I think you undersold the 70-180mm. It’s not only sharper and faster autofocus, but it’s also 1 to 2 stops brighter than the 28-200 throughout the 70-180 range. Since neither are OIS, they will have the same shutter speed. If you’re in a situation where you’re at 70mm and ISO 400 with the 70-180, the 28-200 will have to be at ISO 800. If you’re at 180mm at ISO 800, then the 28-200 is at a whopping ISO 3200. OIS also doesn’t help with moving subjects where high shutter speed are required to freeze your subject. Shooting at 1/250th sec with the 28-200 will have an ISO 2x to 4x higher than the 70-180, not to mention the poorer lock autofocus rate. In flash photography, higher apertures create brighter backgrounds behind the subject. The 70-180 will have a more pleasing look with more balanced exposure across the photo vs the 28-200. For portrait photography, the 70-180 will create shallower depth-of-field and better subject isolation vs the 28-200. Finally, reviewers have noticed pretty severe CA (purple fringing around high contrast areas) with the 28-200 at large apertures. The 28-200 sounds like a fine travel/landscape lens, but for portrait, sport/action, wildlife, event, flash, low-light photography the 70-180 is the clear winner.
Which would give the better image quality for landscape photography on tripod stopped down? 70 180 v 28 200. Regardless of focal length differences. I'd usually use them 100mm to 200ish. Thanks
@@deanlewis2215 Gosh, I’ve never used the 28-200, but plenty of reviewers have noted that the 28-200 is good stopped down, but soft in the corners wide open. They also noted purple fringing in high contrast images, but seems to be controlled with post-processing. I shoot with the 42MP A7rii, so it becomes pretty obvious when you don’t put a lens with that kind of resolving power on it, thus I tend to opt for more expensive lenses with limited focal ranges vs the slower zooms with more focal range (plus I’ll shoot moving objects in low light, so high apertures are also useful for me). But I’ve heard plenty of dedicated landscapers on UA-cam stating that the 28-200 is their favorite travel/landscape lens.
@@sportkiteflyer Since I made that post, Tamron has now released a 35-150 f2-2.8. It's gotten rave reviews, as well. Something to consider if you don't need as much reach and would like more width. I will say, the 35-150 is larger, heavier and more expensive, but that might be ok if it replaces two lenses in your bag, and it does cover almost all the range of the 28-200.
Affordable options like this makes full-frame cameras closer to everyone's reach. Some folks do not enjoy this. There are people who literally get irritated hearing the word "Tamron" now, in Sony forums.
They're snobs of the highest order, trying to justify paying more for equal performance, or less (in many cases). I enjoy my Sony 35 and 85mm lenses, but I also enjoy my 28-200 as much as my Samy 14mm and 7Artisans 50mm.
Bought the 28-200 for my A7ii 2:years ago and it worked orecently upgraded to a7iii and am using the 28-200 on it. Works significantly faster on the a7iii. Need a faster lense for basketball in poorly lite school gyms, so I’m planning to get the 70-180. Thank you for the great review!
Stefan, I rewatched the very nice video, maybe for the 3rd time. I own both lenses. As you point out, each has its purpose and both accomplish their goals very well. What I wish to add is that Sony IBIS has come so far that the lack of lens IS, even at 180 & 200mm, may be irrelevant. I have just received a used a7Rv. To play with AF animal eye tracking, I mounted the 70-180 and aimed at our small Westie across a dimly lit living room, at 180mm ISO 100 f/2.8 1/15". To my astonishment every eye detail was crisp and in focus, 1/15" at 180mm! Wow! IBIS suffices for these lenses. (Also Westies can only sit still for 1/15".)
Would you recommend either of these for wedding photography? I have some sony primes 50 and 85 and sigma 24-70 but have had a few situations where some zoom would be ideal vs being more intrusive.
Depends on you. A constant aperture is great to have but comes at a high cost. Tamron is smaller and more versatile with macro capabilities. Both are good.
For a one lens solution the 28-200 is tough to beat. It's light enough for a gimbal, at its short end, 28-50 is it sharp and fast plus you have reach if you need it. But the 70-180 is far better optically producing sharper images and at dusk you will have difficulty at the long end with the 28-200. I have both and for $729 US the 28-200 is a steal. But the 28-75 plus 70-180 will deliver superior results.
The 28-200 replaced my 28-75/2.8 and my 70-200/4... for that, absolutely worth it. Losing at most a stop of light to get the same quality in one lens... worth it.
