Anyone Comparison of Nikon 80-400 v 200-500 v Tamron 150-600 ?

astroNikon · May 9, 2017

At some point I may upgrade my Tamron 150-600 version 1.
There's the (a) Tamron 150-600 version 2
and the (b) Nikon 80-400 AF-S, and (c) Nikon 200-500 AF-S.

Does anyone have a good comparison (other than the focal length differences) of the 3 lenses ?

I like the short end of the 80-400, and the long end of the 150-600.
But the 200-500 would probably force me to 2 cameras with my FF using the 80-200 lens to fill in the short end in relation to sports.

Primary uses is diverse:
Aircraft/space photog - where 600 is nice for cropping. I take photos of aircraft up to around 8-14 miles away and crop in.
Birding - which I do not do much, only occassionally.
Sports - where full size fields are now dominating my shooting and I'm trying not to use 2 bodies and I do not have the $$ for 400+mm Primes.

Bodies: D750 & D500.
Whatever I do, I would probably have to sell the Tamron 150-600 to help fund a newer lens.

pixmedic · May 9, 2017

i dont know anything about the other two lenses, but I do have some experience using the 80-400.
not sure if there is a newer version now, ( i think theres a G version now) but having used the older 80-400 f4.5-5.6D VR version, I can say that the AF was pretty slow, and it hunted a LOT in what would be even modestly low light. the newer version might be better on that end though.

astroNikon · May 9, 2017

pixmedic said:
i dont know anything about the other two lenses, but I do have some experience using the 80-400.
not sure if there is a newer version now, ( i think theres a G version now) but having used the older 80-400 f4.5-5.6D VR version, I can say that the AF was pretty slow, and it hunted a LOT in what would be even modestly low light. the newer version might be better on that end though.

Everything that I've read about the old 80-400 and new 80-400 is a night and day difference especially in AF speed. Of course a night and day difference in used prices too.

PatrickW · Jun 12, 2017

astroNikon said:
At some point I may upgrade my Tamron 150-600 version 1.
There's the (a) Tamron 150-600 version 2
and the (b) Nikon 80-400 AF-S, and (c) Nikon 200-500 AF-S.

Does anyone have a good comparison (other than the focal length differences) of the 3 lenses ?

I like the short end of the 80-400, and the long end of the 150-600.
But the 200-500 would probably force me to 2 cameras with my FF using the 80-200 lens to fill in the short end in relation to sports.

Primary uses is diverse:
Aircraft/space photog - where 600 is nice for cropping. I take photos of aircraft up to around 8-14 miles away and crop in.
Birding - which I do not do much, only occassionally.
Sports - where full size fields are now dominating my shooting and I'm trying not to use 2 bodies and I do not have the $$ for 400+mm Primes.

Bodies: D750 & D500.
Whatever I do, I would probably have to sell the Tamron 150-600 to help fund a newer lens.

I owned Tamron 150-600 version 1 and switch to Nikon 200-500 1.5 years ago, here's my two cents.

Don't upgrade Tamron 150-600 to version 2 because there's not much improvement of picture quality, but the price is much higher. I'll not consider Nikon 80-400 because it's expensive and 400mm is inadequate.

Tamron 150-600 pros: good range, AF fast, picture quality is OK

Nikon 200-500 pros: larger aperture, best VR, keeps fine PQ when using Teleconvertor TC-14E III.

Switching from Tamron to Nikon may cost a lot, try to borrow or rent one for detail testing before you make the decision, Cheers.

fmw · Jun 14, 2017

If image quality is the desire, the more modest the zoom range, the better the image quality. The 200-500 should be the winner theoretically.

PatrickW · Jun 15, 2017

I agree with you that 200-500 seems to be the better choice out of these two lenses. If switching from 150-600 to 200-500 may not be the same. I sold my 150-600 only 40% of the original price after I owned for one year.

Although the image quality of 200-500 is better, it's just marginal. If downsize photo to web page size, you can't see any difference. 150-600 is also a very good lens with this price!

astroNikon · Jun 15, 2017

I'm going to try out one of those AF-P 70-300 lenses on my D500 for sharpness. They're so cheap on the used market ($100ish for the non-VR and under $200 for the VR) I might as well since they are getting good reviews for what they are. I really need the low end 70-80 plus upper focal end for large sport fields .. I'm resisting carrying 2 cameras. LOL

PatrickW · Jun 16, 2017

I'm also interested in this lens, tell us the result after trying this. May be I'll get one to replace my 55-300VR.

480sparky · Jun 16, 2017

I had the tamron v1 and compared it to the Nikkor 200-500. Image quality was conparable, but the Nikkors AF and VR won hands down. I know keep it on my D7100 with 1.4 (version II) TC. Never been sorry about it.

PatrickW · Jun 17, 2017

I don't use a tripod. Image quality and VR of Nikon 200-500(even with a TC14E III) give me incredible handheld results in the dark.
D7200@ 700.0mm (35mm equivalent: 1050mm), f/9.0, 0.077 s (1/13)

D7200 @700.0mm (35mm equivalent: 1050mm), f/8.0, 0.067 s (1/15)

Peeb · Jun 17, 2017

Nikon 200-500mm vs Tamron 150-600mm vs Sigma 150-600mm C

Doesn't include all your contenders, but a pretty good read.

PatrickW · Jun 17, 2017

Exactly! AF freeze-ups issue also occurred to my Tamron. Cos I didn't buy from our local distributor, they refused to fix this problem for me. Lastly, I sold it to the second hand shop.