Excellent review, nailing all the points. It's light and powerful. The one you pack for the day. And you don't need to worry about the whole f-stop issue most of the time. Sharpness is spot on. Price is right. Tamron for the win.
I have both the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and this lens, I end up using this lens 95% of the time because of its versatility and the awesome ability to zoom to 200mm. Pair this with Sony's 200-600 and you have 28-600 covered in two lenses, good for anything from landscape, to street, to wildlife photography...
Hello bro i have just started as a wedding photographer i have sony a7 m3 and i have 28-70 f3.5 - 5.6 and now i am a bit confused which lens to buy 35mm/85mm or should i buy tamron 70-180 f2.8 bro can you please suggest??
@@CarlosTucker-sp4bj I know it's very pricey, but I know of people that shoot entire weddings on the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 without feeling the need for anything else. I'd definitely research it!
Since I use A7 ii and I'm trying to save to get a more modern body and good lenses, I've decided to buy this Tamron a year ago, and it was my only lens. I even used it for portraits at around 80mm in sunny clear days and there were insanely sharp I couldn't believe it! I also used it for Macro and I was stunned with the result. I do time to time night photos with a tripod and manual mode and results are good!! This is one of the ultimate lenses I can recommend to anyone who want to have a one in all lens as well as a good quality lens to have when saving for more or just not fan of switching lenses.
Outstanding review, It Cleared all my doubts i was about to buy a prime lens for travelling but this video cleared my doubts. Thanks, man keep up the good work.
Just got mine and after two days of owning it I already really love it! Great lens, great size, low weight and really great focal range. Nice video and you just got another subscriber.
Thanks so much for the sub! Really appreciate it :) And glad you're enjoying the lens so much! It will be a great travel companion for you I'm sure! All the best :)
Thanks for your insightful video. I have the Sony 24-105 G, and the 100-400 GM. There are so many times I need just a bit more reach from the Sony 24-105, but don’t really want to carry around a 3 lb. lens, just in case. So I only carry it when I’m sure I’ll need it. The Sony 24-240 IQ is just mush, so that is out of the question. It seems to me the Tamron 28-200 is the answer. I can carry my Sony 16-35 GM, along with the 28-200, and have 16-200 covered when I leave the 100-400 behind. I rented one for the week to replace the 24-105 on a Thanksgiving family trip to see how it does with my A7RIV. I’ll report back what I think.
No problem David, glad you found it insightful! I did toss up the 24-104 also but ultimately went for this one. Enjoy your week away! Looking forward to hearing how the Lens goes :)
@@adennaed I have the 24-105, and like it a lot. I’ll be running some direct comparisons tomorrow, and I’ll report back. I must say, I really enjoyed using the Tamron 28-200 this week, largely because of the additional range. I will be purchasing one for hiking and traveling. I did miss the Sony 24-105 stabilization, on occasion, with it’s on/off button. And the Tamron did miss focus a few times, but the focus problem is a known issue that was fixed in firmware updates. I tried to do a firmware update as the lens I have is version 0.03, and the latest version is 3.0. So far, I have been unsuccessful. I’ll try it, again, tomorrow using an older Mac. I found it as sharp, or sharper than the Sony 24-105 most of the time - it is definitely sharper than the Sony at f/11 and f/16, which is handy for some landscape shots. The colors were good and I did not notice the CA fringe as much as I thought I would - it just did not show up much. It did fine indoors at family gatherings, too. The f/2.8 at the wide end, along with the camera body stabilization, helped make up for the lack of lens stabilization. If you are looking for a general purpose lens, I would get the Tamron because of the extra reach, the 24-28mm difference on the wide end was never an issue. If you know you won’t use the reach on the long end, then it is a tougher decision.
been rocking this lens for more than a year, and thought about selling it. But decided this is the lens that I'm not afraid to take on hikes that might be a bit rough.
Nice, I’ve watched several great reviews (like yours) of this lens. So, when my Tamron 18-300 died (the focus motor doesn’t stop) I jumped on this 28-200. No regrets. It fills a gap between my 27mm, f1.2 Viltrox and Sony 200-600 monster lens (both great lenses too). Thank for the review. Just subbed to help a fellow UA-camr.
