Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD lens (model A035) for Nikon F-mount announced


Today Tamron announced the development of a new 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD lens (model A035) for Nikon F-mount. The official product launch will by the end of 2017. The US pricing is not yet announced.

Press release:

Tamron announces the development of a new ultra-telephoto zoom lens with superior image quality, advanced features and lightweight, compact design: 100-400mm F/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD (Model A035)

September 15, 2017 – Commack, New York – Tamron USA, Inc. announces the development of a new ultra-telephoto 100-400mm F/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD zoom lens (Model A035) for full-frame DSLR cameras. The advanced optical design of Model A035 includes 3 LD (Low Dispersion) lens elements for greater aberration reduction and Tamron's original eBAND Coating for superior anti-reflection performance. At 39.3 oz., the new lens is the lightest weight in its class[1] and features magnesium material in key areas of the lens barrel to improve weight reduction, strength and portability.

The Model A035 delivers fast and precise autofocus performance and consistently powerful VC (Vibration Compensation) benefits thanks to the high-speed Dual MPU (Micro-Processing Unit) control system that is found in the latest Tamron lens models.

Model A035 is fully compatible with Tamron's 1.4X teleconverter and the Tamron TAP-in ConsoleTM that enables lens customizations for focus adjustments, VC mechanism adjustments and more. Additionally, an Arca Swiss compatible tripod mount is available as an optional accessory.

This combination of features and optional accessories join to create a lens that photographers everywhere will enjoy using in various shooting situations, including low-light conditions that require handheld operation as well as those where convenient attachment to a tripod is preferred.

[1] Among 100-400mm F/4.5-6.3 lenses for 35mm full-frame DSLR cameras (As of September 15, 2017; Tamron)

Product highlights:

  • 3 LD (Low Dispersion) lens elements effectively compensate for axial chromatic aberrations, a potential issue for ultra-telephoto lenses, and other various aberrations.
  • eBAND (Extended Bandwidth & Angular-Dependency) Coating, with superior anti-reflection performance to eliminate flare and ghosting, provides flawless, crystal clear images.
  • High-speed Dual MPU (Micro-Processing Unit) control system delivers quick and highly responsive autofocus performance and outstanding vibration compensation.
  • Lightest weight (39.3 oz.) lens in the ultra-telephoto zoom lens category.
  • Optional accessory tripod mount is Arca Swiss-compatible.
  • MOD (Minimum Object Distance) of 59" and maximum magnification ratio of 1:3.6
  • Moisture-Resistant Construction and Fluorine Coating for weather protection
  • Fully compatible with 1.4X teleconverter and TAP-in ConsoleTM

Like the new Tamron Facebook page and Tamron Facebook group for additional coverage.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Graham Blaikie

    First? Me? But anyway, what will focussing be like with the 1.4 teleconverter in place especially at the long end at f6.3 – which would be f9?

    • Naacryl

      better off getting the sigma 600mm instead of putting teleconvertors on the 400mm

      • Graham Blaikie

        At f9 on some cameras it might hunt a bit. I have no problems putting a 1.7x teleconverter on a 70-200 f2.8, which makes it f4.8.

        • David

          A ton of modern camera focus points work perfectly up to f/5.6. It’s after that where the focus points just plain stop working because they can’t discriminate at such small apertures. I’d doubt you’d get more than 1 or 5 focus points at f/9.

  • Naacryl

    Sigma and Tamron have figured out the gap in the market. 400mm lenses the average user can actually afford.

    • Graham Blaikie

      Not too big for a DX camera either which would be the equivalent of a 150-600.

      • Naacryl

        Yeah. Honestly in an ideal world we would have a DX verison too.

        • A DX version wouldn’t make any difference. Look at the Fuji 100-400 – it’s only 200 g lighter than the Nikon.

        • EnPassant

          Tamron already sell the 18-400/3.5-6.3 VC lens for DX users! Nikon version is only 705g.

