of F mount Pro lens inventory...

As shown with the Z-mount lenses already tested and in use, there is a lot more to gain than a couple of ounces. And Nikon already released the "pro" version Z-mount 70-200mm f/2.8 S late in 2020... what I'm hoping for is a less expensive 70-200 or 70-300 f/4.

My "non-pro" Z-mount 24-70mm f/4 S outperforms the "pro" F-mount 24-70 f/2.8 except in low-light capability. My "non-pro" Z-mount 50mm f/1.8 S outperforms any of the previous F-mount 50mms by a good bit. (I have a sort of standard lens "collection" of eight different Nikkor F-mount 50mms.) And the pro versions of these lenses, the Z-mount 24-70 f/2.8 S and 50m f/1.2 S, have set new standards for lens performance.

I still enjoy and value my F-mount Nikkors and my Nikon SLR and DSLR bodies, but the Z system is incredible and I will certainly build a basic lens outfit for it. I have the 24-70/4, the 40/2 and the 50/1.8 so far. All are superior to my F-mount lenses.

 

[TwistedThrottle]

TT 5.6 to 6.3 is only a third of a stop given the ISO and noise capabilities of these new cameras is that really a concern?

Yup, it is to me. I've noticed the difference between 5.6 lenses and 6.3 lenses on my Z6. I've found situations that 5.6 lenses will AF when 6.3 wont, (crappy gym lighting shooting volleyball). Its no big deal if the subject is static but Nikon doesn't AF in low light very well, frustratingly so with slow glass. Plus, the subject separation is better with 5.6 than 6.3. This isn't a concern with longer lenses like the 200-500f5.6 vs 150-600 f6.3. Overall, I'm concerned about the trend for Nikon's amateur level lenses. F mount 18-140 was a 5.6 lens, now its 6.3 for the Z (and 30% more expensive). F mount 28-300 was a 5.6 lens, the Z may have gained 4mm at the wide end, (24mm instead of 28mm, sadly f4 instead of f3.5) but lost 100mm at the long end and also went to 6.3 (selling for nearly a grand). They do offer some great amateur standard zooms, the 24-120 & 28-75, but (still) nothing telephoto.
To be clear, I'm sure this Tamron lens is going to be fine. Any new lens at this point should give stellar results, above what lenses of yesteryear could have done at the same aperture. I hope Tamron continues to build lenses for the Z, they've got excellent glass. I hope Sigma joins it too, competition is good! It just irks me that it was THIS lens they did it to and what that means for the future of this lens for Nikon. To me, it seems like a step backwards instead of what Nikon knows their base wants. It's no secret that their Z lens roadmap had (has) a huge gaping hole in it where either the 70-200f4S (best option) or 70-300f5.6(acceptable option) should be. The 100-400 $eem$ like a great len$ for tho$e who can afford it, but I prefer the cost, size and weight savings that lens does not offer. Hopefully this Tamron lens sets the stage to allow Nikon to release the 70-200f4S (that collapses just like the 14-30&24-70 f4S lenses). I just need Nikon to start cranking out their lens lineup a little more quickly or my need for a great volleyball/Tennis lens wont be needed anymore

 

[Needa]

Yup, it is to me. I've noticed the difference between 5.6 lenses and 6.3 lenses on my Z6. I've found situations that 5.6 lenses will AF when 6.3 wont, (crappy gym lighting shooting volleyball). Its no big deal if the subject is static but Nikon doesn't AF in low light very well, frustratingly so with slow glass. Plus, the subject separation is better with 5.6 than 6.3. This isn't a concern with longer lenses like the 200-500f5.6 vs 150-600 f6.3.

Thanks TT. That is the kind info I was looking for.

 

[TwistedThrottle]

I'm guessing the only thing you'd "gain" with a Z lens over the DSLR G lens is maybe a couple ounces in weight...

There is a significant sound difference between af-s lenses and the af-p lenses or the stepping motor used in Z lenses. I can't use af-s lenses for video due to the constant whirring and clicking noises made when focusing, its picked up on the mic and is very distracting while viewing the video. Plus, you get 5 axis VR with Z lenses as opposed to just 3 using f mount via FTZ.

 

[Danno_RIP]

I'm guessing the only thing you'd "gain" with a Z lens over the DSLR G lens is maybe a couple ounces in weight... I'd also surmise that Nikon is going to be slow to releasing comparable "pro" lens for the Z cameras because they're sitting on 10+ years of F mount Pro lens inventory... It's difficult to develop new product lines when you're holding huge inventories of basically the same product. You can do that, but then you'd need to move that old inventory at discounted rates...and Nikon, by comparison to other companies, has always been disinclined to deeply discount any of their products... That's lessening the "value" that Nikon tries to maintain...

Fred the Z Lenses released to date are better glass. And as for Pro Grade. The Z mount lenses with the S in the nomenclature are comparable to the gold ring pro lenses of the F Mount if not better. My 50 1.8 is better than the G version by an order of magnitude. I do not use it as much as I did because I love the 24-70 f2.8S that lives on my Z6 these days. The only shortcoming that the Z lenses have is the short between the shutter button and the ground... (that would be me). I also have the 85 f1.8S, the 14-30 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8S. My 85 f1.8S is better than the f1.4 F mount I used to borrow from a friend of mine. The 70-200 f2.8S blows me away as well. The 14-30 f4S I think is better than the 14-24 f2.8 F Mount I had and it is certainly lighter by almost half.

The thing is most of the released lenses are S lenses. They are well made and they have a good weather seal. Some of the talking heads on the web dogged them out when they first hit but they never really gave them a chance and with the firmware updates made to all the bodies and many of the lenses they are pretty amazing. The non S lenses are amazing as well. Nikon is investing in the Z line. They have introduced some pretty amazing long lenses for the wildlife folks like the 800 mm and the 400 f2.8S TC VR. I wish they had some more lenses. 70-300 with VR would be nice. A zoom similar to what Tamron currently produces going up to 600 would be nice. I think they are in the plan but not there yet.

But based on the reviews of the 28-75 f2.8, which was a Tamron lens, I would look at them if the price was right. I had great success with my Tamron lenses on my D7200 and my D700. My Tamron 26-75 f2.8 lived on my 700 and and it was only replaced by the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 when necessary. So i am glad Tamron is going to be building lenses.

But for now, I have all the lenses I need. Maybe I will get a Z6III when they announce it. There is supposed to be an announcement end of September. Maybe a Z8 or a Z6III, who knows.

 

[Danno_RIP]

There is a significant sound difference between af-s lenses and the af-p lenses or the stepping motor used in Z lenses. I can't use af-s lenses for video due to the constant whirring and clicking noises made when focusing, its picked up on the mic and is very distracting while viewing the video. Plus, you get 5 axis VR with Z lenses as opposed to just 3 using f mount via FTZ.

I have gotten so used to those points I forget about them. I traded my last Z lens out about a year ago, except for my 200-500 f5.6 and the Z lenses are nearly silent. And the 5 axis IBIS is so amazing as well that I can hand hold shots I never was able to hold before.