Awesome video. I always think that the 2.8 zooms are for professionals who MUST deliver good quality images in the worst situation thrown at them. Which is often the case for indoor events where you are at the mercy of the forsaken flourscent lights. This is why I have the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 on most of the time, if not, I'd have the 24-70/2.8. When 2.8 was almost not enough, 5.6 will be very bad. But for outdoor, or vacation where you want the smallest package and max quality? The 28-200 is a no brainer. I would get one when I have the money or the situation calls for it. Cheers.
The 28-200 is definitely more travel friendly! The key is to understand it's limitations and work within them. I have the 24-70 2.8 GMii and rarely use it. I find the 2.8 is still not fast enough in low light situations and I often reach for a faster prime. I'm in the process of switching out the F2.8 zooms for F4 zooms. Stay tuned for that video coming soon...
@@RandumbTechdoes the GMII hunt in low light and is it fast to focus. It’s on my list. I agree that for outside and travel the Tamron is an option, but for what I do, events, the Tamron wouldn’t cut it. The Tamron is only compact at its lowest 28mm, the Sony is internal zooming, but on price Tamron wins. I also shoot with primes. I think the Tamron’s image quality is good.
I went with the tamron had it over a couple weeks for my Sony a7riv and i love it. Im not a professional and plus that sony cost more than my camera and i struggled to buy it so for me i had no other choice. I still love it
I have this lens and it is a steal compared to other budget lenses out there. It does have it's limitations with 5.6 and background blurring, but most hobby level shooters could use this for sure. It is also significantly lighter than the Sony, which makes it a great option to shoot on the go as well.
Truth! At 5.6, I don't think anyone can tell the difference between the GM which costs 4 times as much, or the Tamron. I just came back from a trip overseas and opted not to take the Tamron only because I knew I would need a wider focal length. It's such a great lens for the money.
For the price and focal length, I don't think there is anything else that comes even close to it in terms of value. Glad you enjoyed using it as well during your travels!
The Tamron 28-200 lens is an amazing lens especially for my hiking/backpacking purpose. (Along with the Sony 20mm f1.8, I am covered on the wide end and also some milky way photos at camp.) The ability to zoom all the way to 200mm without having to change lenses when on the move is very convenient, especially when I'm hiking with friends and I don't have time to stop and take off my pack and change lens. I've also find 70mm a bit limiting on the long end. I've taken it from the Sawtooths of Idaho to Patagonia to Alaska and it is such a versatile lens. I have even contemplated buying a second one to use with a second body (ZV-E1) as the f5.6 on the long end does not really matter because the sensor is amazing for low light, but then also debating getting the Sony 24-105 G f4 for video.
Which one you will recommend between sony 20-70 F4 G and tamron 28-100 , I am getting tamron for half the price of 20-70 and my usecase is only landscape during multiple day hikes, don't really require more than 70mm range, any idea on how much better does 20-70 have against 28-200, if its really superior in image quality I would go for the sony, Thanks
If it's stills only, the Tamron is the better lens. But if you plan on hybrid shooting, 100% get the Sony. Having the 20mm for video is massively important.
If you don't need the wide aperture of the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 I can see that this is a better all-in-one travel lens. Plus switch to APS-C format and you have 300mm in a pinch.
I goofed around a little at my local camera shop with the 35-150 and it was too big/heavy for my taste. If you are going to go that size, I'd say go for the 70-200 2.8 GMii. The bigger the lens, the lower the likelihood I actually bring it with me - hence why the Tamron is such a great option.
For stills, it's tough to beat on value alone. However, if you do shoot video, you will notice Sony's stabilization does not work nearly as well with third party lenses like Tamron. Equipped with VC might change that - will be interesting to see if they add it to the next iteration.
@@RandumbTech I’m a photographer and this is not a video lens from start. To be sincerely kind of tired of cheap videographers that do not want to invest on a proper video setup.
