Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III RXD Lens For Nikon Z

I like the range of 70-300, light weight, and price. But after 7 weeks, I collected wide enough diversity of images to compare performance under different conditions. I am shooting with a SONY A7R4, used extensively for flowers and birds in flight. All photos are in RAW format. Minimal processing in Lightroom. I very rarely mess with image sharpening. I find it to be a very comfortable weight for a walk-about lens. Surprisingly good for close up photos of small flowers with decent short working distance at ca. 100 mm focal length. Telephoto performance at high end is very uneven compared to the Tamron 100-400 and the SONY 200-600mm, and even the SONY 18-135 and SONY 18-105. The decline in performance appears at 200 mm and particularly at working distance of more ... MoreI like the range of 70-300, light weight, and price. But after 7 weeks, I collected wide enough diversity of images to compare performance under different conditions. I am shooting with a SONY A7R4, used extensively for flowers and birds in flight. All photos are in RAW format. Minimal processing in Lightroom. I very rarely mess with image sharpening. I find it to be a very comfortable weight for a walk-about lens. Surprisingly good for close up photos of small flowers with decent short working distance at ca. 100 mm focal length. Telephoto performance at high end is very uneven compared to the Tamron 100-400 and the SONY 200-600mm, and even the SONY 18-135 and SONY 18-105. The decline in performance appears at 200 mm and particularly at working distance of more than about 50-100 feet. Images of Birds In Flight (BIF) are fuzzy. Many of the photos are routinely taken with a tripod, and often with Bluetooth SONY remote control shutter activation. Parameters are similar to those with other lenses, in manual mode with shutter speeds of about 1/2000, aperture of f 8 to f11, Auto ISO between 100 and 3200, silent mode, IBIS OFF when on tripod with WImberley Gimbal head WH200. Most photos shot in APS-C mode as BIF are often cropped. Of the 420+ photos, the flowers and portraits were quite acceptable. But not a single one of the BIF at 250-300 mm at more than 100 feet distance were keepers. Landscape is OK, acceptable, though not really crisp at 18 mm. I am an amateur, not a pro, so can well admit that I am not an expert. However, results with even the Tamron 100-400 (Canon Mount and Sigma adapter) are close to performance of the outstanding SONY 200-600. FOcus performance on the Tamron 100-400 can't equal the SONY for speed of autofocus, and especially in dim illumination. But both the Tamron 100-400 and the SONY provide excellent 20x30 inch prints. The results with the Tamron 70-300 at longer zooms are not worth printing. But for a walk-around lens, it is a very comfortable weight at 1.2 pounds. The SONY 200-600 is more than 4.7 pounds, and the Tamron 100-400 is 3.2 pounds (with tripod collar and hood).Bottom line: very reasonable price, short working distance for small flowers, light weight. No good for BIF. Poor sharpness at higher zoom and distance 100 feet

I can't tell if I got a defective unit or if the lens is just mediocre. Autofocus was unreliable, especially at the midrange of the zoom. At some settings, the focus was good across the frame. At other settings, the focus was uneven across the frame. Sometimes it was sharper at the edges than at the center. It's not a lens I could rely on. I have other Tamron lenses that I like, but not this one.

I had been using a Nikkor Z DX 50-250 with my Z6ii. The images were ok, but with the cropped sensor, I wasn't getting the full capability of the camera. My first use of the Tamron 70-300 was shooting my great-niece's soccer game. I'm a totally inept sports photographer, but even so this camera/lens combo captured some very good images- bright and sharp subjects, with properly blurred backgrounds. Considering my lack of experience, excellent results from this lens!