I think I'm in the same boat. I'd like to see a G2 version with improved build and features, VXD, and possibly VC, though that wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'm waiting for the 28-200 VC VXD. I'd like it if they improved the lens' eventual zoom creep. My 28-200 is starting to move on its own. Being able to lock it at 200mm would be a great feature for my purposes.
Thanks Dustin, I won't be trading in my Tamron 28-200 for this one. I always appreciate your hard work in getting these fair and balanced reviews out - they help your viewers decide on how to spend their money wisely!
8:40 the way the camera IBIS and lens OSS works in harmony is called "delegation", meaning that the IBIS delegates the yaw and pitch axes stabilization to the lens, and handles the 3 other axes itself (x/y translation axes + roll axis). When the lens has no OSS, then IBIS handles the 5 axes. With some new Sony lenses (7 of them) and bodies (also 7), there is now a new "coordination" mode where IBIS doesn't delegate anymore, so it still handles the 5 axes and the lens does its thing too, and the results are combined intelligently. It's exactly like the "sync IS" from Canon.
Thanks a lot once again for your great review Dustin. I was really waiting for your findings to decide whether to change my Tamron 28-200 for this new lens and you gave me the answer. I'm keeping the 28-200mm since I use it for long hikes and landscape photography and I am very happy with the IQ I get from it. Getting an extra 100mm on the long end with the new lens at the cost of IQ and speed doesn't look like it's the best decision.
An interesting review once again. As many, I hoped for a 28-200 with VC because I think the longer the lens, it should really use an own optical stabilizer. However, the original 28-200 was a very strong performing lens which made superzoom usable even for people with higher optical demands. This new lens seems to be aimed even more at sunny-on the go-shooters. On a 7R body, you can go up to 450mm with crop mode, so it eliminates the need for a dedicated telephoto lens even more than the 28-200. On the other side, I think Tamron has given us so many zooms by now, they can start to care about faster aperture primes again. I would really like them to come up with f2, 1.8 or 1.4 lenses, at least a 35 and a 50.
I'm 100% with you on new primes from Tamron. I also really want to see them give us a macro lens or two, as there have actually been relatively few autofocusing macro lenses on Sony, particularly when consider the extreme amount of other lenses available.
@@DustinAbbottTWI that's a valid point, too. I only know 2 macro lenses for Sony, the 50/2.8 and a 90 G or something like that. The existing primes by Tamron are not bad at all, but I think they can throw in something that is even more competitive with less drawbacks (the AF cons, for example). I have been fascinated ever since I switched over to Sony E how Tamron achieves to make lenses that are a joy to use while not being overly pricey and coming up with something special in comparison to other lenses (for example the 1:2 MFD on the 2.8 primes).
I use an older version of Tamron's 28-300 architecture on a DSLR, as a grab and go, walkaround lens. This is 28-300mm f3.5-6.3, and it works extremely well. Dustin, I know you have positively reviewed this lens in the past. I am generally a bit of a sceptic when it comes to super zooms, but I have been very satisfied with this lens. 28-300mm is an extremely useful range to have on the camera, and I think the benefits justify the inherent compromises.
I have the Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 for my Fuji X-S20. It was basically glued to my camera for 2.5 weeks during a vacation to Europe. Only time I really switched it out is if I needed wider than 18mm, in which I have the Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8. Tamron makes an amazing superzoom. Wish they’d make a 16(or 18) -135mm f/2.8-5.6 for APSC. Would basically mimic the 28-200mm for Sony
Interesting lens for those who are more interested in the extra 100mm zoom vs the 28-200mm All-In-One lens without carefully looking into the details in the quantity vs quality area. Thank goodness we got you to break it down! I think it's better to spend the extra $100 towards a new/used high megapixel body like A7R III/IV/V or A1 to have the ability to crop in with a good quality & capability of a Tamron 28-200mm that can activate the APS-C "Crop Mode" (not the standard APS-C mode) when shooting still photos to reach the 300mm range at f/5.6 than the f/7.1 on this lens. Cheaper, lighter, allows more light into the sensor and sharper image even with APS-C crop mode.
Hi! How does it compare to the 50-300? I want to buy a telephoto lens, and I'm considering the Tamron 50-300 or the Sigma 100-400 for landscape photos when travelling. Thanks for your detailed analysis! 😊
Either of the more dedicated telephoto lenses will have superior optical performance, though the 28-300mm serves as more of a one lens solution and is smaller.