Thank you for your review about this lens. It made me feel better about my choice of purchasing this lens to go with my Sony a7riii that i just bought used for my next trip. i was pulling my hair out after purchasing this lens when i thought about if i should have purchased 24-70 f2.8 instead of this 28-200 f2.8 to 5.6.
Been using the 24-105 as my primary travel lens but this 28-200 seems more versatile to replace the Sony 24-105 and my Sony 70-200 f4. Lighter, smaller and similar quality. Thanks for the review.
No problem mate :) And yeah I opted for this over that lens too because at 100mm it's f4 (or super close to) anyway and excellent quality. Have a great day! :)
Had it for a year now and mixed feelings. Technically it's been flawless but in practice the large zoom-range also in some ways makes it far more difficult lens to use than a standard zoom. I find it very hard to see and visualize good compositions when walking around with this lens because the focal range is so broad.
@@MrRoxxy93 I only have the A7R5 for about a month but before that I had a A7R3. In fact I almost purchased the simultaneously. I do some landscape and seascape but mainly cityscape and and street photography. For that the lens is great. It is sharp and with very little color fringing. Only at the shortest focal length (around 28 mm) you can get some color fringing but that's correctable in post. On my A7R5 it's the same story. The various focussing modes are very good with this lens and also the focus tracking works great. The only problem you might encounter is low light handheld shooting at the longer focal lengths. But that the depends of course if you are photographing moving objects.
Cheers dude. I subscribed to send some support your way. I am just getting into photography. I have bought the A7 iv and a sigma 28-70 dg-dn art but I had a really bad experience with that lens as it was full of dust with only couple of times being used while hiking. I have returned it and now I am looking to buy the Tamron. I hope I can finally start using the Sony.
You're welcome mate. Thanks for the sub! Means a lot. I've never owned/used that lens but can vouch for Tamron entirely! I have a video coming out at the end of the weekend on the 28-75G2 so if you're looking to replace the Sigma that might be of help :) All the best!
Great job on this! You got another subscriber :) Thanks for putting this together. Very helpful. I have been looking at this or the Tamron 28-75. Thoughts on either over the other? Thanks from USA!
Thanks so much bud! Appreciate that :) Really glad it was able to help you out, and re your question, it's hard to say, I own both (but the G2 28-75) and they're so different. So depending what you're after, the 28-75 has prime level sharpness but leaves a lot to be desired in terms of focal length. If you don't mind the variable aperture then I'd recommend the 28-200 any day, just don't expect too blurry a background unless you're super close as I mentioned. Then again, it's not meant to be a "cinematic" lens. I'd say if you're after more photos, this lens, but if you do a lot of video and client work, the 28-75 is the way forward :)
Well I have looked to be sure, but as you say it's quite heavy and it's also triple the price of this lens, so I probably won't, and I'm yet to find a true reason to need f2.8 at the long end. So for my needs, that lens will probably be a pass, hope this helps bud :)
@@NicBucci Yeah if you don't do portraits there is no need for that incredible lens. I wouldn't use it for landscapes because you don't shoot landscapes wide open. I wouldn't use it for wildlife because it's not long enough and again you would stop the lens down for wildlife.
How about AF performance? I’ve had issues in the past with Sigma having focus breathing or missing focus / slow focus that made me switch to a Sony lens (aps-c). I’m now intending moving to full frame and considering this one but fast and reliable autofocus is important for me.
Let's be honest, I also had the 24-105 f4 G and switched to the tamron 28-200 due to the longer range and smaller dimensions, very versatile, no doubt but... and there's always a but, the 24-105 is much, much better in terms of image quality, there's no comparison, sharpness, micro contrast, color rendering, etc, etc...and there's no point in running away from that fact.
Have both lens aswell,but throghout all zoom ranges tamron is much sharper with better contrast overall,2.8 vs 4 especialy in lower part 28-100 is big difference,would choose Tamron over Sony anytime...
I agree. Just switched from sony to this tamron but soon going to buy once again the 24-105 G. Maybe I got a bad copy but IQ is pretty poor, especially on the corners which are way too soft.
For portraits you can get away with it, but not for professional use as the fstop is too high. My favourite lens though is an 85mm, and it's coming up in a video coming out soon so stay tuned!
What do you think about this lens for sports? More specifically, I'm willing to photograph and record surf, being on the water with a water housing, and I'm concerned about the fact that this lens does not have Image Stabilization, even though the camera is an A7 III, which has IBIS, i don't know if it's enough, videos may get shaky, what do you think?