          • Naacryl

            that lens sucks at 400mm

  • bonem

    I’ve got the 150-600 G2 and really enjoy using it. A bit soft at the long end but still a great lens. Not the best for travel. I was considering the new Nikon 70-300, but this might take that spot as my travel tele. I’m curious to see how they compare.

    • Vince Vinnyp

      I have the Tamron 120-600 as well and the new Nikon They are both great lenses for when you want reach for less weight especially the Nikon. When I was looking at the 70-300 I considered the Sigma 100-400 but it, like this, is over 50% heavier and much bigger than the Nikon.

      • bonem

        Great to know. Might do go for the new 70-300 then. I have the previous 70-300. I hear the new one is a good improvement.

        • bonem

          Is the new Nikon 70-300 compatible with a teleconverter? The old one isn’t.

          • TurtleCat

            No, it isn’t. The only likely one is the 1.4 TC E III. You can see the compatibility list here: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/teleconverters/af-s_tc-14e_3/spec.htm

          • Vince Vinnyp

            i had a Kenro 1.4 which I kept because it worked with the old one in a pinch I have tried it with the new one and it didn’t like it. The Nikon Tcons will not even nearly mount.

        • Graham Blaikie

          I hear both the new DX and FX versions are very sharp at all apertures but be aware, they are AF-P lenses which limits which cameras they will work on. They have pulse AF motors and only work on a limited range of the new cameras.

      • bonem

        How do you like the 70-300 vs 150-600?

    • bonem

      Tamron 100-400=2.5 pounds.
      Nikon 70-300= 1.5 pounds.
      Tamron 150-600=4.4 pounds.

      For travel tele, Nikon wins.

  • Chris Phillips

    Guys nothing even comes close to the Nikkor 200-500 f 5.6.
    It is the lens of the century. Bits everything else hands down.

    • TurtleCat

      Lol, you’re not serious are you? It’s a great zoom but the 70-200 E would beg to differ.

      • Chris Phillips

        I am dead serious yes have you ever tried it at all?

        • TurtleCat

          Just my opinion, dude.

        • Jacob Smith

          I have and the Nikon lens is comparable not the lens of the century.

          • Chris Phillips

            Jacob comparable is an understatement, I was unfortunate enough to have gone with the Sigma 150-600 sport, which costs a lot more than the Nikkor. On my third day out with it the barrel locked up, just a week after I got it. Took it back to Sigma for replacement, they refused to replace it and said they would fix it , which they did. Sold it after I got it back and went with the Nikkor. Much faster at the long end, a bit sharper, and a lot cheaper and lighter. Been shooting with it ever since without a hick up. I am really surprised it sells for that price TBH. I have been screwed by third party lenses too many times . Never again , just my two cents.

            • Jacob Smith

              I have used lenses from Nikon, Tamron, and Sigma and I don’t find Nikon lenses to be anymore reliable that the others. Even though Nikon makes excellent lenses their prices normally are way more expensive than any third party lenses. The only reason the Nikon 200-500 is cheaper is because its a generation older than anything Tamron or Sigma has. I personally went through and tried all of the long zoom lenses from all three by renting the lenses first and comparing them side by side the the Nikon was comparable but I found the Tamron took better and sharper pictures than the Nikon and it did better when it came to flaring and CA but calling it the lens of the century can’t agree with you.

            • Chris Phillips

              You see I don’t disagree with you because with the third party lenses, and Nikons sometimes, you get a certain degree of copy inconsistency. The first batches of the Nikkor did have copy inconsistency issues and Nikon rushed to fix it. This is the only reason I didn’t bother looking into the Nikon back then. After I tested both the Tamron and the Sport there was a clear winner from the two copies I had and that was the Sigma. Then after my adventure with the Sport I turned to Nikon and made sure that it was good before I buy. Anyone’s opinion is based primarily on ones experience. Its ok to disagree, good for bringing points to the table,and share our thought.

