I’ve written before about the fact that the best big lens is the one you’ve got. Well, I just got a new one, and I wanted to talk about the comparisons now that there’s actually some ownership involved.
I found a steal of a deal on a 400/2.8 on KEH. It’s the oldest version that will still work on the z6, the AF-S ED IF, the first one of those to be specific. It’s a big-ass chunk of metal and glass that clocks in at just over 10lb. No VR, which is less necessary with the z6’s sensor stabilization. Autofocus is speedy, though not *quite* as snappy as the newest E-lenses. The outside is pretty beat up; you can tell this thing’s been used, probably on a sports field somewhere. The glass though? It’s pristine. And really, that’s what counts.
So, given that it arrived about three days before my trip to the two Top-10 zoos in Texas, why did I leave it behind and bring my Tamron 150-600 super zoom instead?
It wasn’t the quality. The 150-600 is amazing. It takes beautiful pictures. It’s the tiniest bit soft wide open at 600, and the variable aperture can be a pain, but it’s a super pretty lens that makes perfectly beautiful pictures. But the 400 is prettier. That 2.8 melts backgrounds beautifully, and it *is* sharper (despite being 20 years older) – though I’ll admit it requires serious pixel peeping to notice.
When I last talked about comparing big lenses, I talked about the Nikon 180-400 and compared it to the Tamron. The Tamron is 90% of that lens for 10% of the price. Compared to the 400/2.8? It’s apples and oranges. Different tools for different jobs.
Having taken the 400 out to Denver a couple days before the trip, I knew it wasn’t the right tool for Texas. Yeah the pictures were better. But my arm was dead after an hour. That weight difference was massive. Not what I wanted on my shoulder and in my hands for full day trips to new locales. Furthermore with those new locales, I didn’t know the habitats. I didn’t know if I’d want to shoot wider or longer. 150 is a long way away from 400. 600 is as well. Lastly, the close focus distance on the Tamron is a lot better than the Nikon; with that MOD and the 600mm, it can make a pretty passable macro lens.
You’ll start seeing more shots from the 400 both on this site and over on the instagram. It really is an incredible lens. Not just incredible for being 20 years old, but straight up properly incredible. There’s a reason they still demand the prices they do this long after they’ve been replaced through three other iterations. But does it replace the Tamron 150-600? No. They’re different tools for different jobs. Yeah, they’re both long telephotos, but one’s a phillips head screwdriver and the other’s a flathead. I want both in my toolbox, and I’m happy to finally have both to work with.
So what *would* replace the Tamron? Well, the Nikon 180-400/f4 TC. That’s about it. But it’s going to be a long time before you start seeing deals on those on KEH – or anywhere else for that matter.
The Zootographer 