NOTE - There is already the firmware fix for the issue I mentioned. - Find it here www.tamron.com/news/press_release/20200806.html Thanks James L for pointing that out. With that issue fixed this is a great all-around travel lens. Buy the Tamron 28-200: bhpho.to/33d1ttF Buy the Tamron 28-75: bhpho.to/3lPXrzJ My Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Review: ua-cam.com/video/ex5nKVFU70U/v-deo.html
Great video, thanks! This lens has sealed the deal for which system I'm buying into (Sold all my DSLR Nikon kit to wait out the mirrorless war lol). I actually found the 28-200 to look a bit sharper in a couple of your examples... of course that may just be YT on my monitor.
"do-it-all" lenses are essential for people like me who will be carrying a 30-40 pound backpack into the wild and do not wish to also carry 25-30 additional pounds of camera gear.
@@photorectoby I'll be upgrading my camera at the end of the month from the Canon 80d to the Sony A7S3 along with the 20 mm F 1.8, and the Tamron 28-200.
I own this lens and fully agree with the content of your video regarding the quality and focus problem, specially on moving objects. Besides that issue, this lens is so good that I don't know what to do with my 28-75. Sell it?
You need to either change your review or at a minimum place text in this video advising that your criticism of the AF has been fixed as some will not see your comment. Incidentally, Tamron has just added FW ver. 3 on their website with further improvements. I find this lens easily matches my Sony 24-105G for IQ.
I still find AF to be the weakest part of lens and I used AF-C, esp in lower light. Overall agree sharp lens for a travel lens during daylight and small size makes it a keeper when don't want to travel with GM 100-400 and couple f1.4-1.8 primes
You had me keen for a second but having considered it, isn't this lens even better? The f4 at 150mm is only off by half a stop of light? but you get an extra 50mm range which at 150mm is a noticable difference, not like at 400mm where it'd be negligable
Hi , the milky way photo in the video is shot with this lens ? i am buying 7iii+this lens next week and planning for Samyang 14 mm next year. But a trip is coming up mid December and i will be having this lens only.. So are you serious ??? Should i try couple of milky way shots with this???
Hi, I like your reviews. Clear, trustfull en to the point. I keep struggling with a choice between the Tamrom 28-200 and the Sony 24-105. I like to shoot nature, animals in nature, portraits and all kind of events. I shoot almost always in good light conditions. If you, as a photographer with such a profile, have to choose between those lenses, witch one should you choose? And if picture quality is important? The price isn’t a big deal here in Belgium, with the current cashback on the Sony lenses the difference is more or less 200 dollar. Geert
Hi Geert - it's a tough call. The sony is a little sharper but the Tamron 28-200 is much more convenient of a lens. I personally would go with the 24-105 because I like have 24 at the widest and I really value sharpness. I also like having f/4 all the way out at 105 but for general travel and walkaround the 28-200 is again super convenient.
Depends on the type of photograph you do but I think having a stabilized lens would be nice. The 24-105 is a great lens - you are just paying more for a slower and shorter-range lens vs the 28-200 but it is sharper.
Are you saying the Sony 24-105 is actually sharper Than the Tamron 28-200mm? Please clarify. I have the Sony 24-105mm but I’m considering letting it go for the Tamron. Thank you in advance
@@adrianrodriguez61 Yes, the 24-105 is a little sharper - especially in the corners. This will be most noticeable on the higher megapixel cameras. But - the difference isn't huge. If you really want that extra range the 28-200 will do you well.
For a non-IBIS A7x, I'd strongly suggest the Sony FE 24-105 f/4 IS, unless you are planning to consistently use the camera on a tripod or going to faithfully shoot handheld using the 1/aperture rule (and well above that if need be). But the noise on the older A7s might be a problem there as well.