            • sandy

              ” The only reason the Nikon 200-500 is cheaper is because its a generation older than anything Tamron or Sigma has.”
              Whaaat?? Where did that come from?

      • Hardly a comparison with that fl range.

        • TurtleCat

          My statement was about it being the lens of the century and nothing comes close. That’s such a broad proclamation. If he was saying of similar range then I’d say maybe it is but the 200-400 f4 would win within its range in closer to mid distances.

          • Chris Phillips

            I was implying the apples to apples comparison for the comments on the 150-600 tamrons and sigmas bro. At the price range the Nikkor is at, and the 5.6 steady apperture throughout the zoom range and superb rendering and sharpness , yes nothing even comes close to it.

            • TurtleCat

              Ok, with those qualifications I’d agree with you.

    • Jacob Smith

      Tried the lens along with the 150-600 from Sigma and Tamron and the Tamron gave better performance and images than the Nikon. Lens of the century only to you. Tamron beats it hand down.

      • Chris Phillips

        I tried the Tamron prior to buying the Sigma and found it too soft on the long end, thus went for the Sigma and followed the “trusty reviews” on the tube. Nothing like the Nikon ….yes to ME it is the best of them all hands down.

      • My Tamron 150-600 G2 is considerably sharper than the G1 which I sold. My 150-600 Sport is slightly sharper than the G2 but wow is it heavy and hard to hand hold. I use my Sigma 100-400 when I have to travel on small aircraft and it is also great for close-ups. Even though I don’t use the Nikon 200-500, I’ve heard that it is a good lens and don’t hesitate to recommend it to Nikon users who would whine to me if they bought a Sigma or Tamron and it wasn’t perfect. It’s just not worth the grief recommending a better lens.

    • preston

      I’m sure the 200-500 is great but for my needs I need to be able to shoot hand held for long periods of time and at 4.6 lbs it is just too heavy. The Sigma 100-400 is a full 2 lbs lighter and almost 3″ shorter as well (so seems even lighter since the center of gravity is closer to your body). This Tamron and the Sigma 100-400 that I bought are competing more with the Nikon 80-400 than the Nikon 200-500.

  • Shutterbug

    F6.3 no thanks.

    • The Nikon version is a third of a stop faster at 400mm if that’s what you’re looking for.

    • John

      It’s kinda hard to balance price, zoom and aperture all at the same time. Consider the 200-400 f4: less zoom, probably sharper at medium distances, probably way more expensive than the tamron.

      if the aperture is important to you, then its probably primes all the way.

  • beach

    With Sigma already offering one and Tamron soon joining with what likely will be another $800 lens, one has to wonder how many will select the $2300 Nikon 80-400 instead. Is f/6.3 vs f/5.6 at the long end really that much of a difference. Haven’t seen a review of the Sigma 100-400 yet – does it beat the Nikon 80-400 in sharpness at the long end?

    Fully compatible with 1.4x – most zooms don’t work well with a TC at all. And there certainly is the issue of AF performance when the maximum aperture opening is f/8 or beyond.

    • reporteratlarge

      Good question. Have any reputable sources compared what’s available for Nikon users for the 100-400 zoom range?

      • Tieu Ngao

        There’s a detailed comparison between the Sigma and the Nikon from the “camera labs”. The Sigma is slightly sharper.

    • BVS

      It’s not just the long end though. The Sigma hits f/6.3 at 234mm.

      • Tieu Ngao

        According to the “camera labs”:
        “It is f/5.0 only up to 120mm focal length, f/5.3 up to 150mm, f/5.6 up to 220mm, f6.0 up to 340mm and f/6.3 beyond that”

        • BVS

          Hmm, the f/6.3 at 234mm was apparently for the Canon version. I guess Canon’s can’t do f/6.0 and just jump from f/5.6 to f/6.3 or something?

