1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Lighter weight replacement for Tamron 150-600mm

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by billtils, May 16, 2018.

  1. The Tamron seems to get heavier every time I use it these days ;) , and I'm looking for a lighter weight replacement. It seems that something in the X-400mm plus 1.4TC may do the job. I use the lens for wildlife, mainly birding and BIF (which is why the weight is important).

    Any advice on a replacement that will work with the D750 (and that does not require breath-taking expenditure) appreciated.


  2. Nikon 200-500 is very good
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Randy

    Everything I've read would agree with that, and this was the first thing I looked at seriously. But the goal is weight reduction and at 2.3kg the Nikon is heavier than the Tamron (2.01kg)

  4. That leaves the 300pf + tc
    More expensive, lighter and way better IQ
  5. +1 for the 300pf as far as light weight and IQ goes.
  6. Thanks Randy and Bob. Any advice re TC use? It seems to get good to very good reviews with the 1.4 but less so with the 1.7 or 2.0. At 300mm on a FF body, I'd be looking at being able to bump it up to at least 400, or even better, 500. Looking back at my shots with the Tamron, the best are all in the 400 to 500 range.
  7. I have no hesitation in using the 1.4 TC on the 300 PF. The 1.7 I seldom use unless the light is really good.
  8. What Bob said
  9. What body is that on?

    I had a look at your smugmug shots, and thought that the 300mm PF didn't come close to the quality of the Sigma 150-600 ones (both lenses on the D810). The Sigma ones are superb, better than anything I have managed with the D750+Tamron. However I don't think that the 300mm PF ones were as good as I've managed with the Tamron.

    Out of curiosity, several of the D810+300mm PF shots say they are at 500mm is that a round down from 300x1.7?

    May have to have a re-think ...
  10. .
    Not sure which gallery you are referencing but if it's the one birds 2016 there may be an apple to oranges comparison. ie most of the 300 pf images were shot through a family room window, where the 150-600 may not have been. And yes the 300 pf 1.7 images at 500mm were shot with the 1.7 attached. Hence, why I seldom use that combination. That being said, I no longer have the D810 or the 150-600. I replaced both with a D850 and the Nikon 200-500. I do believe the image quality of the 200-500 is better than the Sigma 150-600 C which is what I owned. As for portability ( I am at that age where handholding with my arthritic shoulders is problematic - reason why I sold my 300 f/2.8 II and 500 mm f/4 - and am very satisfied with the 300pf plus TC 1.4 (if needing a bit more reach ). You might want to check out what others on the forums have said re the 300 pf compared to Sigma 150-600 and Nikon 200-500. In the end you have to decide what is best for your shooting style and need .

    Forgot to mention, Images captured with the 150-600 were shot with a tripod where the 300 plus 1.7 were not.
  11. Heres a more recent shot with the 300 pf and 1.4 TC on a D850
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
    • Like Like x 1
  12. The Tamron 100-400 seems decent from review, but not up to the T150-600, N200-500, or N300. But it is smaller and lighter than the other zoom options.

    Have you considered a adding a D500 or D7500 with the Nikon 300f/4? They both would have better AF. The D500 obviously has better AF. The D7500 has an updated processor and much greater frame coverage than the D750, that should help BIF. Just a thought as it's like adding a 1.5 TC to the N300 with the option of still adding another very good 1.4 TC and with the D7500 drops another 4oz / 120g.
  13. Thanks Bob

    Yes it was the bird gallery and the attached image - wow, my reservations are disappearing like snow of a wall in Summer! I'll keep checking for a bit (you have more pixels to play with when it comes to severe cropping than I do, but it keeps coming back to the surprisingly large proportion of images that were shot in the low to mid 400mm range).

    Here are a few:

    Greylag at 460mm

    Greylag 460mm.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Swan in the evening sun at 450mm

    Early evening dip 450mm.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Three birds in a bush are worth ...

    Three birds in a bush 420mm.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
    Last edited: May 16, 2018
  14. Had I thought about it? Sort of. I know someone with a D7500 and have been impressed but ... I love my D750, don't want to add another body, and if I do anything in that area it will be the "D760" if the spec is right or possibly the D850 if it isn't. The other thing I was flirting with is a D810 ... but it's complicated enough trying to sort out the lens issue on it's own.
  15. Not sure I'd consider the D810. I have the D750 and D800, I almost always grab my D750 first. The D850 would give you more MP to crop so you could use a shorter lens. The D7500 does have the advantage of having pretty close to the same handling as the D750, so that's a plus.
  16. Here's a couple with the 300 pf naked on a D810 in good light.
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    And with a TC 1.7 attached
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
  17. That pretty well says it all :) 
  18. As mentioned above with the D850 you have lots of room for cropping. Here's one in flight with a 70-200 attached
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. I wouldn’t update bodies if I was shooting the Tammy. The D750 is much stronger for a body than the Tammy is for a lens.
    Maybe try the lighter sig, the contemporary, I shot one for an hour and was very impressed. I owned the sig sport and sold it, way too big and heavy.
  20. Almost, you have to add that the D7500 is 10oz / 285g lighter than the D850.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.