Hmm, depends really, it has quite a long reach so you would have to have a housing that fits it which may be quite expensive. Overall for fast moving subjects I haven't had an issue, just keep your ISO high for longer lengths I'd say. As for shake, I wouldn't worry about it, ibis is enough - hope this helps!
I'm going to switch to Sony from Canon (apsc 77D) soon. I'll be getting A7IV. Hence, I'm more into travel photography stills. As a hobbyist photographer, I do sometimes love to shoot at night/low light, landscape, street, and one at the time shooting cultural shows that needs a fast shooting experience. In your opinion, which of these 3 lenses would you recommend? 1. Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 (lightweight and wider range) 2. Tamron 35-135mm f2.8 (good in low light but heavy) 3. Sony 24-105mm f4 (sharp but not a wider range)
Hey bud, nice one, I hope you enjoy the transition! You've mentioned a lot of low light stuff there, so the lens you watched my video on is 2.8 only at 28mm, from there it changes. This one and the 24-105 though I'd pick the Tamron as it's f4 at 100mm anyway. But with everything you've mentioned I'd probably say the 35-150mm 2-2.8 fits your bill. It's expensive and heavy yes but you'd probably not need another lens for a long while as it's pretty perfect. Hope this helps!
Well I can't help you with getting closer to the 1,000 subscribe mark but I did subscribe to help you with getting to the 2,000 mark. Anyways, thanks for creating this video. I looking into getting this lens to replace the kit lens that came with my a7ii. Your review a year later let's me know that I need to buy this lens.
I've been doing photography for like 1.5 years and i'd like to buy this as my first "rich" lens, it costs a lot to me that i'm not used to spend a lot of money but do you think that i should use my saving and get this lens? or wait to get 2 lenses that could cover the same amount of focal range? (It will cost more, i know but it's just because i'm about to buy something and i don't really know how to spend my money)
Hey there, I definitely recommend this as one of your first "rich" lenses. It was one of mine and it's been absolutely fantastic. I poke about it in my latest video basically mirroring this review. You won't be disappointed. Stat here and then branch out is my advice :)
A friend of mine is videographer and she is considering this lens as a "multitask choice" but she is afraid of its servo AF performance. Do you have something to tell about it? She have an A7iii
Hey Lewis, For sure it could be, though at a game you're already sitting a decent way away, so I would imagine something like the Tamron 70-180 or 70-300 would be slightly better? Just my thoughts :)
@@NicBucci savings up to get a new lense, and I'm sorta torn between the 28-200 and the 70-300 tamrons. Need a zoom like lens, don't like the slower apertures at the higher end but I also don't have the funds for the Sony 70-200 f4.
For photography sure, it's great, though there's no stabilisation in either so unless you have something to stabilise with I wouldn't use it for video :)
@@NicBucci roger that, looks like a great option as opposed to the 70-350 which i was also considering. For video, i will probably stick to my Sigma trio and the 17-70.
That is a good question George, and one I've run through my head a few times! I think that if I was getting into photography now, then I would have got the 35-150 for sure yeah, and skipped this. But now that I have it and I'm so happy with it I don't see the point as it performs incredibly well. Hope this answers it for you! They're both great lenses, one is just slightly cheaper than the other :)
Olympus 12-100mm f/4 IS Pro beats the Tamron; constant aperture, way sharper, 15cm closest focus and image stabilization that's also synchronized with Olympus bodies giving up to an insane 8.5 stops of IS.
Amazing! I'll get this lens if it ever will be possible to travel again without taking these horrible injections. If not I just spend the rest of my life up in the Totenåsen Hills.
Excellent review, nailing all the points. It's light and powerful. The one you pack for the day. And you don't need to worry about the whole f-stop issue most of the time. Sharpness is spot on. Price is right. Tamron for the win.
Thanks a lot for the comment John! Glad you've had as good an experience as I have had too :)
I have both the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and this lens, I end up using this lens 95% of the time because of its versatility and the awesome ability to zoom to 200mm. Pair this with Sony's 200-600 and you have 28-600 covered in two lenses, good for anything from landscape, to street, to wildlife photography...
Very true! This and the 200-600 would be an excellent combo, one day hopefully!