Its very impressive the room range that Tamron is giving us. When their first 70-300 came out it was the only alternative to the much bulkier much more costly lens. Now they have given two more lenses that have increased the range at different apertures. On the wide side there is a choice of 3 lenses starting from 28mm; the faster the aperture the smaller the range. And once one has worked with some of these lenses one knows what to expect and also who the lens is designed for. On a 61mp sensor if the centre is sharp then cropping works for the odd bird, butterfly - insect spectrum for the walk about hiker. But for more quality one has the other 300s. Personally I like the original 70-300 - light with strong optics & great value under 400$ now. Actually the tamron is competing more with its own lenses. Sony does not really compete with its earlier 240 zoom or with the overpriced earlier 300.
if video was your only concern would you pick this or the 28-200 that has no internal stab? i am afraid that handheld on the 200mm it will be a bit shaky without stab
It’s a vacation lens. Tamron’s got a long history of decent super zooms and it’s nice to see them getting back to where they were in the dslr days as far as zoom range goes. Their 2.8 series is fully pro quality; this isn’t that, obviously designed for value and flexibility. Tests look “good enough,” and one would assume outperform the dslr superzooms in sharpness (especially with vc) and distortion.
Thank you for your review. How does this lens compare to the Tamron 18-300mm f3.5-f6.1 APS-C lens? I understand that the 28-300mm is full frame. However, I am very satisfied with the Tamron APS-C lens as a general travel lens for my Sony A6700 or my Sony A7RV.
It would be hard for me to draw optical conclusions without testing the lens on APS-C. My past experience is that Tamron's full frame zooms hold up pretty well on APS-C (particularly considering that Sony's 61MP sensors have the same pixel density as their 26MP APS-C sensors), so my conclusions here should hold pretty true on the a6700.
I was going to suggest the same thing. Saving up for the a6700, and am kinda considering the 18-300. The reviews I've seen of this 28-300 so far aren't great, and the MTF charts look like ass on the full frame, but they don't look too horrible for APS-C crops. 28mm translates to 42mm effective FOV on APS-C/crop, which isn't particularly wide, but it's a heckofalot wider than 75mm that the 50-300 gets you. My main use would be wildlife and aircraft at the longer end (yes, I know the Sony 70-350 is excellent, but 105mm effective FOV at the "wide" end is useless as a walkaround lens). Crop mode on the A7RV should be about the same MP as the a6700, so that'd be an easy test for Dustin to do. Please?
@@DustinAbbottTWI I suppose that if we pay attention to the midframe details on your test chart and ignore corner performance, that should give us a pretty good idea of how well it does on an APS-C body. Thanks for the review Dustin. Fantastic as always.
Hej hej, Dustin! Always appreciate your reviews... Great work! I guess you get a lot of these questions, but I'm quite desperate... I own an A7IV & 2875f2.8 g2. Great combo, but for family trips, holidays not enough zoom... I guess I'm kinda hybrid guy, photo and video (video especially the zoomed stuff, for general i use the osmo pocket). Now i can't decide between the 24-105f4 (Great stabilization), 28-200 (light, enough zoom, but not stabilized), 28-300 (according to the tests I've seen not the best image quality) or the 50-300 (then I'd have to keep the 28-75 and swap lenses, what kinda sucks at the see or at rainy forest-hikes.... Please! Help!
This video is sponsored by Fantom Wallet. Visit store.fantomwallet.com and use code DUSTIN20 to get 20% off
Made me actually more interested in the 28-200. Wish they'd make a V2 of that with VXD and VC.
I think I'm in the same boat. I'd like to see a G2 version with improved build and features, VXD, and possibly VC, though that wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'm waiting for the 28-200 VC VXD. I'd like it if they improved the lens' eventual zoom creep. My 28-200 is starting to move on its own. Being able to lock it at 200mm would be a great feature for my purposes.
Thanks Dustin, I won't be trading in my Tamron 28-200 for this one. I always appreciate your hard work in getting these fair and balanced reviews out - they help your viewers decide on how to spend their money wisely!
My pleasure!
8:40 the way the camera IBIS and lens OSS works in harmony is called "delegation", meaning that the IBIS delegates the yaw and pitch axes stabilization to the lens, and handles the 3 other axes itself (x/y translation axes + roll axis).
