I just bought this lens finally after considering the new 28-75 and the 24-105. For me, I'm always out hiking and climbing so that extra reach is what really sold me. This lens gives me more creative possibilities than any other option out there and for such a good price! The main weakness of the lens is f5.6 at 200mm in lower light but as long as you work around that, you've always got a great 28mm f2.8 at the wide end.
Always like your reviews! Especially because I feel like a lot of reviewers skip over the color and lens character section. I appreciate the way you go in depth on these parts, cause to me that is the most important quality of a lens.
I use this lens for photography, it doesn't feel so slow at 200mm. I have been using it for 2 years, for during the day & at night using flash with bouncing fun family photos. Studio photos are also fun, the eye looks so detailed. More useful than the 28-75mm.
i am always traveling with this lens, the versatility for trips is crazy and with crop mode in sone cameras u get 300mm, i have taken pictures of birds and animals that i would have never taken. it is a must as an all rounder
I can confirm this. But would not call it an all rounder cause it is not that great in low light situations... but then again.. which zoom lens really is? Indoors, at low light or for portraits i use prime lenses (35F1.8 and 75F1.8). For Everything else i take this one. On every vacation i only take this one and the 35F1.8 as a backup for night time. Combined with an 60MP sensor you really get 300mm especially since its sharper at the center. (Hope my english is understandable :D)
So glad I found your channel! I'm finally upgrading from DSLR to my first mirrorless so your videos and insight have been incredibly helpful. I'm also living in Japan so seeing all your Japan content is really cool! Thank you!
I was agonizing which one to take to my trekking in Patagonia. I have both 24-105 and this new 28-200. I tested them on a golf course. The 28-200 weakest area is 50-70 at the widest apertures. Stopping down brings it to parity with 24-105 but you loose a stop of light. It is also less contrasty overall, maybe 5%. But as you said . If you go into unknown and have to hike and want to save on weight and also want to react fast without fumbling to change lense, than I think it is a good compromise, allowing basically take 28-200 and 16-35 (or 20 f1.8) and be done. But optically 28-105 beats it.
Which focal lengths did you use most in Patagonia? Going in January and currently assembling my gear. I have a Sigma 28-70 2.8 + a couple primes, but sometimes I miss the reach of a 200mm! Just not sure if Patagonia (we do W trek) will be more of a wide angle situation anyways, which I have covered with a 16mm and a 24mm prime.
Whether Sony a7CR + Tamron 200mm + crop = as sharp as Sony A7CR + new Tamron 300mm natively (due to huge resolution of A7CR)? Everyone says than the older 28-200mm lebs is sharper than the newer 28-300mm lens, but whether it's sharper to the extent rhat it can match it when used with A7CR and cropped to resemble the field of view of 300mm?
Currently trying out the lens. Overall, I like it, especially the weight and landscape image quality. I agree that it's very limited in low-light situations; nevertheless, I believe I will buy it. The image quality, versatility, size, and weight make the difference.
I have the same dilemma now. I will sell my Tamron 28-75 and will purchase either Sony 24-105 or Tamron 28-200. I wasn't quite happy with the build quality of the 28-75, mine got dust inside after a few weeks of light use...
Thanks for the helpful review. Looking for a lens to partner with my 20f1.8 for travel, and this may be it. I appreciate that you spend time showing results and giving your feelings about it - more useful to me than just measurements.
It's crazy but some of the other lenses in this range that are often recommended are so expensive-- and I thought the same thing well this has to be bad, but this and another vid convinced me. Minor gripes from others about the AF being "slow" or something but the quality is very good, images are excellent. For a mid range all purpose lens I am really pleased, and I can save my coin for a really really good anamorphic instead
Did you replace your Sony 24-105 for this lens? Can you do a comparison. I have the sony 24-105 and thinking of getting the Tamron 28-200 for that extra reach but I wonder if I will loose image quality. I only do photography no video.
I bought the sony 24 -105 but it doesn´t work with my weebill s in particular with the zoom motor due to the hard ring for this sony, so I will try with the tamron.
Hi, wanna check if this Tamron 28-200mm lens is okay to shoot Mt Fuji from Lake Kawaguchi? Im looking for a all rounder lens for my trip to Japan. Dk if I should get the 2040mm lens and a 70300mm or just this will do.
I think that native lens are surely work-friendly and the sony look sharper and best choice. Better color science and also with oss. If the Tamron cost 500/600 buks less, it will be a reason
If weight is the only reason for this lens, go for an used Olympus/Panasonic MFT body with a 14-150mm, the covered focals are (FF equivalent) 28-300 and for exemple OMD-5 + 14-150 4-5.6 + battery + card = 750g and it's stabilized + weatherproof. or to stay with Sony, the DSC-RX100M7G with its 24-200mm equivalent, weights only 280g. This Tamron alone weights 690g. I think with Sony A7, quality is more important than weight, and therefore, not sure this kind of lens is an option. I like Tamron lenses, I have a few of them but superzooms (from any brand) combined with hi-res sensors are never the solution if image quality is the goal.