Hello bro i have just started as a wedding photographer i have sony a7 m3 and i have 28-70 f3.5 - 5.6 and now i am a bit confused which lens to buy 35mm/85mm or should i buy tamron 70-180 f2.8 bro can you please suggest??
@@CarlosTucker-sp4bj I know it's very pricey, but I know of people that shoot entire weddings on the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 without feeling the need for anything else. I'd definitely research it!
@@isaacsonntag i know 35-150 is a great option but i don't have that much budget
@@isaacsonntag in my budget i can either get prime lens or tamron 70-180 lens and so i just started i only have one body
I agree, my favorite too.. I've been using it for 20 months on a7c.
Thanks big time for all the info. I just bought mine and I'm in love with it already.
Since I use A7 ii and I'm trying to save to get a more modern body and good lenses, I've decided to buy this Tamron a year ago, and it was my only lens. I even used it for portraits at around 80mm in sunny clear days and there were insanely sharp I couldn't believe it!
I also used it for Macro and I was stunned with the result. I do time to time night photos with a tripod and manual mode and results are good!!
This is one of the ultimate lenses I can recommend to anyone who want to have a one in all lens as well as a good quality lens to have when saving for more or just not fan of switching lenses.
Great review!
i like your video format. you get strait to the point and it's nicely segmented into questions. not sure why you have a low subscriber count
Really appreciate it! And yeah, it's not from lack of trying 😁
Outstanding review, It Cleared all my doubts i was about to buy a prime lens for travelling but this video cleared my doubts. Thanks,
man keep up the good work.
Use this as my all around lense on my a7iii. Bought the 70-180 for indoor sports and am very happy
It's still an excellent lens for me too 2 years on!
Just got mine and after two days of owning it I already really love it! Great lens, great size, low weight and really great focal range. Nice video and you just got another subscriber.
Thanks so much for the sub! Really appreciate it :)
And glad you're enjoying the lens so much! It will be a great travel companion for you I'm sure!
All the best :)
Thanks for your insightful video. I have the Sony 24-105 G, and the 100-400 GM. There are so many times I need just a bit more reach from the Sony 24-105, but don’t really want to carry around a 3 lb. lens, just in case. So I only carry it when I’m sure I’ll need it. The Sony 24-240 IQ is just mush, so that is out of the question. It seems to me the Tamron 28-200 is the answer. I can carry my Sony 16-35 GM, along with the 28-200, and have 16-200 covered when I leave the 100-400 behind. I rented one for the week to replace the 24-105 on a Thanksgiving family trip to see how it does with my A7RIV. I’ll report back what I think.
No problem David, glad you found it insightful! I did toss up the 24-104 also but ultimately went for this one. Enjoy your week away! Looking forward to hearing how the Lens goes :)
@@adennaed I have the 24-105, and like it a lot. I’ll be running some direct comparisons tomorrow, and I’ll report back. I must say, I really enjoyed using the Tamron 28-200 this week, largely because of the additional range. I will be purchasing one for hiking and traveling. I did miss the Sony 24-105 stabilization, on occasion, with it’s on/off button. And the Tamron did miss focus a few times, but the focus problem is a known issue that was fixed in firmware updates. I tried to do a firmware update as the lens I have is version 0.03, and the latest version is 3.0. So far, I have been unsuccessful. I’ll try it, again, tomorrow using an older Mac. I found it as sharp, or sharper than the Sony 24-105 most of the time - it is definitely sharper than the Sony at f/11 and f/16, which is handy for some landscape shots. The colors were good and I did not notice the CA fringe as much as I thought I would - it just did not show up much. It did fine indoors at family gatherings, too. The f/2.8 at the wide end, along with the camera body stabilization, helped make up for the lack of lens stabilization. If you are looking for a general purpose lens, I would get the Tamron because of the extra reach, the 24-28mm difference on the wide end was never an issue. If you know you won’t use the reach on the long end, then it is a tougher decision.
been rocking this lens for more than a year, and thought about selling it. But decided this is the lens that I'm not afraid to take on hikes that might be a bit rough.
Yeah exactly, it's a go anywhere, do (almost) anything lens, glad you decided against it :)
For me it’s the ultimate travel lens for street photography and landscapes
Fantastic review Nic. Popping out to buy my own one after watching your video. Good luck with the channel.