When the lens has no OSS, then IBIS handles the 5 axes.
With some new Sony lenses (7 of them) and bodies (also 7), there is now a new "coordination" mode where IBIS doesn't delegate anymore, so it still handles the 5 axes and the lens does its thing too, and the results are combined intelligently. It's exactly like the "sync IS" from Canon.
That's very interesting. This is the first I've heard of this. Thanks
Thanks, another great, comprehensive review. You are the best. Cheers my friend.
Thank you!
Thanks a lot once again for your great review Dustin. I was really waiting for your findings to decide whether to change my Tamron 28-200 for this new lens and you gave me the answer. I'm keeping the 28-200mm since I use it for long hikes and landscape photography and I am very happy with the IQ I get from it. Getting an extra 100mm on the long end with the new lens at the cost of IQ and speed doesn't look like it's the best decision.
I'm still happy with the 28-200mm
An interesting review once again. As many, I hoped for a 28-200 with VC because I think the longer the lens, it should really use an own optical stabilizer. However, the original 28-200 was a very strong performing lens which made superzoom usable even for people with higher optical demands.
This new lens seems to be aimed even more at sunny-on the go-shooters. On a 7R body, you can go up to 450mm with crop mode, so it eliminates the need for a dedicated telephoto lens even more than the 28-200.
On the other side, I think Tamron has given us so many zooms by now, they can start to care about faster aperture primes again. I would really like them to come up with f2, 1.8 or 1.4 lenses, at least a 35 and a 50.
I'm 100% with you on new primes from Tamron. I also really want to see them give us a macro lens or two, as there have actually been relatively few autofocusing macro lenses on Sony, particularly when consider the extreme amount of other lenses available.
@@DustinAbbottTWI that's a valid point, too. I only know 2 macro lenses for Sony, the 50/2.8 and a 90 G or something like that.
The existing primes by Tamron are not bad at all, but I think they can throw in something that is even more competitive with less drawbacks (the AF cons, for example). I have been fascinated ever since I switched over to Sony E how Tamron achieves to make lenses that are a joy to use while not being overly pricey and coming up with something special in comparison to other lenses (for example the 1:2 MFD on the 2.8 primes).
I use an older version of Tamron's 28-300 architecture on a DSLR, as a grab and go, walkaround lens. This is 28-300mm f3.5-6.3, and it works extremely well. Dustin, I know you have positively reviewed this lens in the past. I am generally a bit of a sceptic when it comes to super zooms, but I have been very satisfied with this lens. 28-300mm is an extremely useful range to have on the camera, and I think the benefits justify the inherent compromises.
Exactly.
I have the Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 for my Fuji X-S20. It was basically glued to my camera for 2.5 weeks during a vacation to Europe. Only time I really switched it out is if I needed wider than 18mm, in which I have the Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8.
Tamron makes an amazing superzoom. Wish they’d make a 16(or 18) -135mm f/2.8-5.6 for APSC. Would basically mimic the 28-200mm for Sony
That would be nice.
Interesting lens for those who are more interested in the extra 100mm zoom vs the 28-200mm All-In-One lens without carefully looking into the details in the quantity vs quality area. Thank goodness we got you to break it down! I think it's better to spend the extra $100 towards a new/used high megapixel body like A7R III/IV/V or A1 to have the ability to crop in with a good quality & capability of a Tamron 28-200mm that can activate the APS-C "Crop Mode" (not the standard APS-C mode) when shooting still photos to reach the 300mm range at f/5.6 than the f/7.1 on this lens. Cheaper, lighter, allows more light into the sensor and sharper image even with APS-C crop mode.
I would love to see a G2 version of the 28-200mm, as I think in some ways that lens is for a slightly different audience.
@@DustinAbbottTWI A VC version alone would be amazing.
As always, an excellent review, very well made 👍🏻
Thank you very much.
Ho ho ho! Tamron is at it again!!
For sure :)
Hi! How does it compare to the 50-300? I want to buy a telephoto lens, and I'm considering the Tamron 50-300 or the Sigma 100-400 for landscape photos when travelling. Thanks for your detailed analysis! 😊
Either of the more dedicated telephoto lenses will have superior optical performance, though the 28-300mm serves as more of a one lens solution and is smaller.