In a recent re-review (after a rev. & keeping the said lens for 3 yrs) D.Abbott reported using it w/ a 61MP sony on a trip to Cancun & the lens' still holding it w/ hi-res bodies.
f2-->f2.8 ; great lens but too heavy so heavy I can't imagine it'd be the first lens to pick up. I still have very hi-q manual 75-200, heavy metal for a person who's become 30 or more years older. Wish the 28-200 has a usb for firmware up-g. My 17-28 f/2.8 does Not either !
I have the sony 28-60 (supposedly THE kit lens for the a7C). Bought it (after watching a video by J.Vong) to use on an a7iv. It's unexpectedly that good & "collapsible". Sometimes it's good to have sth compact, light & good when u know that u don't need the extra 140mm for the day. Only f/4-5.6 ? Not a problem; I grew up shooting chrome film (iso 50, 64,100 etc) & also later XP1/2. { why so many complaints, vibrations etc? life is easier these days} I'm still considering the 28-200 (wish it had an usb plug for easier firmware update) for extensive trips. I saw some actual tests against a couple of well-known lenses. It is worth it.
Tamron 28-200mm vs Sony 24-105mm, or any other suggestion?
I would go with the 28-200 as it's an fe lens so it will work on the full frame also if I decide to ubgrade in future 😀
why you dont compare with sony 24-420 mm
@@hafizhrohman7430 is there a Sony 24-420mm lens
I just bought this lens finally after considering the new 28-75 and the 24-105. For me, I'm always out hiking and climbing so that extra reach is what really sold me. This lens gives me more creative possibilities than any other option out there and for such a good price! The main weakness of the lens is f5.6 at 200mm in lower light but as long as you work around that, you've always got a great 28mm f2.8 at the wide end.
which camera?
Is it good in the in between focal lengths as well ? 35/50/85 mm? Also how have you worked around the f5 aperture ?
Always like your reviews! Especially because I feel like a lot of reviewers skip over the color and lens character section. I appreciate the way you go in depth on these parts, cause to me that is the most important quality of a lens.
I use this lens for photography, it doesn't feel so slow at 200mm. I have been using it for 2 years, for during the day & at night using flash with bouncing fun family photos. Studio photos are also fun, the eye looks so detailed. More useful than the 28-75mm.
i am always traveling with this lens, the versatility for trips is crazy and with crop mode in sone cameras u get 300mm, i have taken pictures of birds and animals that i would have never taken. it is a must as an all rounder
I can confirm this. But would not call it an all rounder cause it is not that great in low light situations... but then again.. which zoom lens really is?
Indoors, at low light or for portraits i use prime lenses (35F1.8 and 75F1.8). For Everything else i take this one. On every vacation i only take this one and the 35F1.8 as a backup for night time. Combined with an 60MP sensor you really get 300mm especially since its sharper at the center.
(Hope my english is understandable :D)
@@peterbernhard6087 with the new denoise ai in lightroom 6400 iso is nothing is all rounder even at night
So glad I found your channel! I'm finally upgrading from DSLR to my first mirrorless so your videos and insight have been incredibly helpful. I'm also living in Japan so seeing all your Japan content is really cool! Thank you!
Happy to help!
I’ve always looked into this lens! 17-28 and this lens and that makes a great little kit!
Sure!!!
did you end up getting those two? that's what I'm most likely buying soon
@@adindarling I did end up with the 17-28mm for a while but never picked up the 28-200mm.
I was agonizing which one to take to my trekking in Patagonia. I have both 24-105 and this new 28-200. I tested them on a golf course. The 28-200 weakest area is 50-70 at the widest apertures. Stopping down brings it to parity with 24-105 but you loose a stop of light. It is also less contrasty overall, maybe 5%.
But as you said . If you go into unknown and have to hike and want to save on weight and also want to react fast without fumbling to change lense, than I think it is a good compromise, allowing basically take 28-200 and 16-35 (or 20 f1.8) and be done. But optically 28-105 beats it.
Which focal lengths did you use most in Patagonia? Going in January and currently assembling my gear. I have a Sigma 28-70 2.8 + a couple primes, but sometimes I miss the reach of a 200mm! Just not sure if Patagonia (we do W trek) will be more of a wide angle situation anyways, which I have covered with a 16mm and a 24mm prime.
I think I would rather go for 24-105 + Sigma 100-400 for landscape.
Спасибо! Очень понятно и интересно! Надо покупать.
Whether Sony a7CR + Tamron 200mm + crop = as sharp as Sony A7CR + new Tamron 300mm natively (due to huge resolution of A7CR)? Everyone says than the older 28-200mm lebs is sharper than the newer 28-300mm lens, but whether it's sharper to the extent rhat it can match it when used with A7CR and cropped to resemble the field of view of 300mm?
Currently trying out the lens. Overall, I like it, especially the weight and landscape image quality. I agree that it's very limited in low-light situations; nevertheless, I believe I will buy it. The image quality, versatility, size, and weight make the difference.