Awesome news! I know you'll enjoy it, and thank you :)
GOOD REVIEW. Just brought it... looking forward to using it
Nice, I’ve watched several great reviews (like yours) of this lens. So, when my Tamron 18-300 died (the focus motor doesn’t stop) I jumped on this 28-200. No regrets. It fills a gap between my 27mm, f1.2 Viltrox and Sony 200-600 monster lens (both great lenses too). Thank for the review. Just subbed to help a fellow UA-camr.
Thanks a lot mate!
Yes for Rooibos! South-Africa
It's one of the best tea's going!
Thank you for your review about this lens. It made me feel better about my choice of purchasing this lens to go with my Sony a7riii that i just bought used for my next trip. i was pulling my hair out after purchasing this lens when i thought about if i should have purchased 24-70 f2.8 instead of this 28-200 f2.8 to 5.6.
Glad I could help! It's an excellent choice
Great review! I have this lens and find it extremely
Versatile!
Thanks Richard! Glad you find it as good as I do 😃
solid video man u deserve more! keep it up
Cheers man!
Also a point to note
This lens still gives u a f4.5 at 100mm which is close to the 24-105 f4
Only after 100mm variable aperture goes to f5.6
Yeah exactly! Such a versatile lens :)
Thanks mate , a really practical review , helped me alot
Not a problem at all mate
very encouraging movie, thank you Nic Bucci. Just bought one for travelling.
Enjoy it!
Been using the 24-105 as my primary travel lens but this 28-200 seems more versatile to replace the Sony 24-105 and my Sony 70-200 f4. Lighter, smaller and similar quality. Thanks for the review.
No problem mate :)
And yeah I opted for this over that lens too because at 100mm it's f4 (or super close to) anyway and excellent quality.
Have a great day! :)
Had it for a year now and mixed feelings. Technically it's been flawless but in practice the large zoom-range also in some ways makes it far more difficult lens to use than a standard zoom. I find it very hard to see and visualize good compositions when walking around with this lens because the focal range is so broad.
I have this lens and I like it very much and use it quite frequently. I'm using it currently on my A7Rv and it performs flawlessly.😀😀
It's an excellent lens for basically everything! 😃
Hi @King01st, I'm making a purchase for a7rV and this lens. Can you give your use case review? It would be helpful to me 😊
@@MrRoxxy93 I only have the A7R5 for about a month but before that I had a A7R3. In fact I almost purchased the simultaneously. I do some landscape and seascape but mainly cityscape and and street photography. For that the lens is great. It is sharp and with very little color fringing. Only at the shortest focal length (around 28 mm) you can get some color fringing but that's correctable in post. On my A7R5 it's the same story. The various focussing modes are very good with this lens and also the focus tracking works great. The only problem you might encounter is low light handheld shooting at the longer focal lengths. But that the depends of course if you are photographing moving objects.
I had no idea this lens existed thanks for the info! if I ever go travelling for a safari type holiday I am grabbing this lens no question
No probs! Glad I've introduced you to it :)
And for sure! I'd love to take it on safari, it would be excellent for that kind of trip :)
Thanks. I found that really helpful. I think I’m finally going to pull the trigger on it
No problems bud, glad I could help!
Great review, Nic!
Thanks mate, really glad you enjoyed it :)
Cheers dude. I subscribed to send some support your way. I am just getting into photography. I have bought the A7 iv and a sigma 28-70 dg-dn art but I had a really bad experience with that lens as it was full of dust with only couple of times being used while hiking. I have returned it and now I am looking to buy the Tamron. I hope I can finally start using the Sony.
You're welcome mate. Thanks for the sub! Means a lot.
I've never owned/used that lens but can vouch for Tamron entirely! I have a video coming out at the end of the weekend on the 28-75G2 so if you're looking to replace the Sigma that might be of help :)
All the best!
Hi, at 4:01, you mentioned the f5.6 forces you to bump up the ISO. Generally, what is the upper limit for ISO that you find still acceptable?
Hey :)
With my camera, anything below 2500 is fine in low light with some editing magic thrown in there!
Great job on this! You got another subscriber :) Thanks for putting this together. Very helpful. I have been looking at this or the Tamron 28-75. Thoughts on either over the other? Thanks from USA!