Its very impressive the room range that Tamron is giving us. When their first 70-300 came out it was the only alternative to the much bulkier much more costly lens. Now they have given two more lenses that have increased the range at different apertures. On the wide side there is a choice of 3 lenses starting from 28mm; the faster the aperture the smaller the range. And once one has worked with some of these lenses one knows what to expect and also who the lens is designed for. On a 61mp sensor if the centre is sharp then cropping works for the odd bird, butterfly - insect spectrum for the walk about hiker. But for more quality one has the other 300s. Personally I like the original 70-300 - light with strong optics & great value under 400$ now. Actually the tamron is competing more with its own lenses. Sony does not really compete with its earlier 240 zoom or with the overpriced earlier 300.
That's a fair point - Tamron is largely competing with itself here.
if video was your only concern would you pick this or the 28-200 that has no internal stab? i am afraid that handheld on the 200mm it will be a bit shaky without stab
I personally prefer the 28-200mm. I find that on my two Sony cameras (a7RV and Alpha 1), stabilization is good enough.
how image quality compared with tamron 50-300 f 4.5-6.3?
The 50-300mm is optically superior.
It’s a vacation lens. Tamron’s got a long history of decent super zooms and it’s nice to see them getting back to where they were in the dslr days as far as zoom range goes. Their 2.8 series is fully pro quality; this isn’t that, obviously designed for value and flexibility. Tests look “good enough,” and one would assume outperform the dslr superzooms in sharpness (especially with vc) and distortion.
That's fair
Thank you for your review. How does this lens compare to the Tamron 18-300mm f3.5-f6.1 APS-C lens? I understand that the 28-300mm is full frame. However, I am very satisfied with the Tamron APS-C lens as a general travel lens for my Sony A6700 or my Sony A7RV.
It would be hard for me to draw optical conclusions without testing the lens on APS-C. My past experience is that Tamron's full frame zooms hold up pretty well on APS-C (particularly considering that Sony's 61MP sensors have the same pixel density as their 26MP APS-C sensors), so my conclusions here should hold pretty true on the a6700.
I was going to suggest the same thing. Saving up for the a6700, and am kinda considering the 18-300. The reviews I've seen of this 28-300 so far aren't great, and the MTF charts look like ass on the full frame, but they don't look too horrible for APS-C crops. 28mm translates to 42mm effective FOV on APS-C/crop, which isn't particularly wide, but it's a heckofalot wider than 75mm that the 50-300 gets you. My main use would be wildlife and aircraft at the longer end (yes, I know the Sony 70-350 is excellent, but 105mm effective FOV at the "wide" end is useless as a walkaround lens).
Crop mode on the A7RV should be about the same MP as the a6700, so that'd be an easy test for Dustin to do. Please?
@@DustinAbbottTWI I suppose that if we pay attention to the midframe details on your test chart and ignore corner performance, that should give us a pretty good idea of how well it does on an APS-C body. Thanks for the review Dustin. Fantastic as always.
i am thinking if tamron keep pushing the zoom lens forward and if they make a 24-200 with a better image quality. everyone will go to their lens.
That would be a great zoom range if they did it well. I'm not blown away by Sony's own 24-240mm
Optically, is this better vs TAMRON 50-400mm?
Definitely not. The 50-400mm is superior optically.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you for the info.. Saying hello from Jakarta, Indonesia..
Hej hej, Dustin! Always appreciate your reviews... Great work! I guess you get a lot of these questions, but I'm quite desperate... I own an A7IV & 2875f2.8 g2. Great combo, but for family trips, holidays not enough zoom... I guess I'm kinda hybrid guy, photo and video (video especially the zoomed stuff, for general i use the osmo pocket).
Now i can't decide between the 24-105f4 (Great stabilization), 28-200 (light, enough zoom, but not stabilized), 28-300 (according to the tests I've seen not the best image quality) or the 50-300 (then I'd have to keep the 28-75 and swap lenses, what kinda sucks at the see or at rainy forest-hikes....
Please! Help!
I really like the 28-200mm as a travel lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI it's my favourite as well... hope, the 7IV's IBIS is good enough for 200mm...
Hm this interesting for travelling
Definitely.
i would be more interested in a 20-200. or 15-150. 28 isn't wide.
There's a reason they don't go that wide with these type of lenses. It is extremely difficult to engineer.
Just bought
Enjoy
Walker Kenneth Martin David Jones Shirley