Good comparison. F stop aside on the long end the tamron has better contrast and looks as sharp, on the 70 end the Sony outshines it. Would most hobbyists who don’t need the f stop notice, not unless they just started and pixel peep. Printing would be basically indistinguishable at all but the largest prints. But many crop a lot so there’s that. All said, you probably should make a living to buy the Sony, and the f4 Sony isn’t worth it at all over the tamron
I did not get my hands on my A7R5 yet, and the TAM 24-200 was the lens I owned. Was thinking of selling it, thank God you mage this video 😮!! Very helpfull content once again !
The A7RV is such a great camera! However, it is overkill for a lot of people (myself included). The only reason I bought it was because of the 4-axis screen and excellent EVF. They make the shooting experience really enjoyable as compared to other Sony cameras which are much more utilitarian.
Tamron did really well and you have 28-69mm advantage. The compromise is the variable aperture, but worth it depending on what your shoot. I just got the Tamron and used it at a school music performance and it was exactly what I needed. Zoom to 200mm was great and 28mm for the group photos. I think this will be my go-to travel lens.
It's a FANTASTIC travel lens for the money! Lumix just released a similar 28-200 but it's much slower and I don't think as good optically. I still can't believe how good the Tamron is.
Not a fair comparison, the 70-200 f4 vs 28-200 f2.8-5.6 is a fairer comparison I have both, they are on the same level, only the OSS on the Sony is a benefit you have more images in focus....
Given the price difference, it's definitely not a fair comparison, but I am surprised by how well the Tamron performed given the the big price gap. I picked up the 70-200 F4 Macro lens last week and plan to do a comparison between it and the 2.8 version. I am moving my kit from f2.8 to f4 due to the size and weight. I'm LOVING the 70-200 f4 so far!!
Interesting for me. With the exception of two times, I've always picked the Sony as the one with better focus or color rendering. That being said, I was trying to pick the ones I liked before you posted the name. The Sony is for sure the better quality but the tamron is a good run for the money plus it's a bit wider which would work for travel and video. I'm going to Africa next fall and may pick up this tamron.
It's a great travel lens if you need the extra reach. I've found I still grab my Sony lenses most of the time simply because they work better with the Sony bodies (stabilization, resolution, etc.). But for the money, you can't go wrong.
I recently took the 28-200 to a zoo couldn’t imagine a better lens for that…it’s great although that 70-200 is far superior in certain situations..shooting video over 100mm, low light, and wanting more bokeh
Totally agree! I was absolutely exhausted carrying around the 70-200 f2.8 that afternoon. It is soooo much heavier than the Tamron. Unless you need the highest quality, the Tamron is more than enough.
i have to say very close on many levels and the tamron has both a focal flexibility and pocketable size / price going for it,and for many photo walkabouts a good choice. the sony obviously in certain photo situations would come into its own. nice comparison ... my first stumble onto your channel !
Welcome! It's kinda scary how good the Tamron performs for it's price. It's not perfect by any stretch, but if you are traveling, it's the perfect complement to a fast prime.
Thank you for this excellent and short comparative review. I have both the Tamron 28-200 and the Sony 4/70-200 Macro. (Until this new Sony came out I had the Tamron 2.8/70-180). I really appreciate the Sony for its excellent macro capability for wildflowers, mushrooms, etc. The 28-200 does not have the resolution needed for these images but the Sony 70-200 Macro is superb. I note that the CA charts for the Tamron show much more aberration in the Tamron, evan at 200mm and stopped down, vs. my Sony. I think this is where fine line contrast is lost using the Tamron at MFD. For landscape either lens is fine. The low weight and wide range of the Tamron 28-200 are more important when traveling and when hiking. When anticipating closeup near macro nature shots on a hike I choose my Zeiss Batis 40mm CF as my sole lens and it also works well as a landscape, street, and low light tool and weighs only 361g.
I appreciate the kind words! I ended up purchasing the 70-200/G F4 Macro as well 🤣. Since it is so good, I plan on selling my 2.8 GMii. I just got back from a trip overseas and decided not to bring the Tamron 28-200 because I was going to be mostly in the city and didn't really need the extra reach. I ended up using my Q2 about 90% of the time so I probably could have left the big rig at home. I've heard great things about the Zeiss Batis lenses in general - might have to check one out!