Thanks so much bud! Appreciate that :)
Really glad it was able to help you out, and re your question, it's hard to say, I own both (but the G2 28-75) and they're so different. So depending what you're after, the 28-75 has prime level sharpness but leaves a lot to be desired in terms of focal length. If you don't mind the variable aperture then I'd recommend the 28-200 any day, just don't expect too blurry a background unless you're super close as I mentioned. Then again, it's not meant to be a "cinematic" lens.
I'd say if you're after more photos, this lens, but if you do a lot of video and client work, the 28-75 is the way forward :)
@@NicBucci Heck yes! This is very helpful. Keep up the great work. Take care! :)
I know the 35-150 f2-2.8 is a much heavier… but do you think that you might go for that one instead of the 28-200?
Well I have looked to be sure, but as you say it's quite heavy and it's also triple the price of this lens, so I probably won't, and I'm yet to find a true reason to need f2.8 at the long end. So for my needs, that lens will probably be a pass, hope this helps bud :)
@@NicBucci Yeah if you don't do portraits there is no need for that incredible lens. I wouldn't use it for landscapes because you don't shoot landscapes wide open. I wouldn't use it for wildlife because it's not long enough and again you would stop the lens down for wildlife.
How is the focus speed - particularly for moving subjects? Could you shoot outdoor sports or friendly (close) wildlife with it reasonably well?
I’ve found no issues in these environments, so long as there’s plenty of light around when you’re at 200mm :)
Curious if you’d rather have this over the 24-105mm F4
Definitely, it's incredibly versatile. Check out my latest shorts video as an example :)
Nic, what do you think about the stabilization on videos ? it is nice, or acceptable ?
Depends on your camera body really, the lens has no stabilisation inside to help it out :)
How about AF performance? I’ve had issues in the past with Sigma having focus breathing or missing focus / slow focus that made me switch to a Sony lens (aps-c). I’m now intending moving to full frame and considering this one but fast and reliable autofocus is important for me.
In all the time I've had it it's never skipped a beat! Zero issues on those fronts :)
@@NicBucci thanks!
Loved the review
Let's be honest, I also had the 24-105 f4 G and switched to the tamron 28-200 due to the longer range and smaller dimensions, very versatile, no doubt but... and there's always a but, the 24-105 is much, much better in terms of image quality, there's no comparison, sharpness, micro contrast, color rendering, etc, etc...and there's no point in running away from that fact.
Have both lens aswell,but throghout all zoom ranges tamron is much sharper with better contrast overall,2.8 vs 4 especialy in lower part 28-100 is big difference,would choose Tamron over Sony anytime...
I agree. so keep both.
I agree. Just switched from sony to this tamron but soon going to buy once again the 24-105 G. Maybe I got a bad copy but IQ is pretty poor, especially on the corners which are way too soft.
What was the backpack you were putting the gear into?
That was just my (now) old neewer Amazon bag, surprisingly good for the price!
Do you recommend this for portraits/ what is your favorite prime lens?
For portraits you can get away with it, but not for professional use as the fstop is too high. My favourite lens though is an 85mm, and it's coming up in a video coming out soon so stay tuned!
What do you think about this lens for sports? More specifically, I'm willing to photograph and record surf, being on the water with a water housing, and I'm concerned about the fact that this lens does not have Image Stabilization, even though the camera is an A7 III, which has IBIS, i don't know if it's enough, videos may get shaky, what do you think?
Hmm, depends really, it has quite a long reach so you would have to have a housing that fits it which may be quite expensive. Overall for fast moving subjects I haven't had an issue, just keep your ISO high for longer lengths I'd say. As for shake, I wouldn't worry about it, ibis is enough - hope this helps!
Can this lens do wedding photography? What your thought? Thanks
I'd say if it's outdoors/well lit during the day you would be fine yeah. Low light probably not unless your camera can handle high ISO :)
I'm going to switch to Sony from Canon (apsc 77D) soon. I'll be getting A7IV. Hence, I'm more into travel photography stills. As a hobbyist photographer, I do sometimes love to shoot at night/low light, landscape, street, and one at the time shooting cultural shows that needs a fast shooting experience.
In your opinion, which of these 3 lenses would you recommend?
1. Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 (lightweight and wider range)
2. Tamron 35-135mm f2.8 (good in low light but heavy)
3. Sony 24-105mm f4 (sharp but not a wider range)
Hey bud, nice one, I hope you enjoy the transition!