I own this lens and here is what I feel. It is a great all in one. You need to be focussed to capture great shots though. Not good for bird photography unless the birds are static. It is not a sports lens. For landscapes, the best way to shoot is F/6 or higher till F/11. Keeping that in mind, why waste money on very expensive lenses when this one does the job as well. But it will need to be augmented by a wide angle lens and a potrait prime (longer telephoto if reqd). For most shots, this focal range is adequate. I am considering the Zeiss 16-35 f/4 and the Sony 85 mm f/1.8.
With a 1.5x crop, this lens goes up to 300mm on the long end for the A6100, so it's a good reach as a telephoto lens. However, this is not a stabilized lens and A6100 has no IBIS, so you need steady hands and a fast shutter speed to compensate.
@@avstars thank you for the information! Is there any other lens that could be better for my camera? I just started with photography but I am not satisfied with 16-50mm/f3.5 anymore. What would you suggest?
@@bananaananas7395 Depends what kind of zoom range you are looking for. If you want the apsc version of this lens, look into 18-135mm f3.5-5.6. It's also stabilized so it's good fit for your non stable body and it's considered a step-up from your kit lens. The best midrange zoom in the market today for sony apsc is supposively the 16-55 f2.8, but will cost $$$ and it's also not stablized.
NOTE - There is already the firmware fix for the issue I mentioned. - Find it here www.tamron.com/news/press_release/20200806.html Thanks James L for pointing that out. With that issue fixed this is a great all-around travel lens.
Buy the Tamron 28-200: bhpho.to/33d1ttF
Buy the Tamron 28-75: bhpho.to/3lPXrzJ
My Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Review: ua-cam.com/video/ex5nKVFU70U/v-deo.html
Ed Roane here ... i've been thinking and looking at everything on this lens ... you just pushed me over the line, i'm getting it .. thanks always
Great video, thanks! This lens has sealed the deal for which system I'm buying into (Sold all my DSLR Nikon kit to wait out the mirrorless war lol). I actually found the 28-200 to look a bit sharper in a couple of your examples... of course that may just be YT on my monitor.
"do-it-all" lenses are essential for people like me who will be carrying a 30-40 pound backpack into the wild and do not wish to also carry 25-30 additional pounds of camera gear.
And when they get this good you really aren't making any compromises.
@@photorectoby I'll be upgrading my camera at the end of the month from the Canon 80d to the Sony A7S3 along with the 20 mm F 1.8, and the Tamron 28-200.
I own this lens and fully agree with the content of your video regarding the quality and focus problem, specially on moving objects. Besides that issue, this lens is so good that I don't know what to do with my 28-75. Sell it?
I've decided to sell my 28-75. This super zoom is just too good. What did you decide on?
@@amalofoto Sold it long time ago
Thank you so much for this review! Saves me a few bucks on the f2.8 but gives me more range!
You need to either change your review or at a minimum place text in this video advising that your criticism of the AF has been fixed as some will not see your comment. Incidentally, Tamron has just added FW ver. 3 on their website with further improvements. I find this lens easily matches my Sony 24-105G for IQ.
I still find AF to be the weakest part of lens and I used AF-C, esp in lower light. Overall agree sharp lens for a travel lens during daylight and small size makes it a keeper when don't want to travel with GM 100-400 and couple f1.4-1.8 primes
Video doesn't start until 2:26
I bought A7m4 recently and I'm currently planning to purchase this lens with it. How do you think about these duo?
I have the Tamron 35-150 F2.8-4 VC for my Nikon dslr and I LOVE that lens, curiuos why they dont make a mirrorless version.
Me too! Still hoping....
You had me keen for a second but having considered it, isn't this lens even better? The f4 at 150mm is only off by half a stop of light? but you get an extra 50mm range which at 150mm is a noticable difference, not like at 400mm where it'd be negligable
Tamron heard you: just made this zoom range of 35-150 but even better for Sony, aperture 2.0 to 2.8.
Hi , the milky way photo in the video is shot with this lens ? i am buying 7iii+this lens next week and planning for Samyang 14 mm next year. But a trip is coming up mid December and i will be having this lens only.. So are you serious ??? Should i try couple of milky way shots with this???