Pleasure when shooting can be inversely related to weight and bulk of the rig. I grew up with the Leica iii-f and a collapsible mount Summicron f2 50mm, same vein as the currant Q-series. My fun rig now: a Fuji x100v with its leaf shutter syncing to 1/4000" and its delightful manual controls. But it has limitations and for that we have the Sony a7Rv with a plethora of lens options. Where the Batis 40 CF is unique is that it's MTF center to corners is pretty much uniform, and uniform from f/2 through f/16, even very good at f/22. It's sort of a medium format lens used on FF sensor to capture only the excellent central area of the image. @@RandumbTech
Thx for the feedback! In the future, I will have some examples shot at same aperture. The point of this video was to show how little difference there is between 2.8 and 5.6 in most situations. You pay a huge premium for it and it's not worth it in my opinion for most people.
I don't typically shoot portraits, but perhaps in the future I can include some closer focused items so you can see the difference in bokeh between 2.8 and 5.6. Good suggestion!
Awesome video. I always think that the 2.8 zooms are for professionals who MUST deliver good quality images in the worst situation thrown at them. Which is often the case for indoor events where you are at the mercy of the forsaken flourscent lights. This is why I have the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 on most of the time, if not, I'd have the 24-70/2.8. When 2.8 was almost not enough, 5.6 will be very bad. But for outdoor, or vacation where you want the smallest package and max quality? The 28-200 is a no brainer. I would get one when I have the money or the situation calls for it. Cheers.
The 28-200 is definitely more travel friendly! The key is to understand it's limitations and work within them. I have the 24-70 2.8 GMii and rarely use it. I find the 2.8 is still not fast enough in low light situations and I often reach for a faster prime. I'm in the process of switching out the F2.8 zooms for F4 zooms. Stay tuned for that video coming soon...
@@RandumbTechdoes the GMII hunt in low light and is it fast to focus. It’s on my list. I agree that for outside and travel the Tamron is an option, but for what I do, events, the Tamron wouldn’t cut it. The Tamron is only compact at its lowest 28mm, the Sony is internal zooming, but on price Tamron wins. I also shoot with primes. I think the Tamron’s image quality is good.
I went with the tamron had it over a couple weeks for my Sony a7riv and i love it. Im not a professional and plus that sony cost more than my camera and i struggled to buy it so for me i had no other choice. I still love it
For the money and focal range, nothing even comes close to the Tamron. Glad you are enjoying it!
I have this lens and it is a steal compared to other budget lenses out there. It does have it's limitations with 5.6 and background blurring, but most hobby level shooters could use this for sure. It is also significantly lighter than the Sony, which makes it a great option to shoot on the go as well.
Truth! At 5.6, I don't think anyone can tell the difference between the GM which costs 4 times as much, or the Tamron. I just came back from a trip overseas and opted not to take the Tamron only because I knew I would need a wider focal length. It's such a great lens for the money.
I just saw this video and after a 2 weeks travel experience with it, you're right. This lens surprised me a lot
For the price and focal length, I don't think there is anything else that comes even close to it in terms of value. Glad you enjoyed using it as well during your travels!
The Tamron 28-200 lens is an amazing lens especially for my hiking/backpacking purpose. (Along with the Sony 20mm f1.8, I am covered on the wide end and also some milky way photos at camp.) The ability to zoom all the way to 200mm without having to change lenses when on the move is very convenient, especially when I'm hiking with friends and I don't have time to stop and take off my pack and change lens. I've also find 70mm a bit limiting on the long end. I've taken it from the Sawtooths of Idaho to Patagonia to Alaska and it is such a versatile lens. I have even contemplated buying a second one to use with a second body (ZV-E1) as the f5.6 on the long end does not really matter because the sensor is amazing for low light, but then also debating getting the Sony 24-105 G f4 for video.