You've mentioned a lot of low light stuff there, so the lens you watched my video on is 2.8 only at 28mm, from there it changes. This one and the 24-105 though I'd pick the Tamron as it's f4 at 100mm anyway.
But with everything you've mentioned I'd probably say the 35-150mm 2-2.8 fits your bill. It's expensive and heavy yes but you'd probably not need another lens for a long while as it's pretty perfect.
Hope this helps!
With video, what’s it like for focus breathing?
No issues so far! Though it is a little noticeable in the darker places
Hey dude gave you a sub for this great review :)
Thanks so much dude! I hope you enjoy the content going forward! Have a great day :)
Thanks
Well I can't help you with getting closer to the 1,000 subscribe mark but I did subscribe to help you with getting to the 2,000 mark. Anyways, thanks for creating this video. I looking into getting this lens to replace the kit lens that came with my a7ii. Your review a year later let's me know that I need to buy this lens.
Ah thanks so much mate, I really appreciate that! It's an excellent lens, so I'm glad I was able to help you in your purchase, enjoy!!
I've been doing photography for like 1.5 years and i'd like to buy this as my first "rich" lens, it costs a lot to me that i'm not used to spend a lot of money but do you think that i should use my saving and get this lens? or wait to get 2 lenses that could cover the same amount of focal range? (It will cost more, i know but it's just because i'm about to buy something and i don't really know how to spend my money)
Hey there, I definitely recommend this as one of your first "rich" lenses. It was one of mine and it's been absolutely fantastic. I poke about it in my latest video basically mirroring this review. You won't be disappointed. Stat here and then branch out is my advice :)
@@NicBucci Also i wanted to ask of it's good for sports photography
@@itzpawl3024 relatively, it just won’t have super bokeh at 200mm is all :)
A friend of mine is videographer and she is considering this lens as a "multitask choice" but she is afraid of its servo AF performance. Do you have something to tell about it? She have an A7iii
I've never had an issue with the eye AF :)
Hello, Do you think It could be used for shooting photos and videos at Basket sports event ? Thanks
Hey Lewis,
For sure it could be, though at a game you're already sitting a decent way away, so I would imagine something like the Tamron 70-180 or 70-300 would be slightly better? Just my thoughts :)
Ssssoooooooo tempting.
Doooo it! 😂
@@NicBucci savings up to get a new lense, and I'm sorta torn between the 28-200 and the 70-300 tamrons. Need a zoom like lens, don't like the slower apertures at the higher end but I also don't have the funds for the Sony 70-200 f4.
@@malcolmkasner I’ve never had an issue with this lens, except in the dark :)
Хочу такий на CANON RF
I have an A6400, would you use this on an aps-c body?
For photography sure, it's great, though there's no stabilisation in either so unless you have something to stabilise with I wouldn't use it for video :)
@@NicBucci roger that, looks like a great option as opposed to the 70-350 which i was also considering. For video, i will probably stick to my Sigma trio and the 17-70.
Yeah that's a great combo, the 28-200 is a great photography lens :)
Что мне нравится в тампоне так это диаметр на всех объективах 67 мм
Are you the long lost brother of Russel Brand? Because you look and sound alike! The entire video my brain was looking for this match😄
I have heard this so many times you wouldn’t believe 😂
@@NicBucci you better have a sitdown with your mom, it's time😜🤌🏽
@@zijeisdezon I think she has some explaining to do 🤣🤣
Sound like a perfect Swiss army knife for you. If $$$ is not a factor, would you rather have the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 with you?
That is a good question George, and one I've run through my head a few times! I think that if I was getting into photography now, then I would have got the 35-150 for sure yeah, and skipped this. But now that I have it and I'm so happy with it I don't see the point as it performs incredibly well.
Hope this answers it for you! They're both great lenses, one is just slightly cheaper than the other :)
Thousands subscribers, You say? Ok, here is one more to that 25k.
Thanks so much mate!
У сони есть 24-200
Olympus 12-100mm f/4 IS Pro beats the Tamron; constant aperture, way sharper, 15cm closest focus and image stabilization that's also synchronized with Olympus bodies giving up to an insane 8.5 stops of IS.
If only Sony allowed and this lens had a 1.5x and 2x teleconverter options.
Now wouldn't that be a perfect union
Amazing! I'll get this lens if it ever will be possible to travel again without taking these horrible injections. If not I just spend the rest of my life up in the Totenåsen Hills.