    • Jacob Smith

      First off any lenses of this type are not well suited for low light photography and with that said as long as there is enough light even up to F13 the lens should not have any focusing issues and generally the pictures do come out tack sharp. I currently own a 70-200 F2.8, 70-300 F4-5.6, and 150-600 f5-f6.3 and I never encountered any focusing issues or a lack of clarity as long as there was enough light to take the photo.

      • Chris Phillips

        Agreed , very true.That is why the Nikkor has a clear advantage being constant at f5.6

        • The real solution is just to get the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 if low light is an issue. Non of the lenses previously mentioned can handle low light like this lens. Put the 120-300 on the new D850 (47 MP) and you effectively go to 600 mm digital crop at 20 MP at 9 FPS.

          • Chris Phillips

            Nope you would go to 450 mm if you are cropping but IMO really defeats the purpose of buying the D850 and use it to shoot in crop mode. You’d be better off buying the D500 instead. The 200-500 will provide you with good reach at a constant aperture and at a very good price. Furthermore it will retain its value a lot better in time as opposed to third party ones.

            • You are correct about 450 mm. However, I do use a D500 for college football and 20 MP doesn’t leave a lot of room for cropping. I generally crop less than 10% (especially for scenics) but sometimes something noteworthy happens at the opposite side of the football field and it’s nice to know that if you shoot it, it can be more severely crop and you can still obtain a decent image. Peak action capture outweighs pixel counting in my opinion. Hmm. This would be a great topic for another post.

        • MB

          80-400 does not have constant aperture, or you are referring to 200-500?

          • Chris Phillips

            200-500

    • preston

      Every test/review I’ve seen says it is unquestionably sharper than the Nikon 80-400 at the long end.

  • Adam Brown

    I’ve stayed away from long zooms because of the weight…. This is about a pound less than the Nikon 80-400. Depending on the IQ and the price, I could be tempted.

  • Tieu Ngao

    If this Tamron is comparable with the Sigma 100-400 in terms of sharpness (which is as good as the much more expensive Nikon 80-400) and price I’d buy the Tamron because it has:
    – the optional tripod mount, and
    – better VR

    • sandy

      It certainly can’t have worse VR.

  • jordan green

    With Sigma already offering one and Tamron soon joining with what likely will be another $800 lens, one has to wonder how many will select the $2300 Nikon 80-400 instead. Is f/6.3 vs f/5.6 at the long end really that much of a difference. Haven’t seen a review of the Sigma 100-400 yet – does it beat the Nikon 80-400 in sharpness at the long end?Fully compatible with 1.4x – most zooms don’t work well with a TC at all. And there certainly is the issue of AF performance when the maximum aperture opening is f/8 or beyond.

    • MB

      Hm … I think we heard you the first time…

      • beach

        No idea why jordan green felt the need to duplicate my post.

        • I will block him, some kind of a bot.

  • Cole Mccann

    First off any lenses of this type are not well suited for low light photography and with that said as long as there is enough light even up to F13 the lens should not have any focusing issues and generally the pictures do come out tack sharp. I currently own a 70-200 F2.8, 70-300 F4-5.6, and 150-600 f5-f6.3 and I never encountered any focusing issues or a lack of clarity as long as there was enough light to take the photo.

    • MB

      Are we being hacked by people repeating their posts indefinitely?

      • silmasan

        Greetings from Disqus copybots!
        We’re here to screw your experience.
        We make Disqus Disgusting.
        We copy humans, upvote each other, and silly humans even upvote us!
        Ban one of us and thousand more will come!
        Hahahah

  • Mrpong

    Bravo ….Collar !!!! I’m planing to get Sigma 100-400 but hesitate about the lack of collar which is very helpful for telephoto. OK I will wait and see how nice this lens is.

    • preston

      I bought the Sigma TS-31 collar and it works great. If you wrap a single layer of gaffers tape around the mounting point of the 100-400 it fits snug as a bug in a rug.

  • Back to top