It's PERFECT for hiking - glad you are getting along well with yours!
I have the A7C with the 20mm 1.8, am looking for another lens to round me out and ideal for hiking and for fun shooting. The 28-200 maybe the key. 🔑
Please compare Tamron 28-200 against 35-150
Is it worth going for the upgrade?
Unfortunately, I don't own the 35-150 so can't compare the two. It is considerably larger and heavier than the 28-200 which is important to me.
Which one you will recommend between sony 20-70 F4 G and tamron 28-100 , I am getting tamron for half the price of 20-70 and my usecase is only landscape during multiple day hikes, don't really require more than 70mm range, any idea on how much better does 20-70 have against 28-200, if its really superior in image quality I would go for the sony, Thanks
If it's stills only, the Tamron is the better lens. But if you plan on hybrid shooting, 100% get the Sony. Having the 20mm for video is massively important.
If you don't need the wide aperture of the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 I can see that this is a better all-in-one travel lens. Plus switch to APS-C format and you have 300mm in a pinch.
I goofed around a little at my local camera shop with the 35-150 and it was too big/heavy for my taste. If you are going to go that size, I'd say go for the 70-200 2.8 GMii. The bigger the lens, the lower the likelihood I actually bring it with me - hence why the Tamron is such a great option.
@@RandumbTech The 35-150 is great for curls - no need for kettlebells. grin
Magnificent lens, since it come out is giving me incredible result and waiting for it update, maybe with VC
For stills, it's tough to beat on value alone. However, if you do shoot video, you will notice Sony's stabilization does not work nearly as well with third party lenses like Tamron. Equipped with VC might change that - will be interesting to see if they add it to the next iteration.
@@RandumbTech I’m a photographer and this is not a video lens from start. To be sincerely kind of tired of cheap videographers that do not want to invest on a proper video setup.
Good comparison. F stop aside on the long end the tamron has better contrast and looks as sharp, on the 70 end the Sony outshines it. Would most hobbyists who don’t need the f stop notice, not unless they just started and pixel peep. Printing would be basically indistinguishable at all but the largest prints. But many crop a lot so there’s that. All said, you probably should make a living to buy the Sony, and the f4 Sony isn’t worth it at all over the tamron
It is very difficult to see the difference between the two in most situations. I have been wildly impressed by the Tamron.
I did not get my hands on my A7R5 yet, and the TAM 24-200 was the lens I owned. Was thinking of selling it, thank God you mage this video 😮!! Very helpfull content once again !
The A7RV is such a great camera! However, it is overkill for a lot of people (myself included). The only reason I bought it was because of the 4-axis screen and excellent EVF. They make the shooting experience really enjoyable as compared to other Sony cameras which are much more utilitarian.
Getting the tamron in 2 weeks 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
Awesome!! If you are shooting primarily stills, it's such a great value!
Tamron did really well and you have 28-69mm advantage. The compromise is the variable aperture, but worth it depending on what your shoot. I just got the Tamron and used it at a school music performance and it was exactly what I needed. Zoom to 200mm was great and 28mm for the group photos. I think this will be my go-to travel lens.
It's a FANTASTIC travel lens for the money! Lumix just released a similar 28-200 but it's much slower and I don't think as good optically. I still can't believe how good the Tamron is.
Not a fair comparison, the 70-200 f4 vs 28-200 f2.8-5.6 is a fairer comparison I have both, they are on the same level, only the OSS on the Sony is a benefit you have more images in focus....
Given the price difference, it's definitely not a fair comparison, but I am surprised by how well the Tamron performed given the the big price gap. I picked up the 70-200 F4 Macro lens last week and plan to do a comparison between it and the 2.8 version. I am moving my kit from f2.8 to f4 due to the size and weight. I'm LOVING the 70-200 f4 so far!!
@@RandumbTech yes a bet you do, looks a great lens...I dont really like the focal length that much from the 70 mm.... 24 or 28 is more my thing...