I have the same dilemma now. I will sell my Tamron 28-75 and will purchase either Sony 24-105 or Tamron 28-200. I wasn't quite happy with the build quality of the 28-75, mine got dust inside after a few weeks of light use...
Thanks for the helpful review. Looking for a lens to partner with my 20f1.8 for travel, and this may be it.
I appreciate that you spend time showing results and giving your feelings about it - more useful to me than just measurements.
Nice, it's gonna be a good partner!!
Would this be ok to paired with Sony A6000?
thank you for details review..
just saw your video. great review thanks for it. keep it up
Awesome, thank you!
It's crazy but some of the other lenses in this range that are often recommended are so expensive-- and I thought the same thing well this has to be bad, but this and another vid convinced me. Minor gripes from others about the AF being "slow" or something but the quality is very good, images are excellent. For a mid range all purpose lens I am really pleased, and I can save my coin for a really really good anamorphic instead
Thank you Akatsu! I watched this video twice and finally decited to order one!! I will let you know what I think of it!
Oh, that's exciting.
Looking forward to it!!
So what did you think of it?
最近たくさんの動画を見させて頂いております。最後、日本語で話されていたのでびっくりしました！
ありがとうございます！
今度全部日本語でゴリ押そうかなと思います
I’m heading to Tokyo in a few weeks time and considering purchasing this .. any upgrades since ?
Did you replace your Sony 24-105 for this lens? Can you do a comparison. I have the sony 24-105 and thinking of getting the Tamron 28-200 for that extra reach but I wonder if I will loose image quality. I only do photography no video.
the detail comparison has already been done somewhere (forgot where ! )
the tamron was good!
should I take this or Sony 18-135 for a6700?
bigger aperture without anti-vibration VS small aperture with OSS, for both stills and videos
Great review!
hello Sir would you recommend this for car shows?
Great vid. Thanks!
i m got tamron 28-200 ready , thank for review
Welcome 😊
I bought the sony 24 -105 but it doesn´t work with my weebill s in particular with the zoom motor due to the hard ring for this sony, so I will try with the tamron.
Hi, wanna check if this Tamron 28-200mm lens is okay to shoot Mt Fuji from Lake Kawaguchi? Im looking for a all rounder lens for my trip to Japan. Dk if I should get the 2040mm lens and a 70300mm or just this will do.
Yeah, I think this lens does a good job for that!
@@KenseiAkatsu thanks a lot for the reply! Will check it out 😊
I have this lens and I love it!
You made a great choice!!!
I think that native lens are surely work-friendly and the sony look sharper and best choice. Better color science and also with oss. If the Tamron cost 500/600 buks less, it will be a reason
I recently bought an analog camera that came with this exact lens omg!!!!!!!!! Do you think I can make a good portraits film photos out of this?
I think so!
Is it for full frame Sony fx3
If weight is the only reason for this lens, go for an used Olympus/Panasonic MFT body with a 14-150mm, the covered focals are (FF equivalent) 28-300 and for exemple OMD-5 + 14-150 4-5.6 + battery + card = 750g and it's stabilized + weatherproof.
or to stay with Sony, the DSC-RX100M7G with its 24-200mm equivalent, weights only 280g.
This Tamron alone weights 690g.
I think with Sony A7, quality is more important than weight, and therefore, not sure this kind of lens is an option.
I like Tamron lenses, I have a few of them but superzooms (from any brand) combined with hi-res sensors are never the solution if image quality is the goal.
In a recent re-review (after a rev. & keeping the said lens for 3 yrs) D.Abbott
reported using it w/ a 61MP sony on a trip to Cancun & the lens' still holding it w/ hi-res bodies.
Nice work!
Thanks!
stuck on either this lens or the 35mm-150mm from tamron
f2-->f2.8 ; great lens but too heavy so heavy I can't imagine it'd be the first lens to pick up. I still have very hi-q manual 75-200, heavy metal for a person who's become 30 or more years older. Wish the 28-200 has a usb for firmware up-g.
My 17-28 f/2.8 does Not either !
Tamron 28-200mm vs Sony 28-70mm kit. Which is better for taking videos?
I would go for Tamron if now
@@KenseiAkatsu thank you!
I have the sony 28-60 (supposedly THE kit lens for the a7C). Bought it (after watching a video by J.Vong) to use on an a7iv. It's unexpectedly that good
& "collapsible". Sometimes it's good to have sth compact, light & good
when u know that u don't need the extra 140mm for the day. Only f/4-5.6 ?
Not a problem; I grew up shooting chrome film (iso 50, 64,100 etc) & also
later XP1/2. { why so many complaints, vibrations etc? life is easier these days}
I'm still considering the 28-200 (wish it had an usb plug for easier firmware update) for extensive trips. I saw some actual tests against a couple of
well-known lenses. It is worth it.
I had both at one point and ended up selling the 24 105
Are you still happy you kept the Tamron?
Martin Donald Taylor Carol Thomas Larry
Walker Matthew Gonzalez Jason Thomas Karen
Gentle & Juicy..