Hi, I like your reviews. Clear, trustfull en to the point. I keep struggling with a choice between the Tamrom 28-200 and the Sony 24-105. I like to shoot nature, animals in nature, portraits and all kind of events. I shoot almost always in good light conditions. If you, as a photographer with such a profile, have to choose between those lenses, witch one should you choose? And if picture quality is important? The price isn’t a big deal here in Belgium, with the current cashback on the Sony lenses the difference is more or less 200 dollar. Geert
Hi Geert - it's a tough call. The sony is a little sharper but the Tamron 28-200 is much more convenient of a lens. I personally would go with the 24-105 because I like have 24 at the widest and I really value sharpness. I also like having f/4 all the way out at 105 but for general travel and walkaround the 28-200 is again super convenient.
I’m still using the non stabilized Sony a7s. Would you use this lens or the Sony 24-105? Thanks
Depends on the type of photograph you do but I think having a stabilized lens would be nice. The 24-105 is a great lens - you are just paying more for a slower and shorter-range lens vs the 28-200 but it is sharper.
Are you saying the Sony 24-105 is actually sharper Than the Tamron 28-200mm? Please clarify. I have the Sony 24-105mm but I’m considering letting it go for the Tamron. Thank you in advance
@@adrianrodriguez61 Yes, the 24-105 is a little sharper - especially in the corners. This will be most noticeable on the higher megapixel cameras. But - the difference isn't huge. If you really want that extra range the 28-200 will do you well.
For a non-IBIS A7x, I'd strongly suggest the Sony FE 24-105 f/4 IS, unless you are planning to consistently use the camera on a tripod or going to faithfully shoot handheld using the 1/aperture rule (and well above that if need be). But the noise on the older A7s might be a problem there as well.
This is really good
Thanks!
Does this lens have the same vignetting issue as the 28-75mm when using a wide focal length ??
Slight vignette at the wider focal lengths. Easily corrected in Lightroom.
Did Tamron fix the focusing issues? great video!
Partially. AFC works very well, AFS so so...
@@oguzbenice7423 thanks
@@oguzbenice7423 even though the latest firmware upgrade ? Did AFS still suck after the latest firmware upgrade ?
I own this lens and here is what I feel. It is a great all in one. You need to be focussed to capture great shots though. Not good for bird photography unless the birds are static. It is not a sports lens. For landscapes, the best way to shoot is F/6 or higher till F/11. Keeping that in mind, why waste money on very expensive lenses when this one does the job as well. But it will need to be augmented by a wide angle lens and a potrait prime (longer telephoto if reqd). For most shots, this focal range is adequate. I am considering the Zeiss 16-35 f/4 and the Sony 85 mm f/1.8.
I agree. For your wide angle consider the Tamron 17-28. And I love my sony 85mm f/1.8 - fantastic lens.
Hi, is this lens good also for Sony alpha6100?
With a 1.5x crop, this lens goes up to 300mm on the long end for the A6100, so it's a good reach as a telephoto lens. However, this is not a stabilized lens and A6100 has no IBIS, so you need steady hands and a fast shutter speed to compensate.
@@avstars thank you for the information! Is there any other lens that could be better for my camera? I just started with photography but I am not satisfied with 16-50mm/f3.5 anymore. What would you suggest?
@@bananaananas7395 Depends what kind of zoom range you are looking for. If you want the apsc version of this lens, look into 18-135mm f3.5-5.6. It's also stabilized so it's good fit for your non stable body and it's considered a step-up from your kit lens. The best midrange zoom in the market today for sony apsc is supposively the 16-55 f2.8, but will cost $$$ and it's also not stablized.
@@bananaananas7395 Check out the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 with Vic.
The focus issue is probably caused by the camera's 3.1 firmware update
James nicely points out that there is already a firmware update that fixes the issue I mentioned.
Then maybe update the title of your review? Lol
👍👍👍
How do I do firm ware update?