Interesting for me. With the exception of two times, I've always picked the Sony as the one with better focus or color rendering. That being said, I was trying to pick the ones I liked before you posted the name. The Sony is for sure the better quality but the tamron is a good run for the money plus it's a bit wider which would work for travel and video. I'm going to Africa next fall and may pick up this tamron.
It's a great travel lens if you need the extra reach. I've found I still grab my Sony lenses most of the time simply because they work better with the Sony bodies (stabilization, resolution, etc.). But for the money, you can't go wrong.
I recently took the 28-200 to a zoo couldn’t imagine a better lens for that…it’s great although that 70-200 is far superior in certain situations..shooting video over 100mm, low light, and wanting more bokeh
Totally agree! I was absolutely exhausted carrying around the 70-200 f2.8 that afternoon. It is soooo much heavier than the Tamron. Unless you need the highest quality, the Tamron is more than enough.
i have to say very close on many levels and the tamron has both a focal flexibility and pocketable
size / price going for it,and for many photo walkabouts a good choice.
the sony obviously in certain photo situations would come into its own.
nice comparison ... my first stumble onto your channel !
Welcome! It's kinda scary how good the Tamron performs for it's price. It's not perfect by any stretch, but if you are traveling, it's the perfect complement to a fast prime.
Found it in my country for $50 whic is solid nice deal for Europe can't wait!
That's a crazy good deal! When you go to sell it you are going to make at least $400. Enjoy it!
Why do you compare the 2.8 to a 5.6 aperture. I thought the tamron lens also has 2.8
The Tamron is only 2.8 at it's widest 28mm. It's variable aperture compared to constant aperture for the Sony.
@@RandumbTech He meant the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 ii
Thank you for this excellent and short comparative review.
I have both the Tamron 28-200 and the Sony 4/70-200 Macro. (Until this new Sony came out I had the Tamron 2.8/70-180). I really appreciate the Sony for its excellent macro capability for wildflowers, mushrooms, etc. The 28-200 does not have the resolution needed for these images but the Sony 70-200 Macro is superb. I note that the CA charts for the Tamron show much more aberration in the Tamron, evan at 200mm and stopped down, vs. my Sony. I think this is where fine line contrast is lost using the Tamron at MFD. For landscape either lens is fine.
The low weight and wide range of the Tamron 28-200 are more important when traveling and when hiking.
When anticipating closeup near macro nature shots on a hike I choose my Zeiss Batis 40mm CF as my sole lens and it also works well as a landscape, street, and low light tool and weighs only 361g.
I appreciate the kind words! I ended up purchasing the 70-200/G F4 Macro as well 🤣. Since it is so good, I plan on selling my 2.8 GMii. I just got back from a trip overseas and decided not to bring the Tamron 28-200 because I was going to be mostly in the city and didn't really need the extra reach. I ended up using my Q2 about 90% of the time so I probably could have left the big rig at home. I've heard great things about the Zeiss Batis lenses in general - might have to check one out!
Pleasure when shooting can be inversely related to weight and bulk of the rig. I grew up with the Leica iii-f and a collapsible mount Summicron f2 50mm, same vein as the currant Q-series. My fun rig now: a Fuji x100v with its leaf shutter syncing to 1/4000" and its delightful manual controls. But it has limitations and for that we have the Sony a7Rv with a plethora of lens options.
Where the Batis 40 CF is unique is that it's MTF center to corners is pretty much uniform, and uniform from f/2 through f/16, even very good at f/22. It's sort of a medium format lens used on FF sensor to capture only the excellent central area of the image. @@RandumbTech
At least you shoul made it the same aperture to make it fair for conparison
Exactly my thought ……and some Portraits would have been nice….
Thx for the feedback! In the future, I will have some examples shot at same aperture. The point of this video was to show how little difference there is between 2.8 and 5.6 in most situations. You pay a huge premium for it and it's not worth it in my opinion for most people.
I don't typically shoot portraits, but perhaps in the future I can include some closer focused items so you can see the difference in bokeh between 2.8 and 5.6. Good suggestion!