@Mr. Kattan Absolutely. The 28-60mm is by all accounts fine, but the 28-200mm covers so much ground. It's effectively a f/2.8-4 indoors (28-75 range) and gets a little slower in the telephoto range (which you'd presumably use outdoors in the sun, or on a tripod for landscapes at night). It could be the only lens you ever need, though I keep a fast, small, wide prime around for when I want an even smaller kit.
@@lewiss66 nah still on my 28-200. The 35-150 is too large a lens on an A7C. If I shot more at zoos/wildlife I’d probably consider the 50-400 though, that’s a nice piece of glass. Maybe one day I’ll buy it used.
How many shots do you miss changing lenses when you need to go wide when you have 70-180? All around lens winner is the 28-200! Lightweight compact, starts at 2.8, perfect! Not a fair auto focus comparison - dog running full speed at you with the 28-200, vs. toddler roaming around with the 70-200. Too funny!
A photographer shooting weddings who needs 28-70mm or 180-200mm would pull this out. Its just as capable as the 70-180, I own both. What makes the 70-180 more "pro" in your opinion?
@@michaelbell75 the 2.8 aperture throughout the whole focal length. In Low light situations you’d need to bump iso up 🤷🏽♂️. From The reviews I’ve seen yes it takes good photos. But for myself I prefer a fast lens for my professional work. That lens id use for travel or just general shooting.
@@jamalymall well the Sony 24-105 f/4 G is a pretty nice lens. The Tamron 28-200 stays f/4.5 out to 105mm and for half the price. If you NEED f/2.8 then it is what it is, but I’d much rather have 28-200mm in one lens then 2 or 3 faster ones I needed to lug and swap around. I have no problems bumping my ISO up a bit if needed. Not an issue with newer mirrorless cameras.
@@michaelbell75 I’m a new Sony shooter and am learning that they produce sharper images than canon at higher ISO. That’s something I need to keep in mind. I was looking at lenses and see a lot of f4 lenses for good prices. I’m not an expensive lens guy by any means. 1.8 is plenty good for me.
It depend on your photo style. I know some wedding photographer carry two bodies with each pair a prime lens. Some carry 2 bodies each pair with f2.8 zoom. Or if you are outdoor, you can do one with ultrawide and one with this 28-200. That combo also works. It really depends on your style.
Well I am afraid you are trying to compare lenses that can t be compared :) Will you compare next time a 20mm with a 135mm :)? That said your individual performance evaluations are valuable. The 70-180 is scratching Sony 70-210 f4 for thé same price and offer more or less same perf of Sony 70-210 f2.8 for half size and half size except ibis and 20 last mm ... but as owners of this lens are A7iii, A7riii or more users who cares ? It s really for me the best Tamron lens for Sony even if a little expensive ... but as all Sony’s are. Believe me owners of 70-210 f2.8 are crying :). The other one is quite a good versatile lens very good for travelling with only one lense... but a little expensive too. We got here what Nikon built several years ago with his 28-300 for two third of this price AND with VR... But we all want Sony these time so it s price to pay ...
They're not exactly the same, but since they're both Tamron lenses that cover the same telephoto range, somebody might be wondering if it's better to get a dedicated telephoto zooms, or if the all-in-one is good enough to cover it. I personally found it to be a helpful comparison, and I wish there were more reviews comparing lenses that overlap but aren't exactly the same.
I bought the 28-200mm lens last month and deeply regret the decision
of not buying it sooner.
I have the 28-200. It's a great travel and hiking lens. I also have the 70-200GM and it's great for sports and professional work.
I think you undersold the 70-180mm. It’s not only sharper and faster autofocus, but it’s also 1 to 2 stops brighter than the 28-200 throughout the 70-180 range. Since neither are OIS, they will have the same shutter speed. If you’re in a situation where you’re at 70mm and ISO 400 with the 70-180, the 28-200 will have to be at ISO 800. If you’re at 180mm at ISO 800, then the 28-200 is at a whopping ISO 3200. OIS also doesn’t help with moving subjects where high shutter speed are required to freeze your subject. Shooting at 1/250th sec with the 28-200 will have an ISO 2x to 4x higher than the 70-180, not to mention the poorer lock autofocus rate. In flash photography, higher apertures create brighter backgrounds behind the subject. The 70-180 will have a more pleasing look with more balanced exposure across the photo vs the 28-200. For portrait photography, the 70-180 will create shallower depth-of-field and better subject isolation vs the 28-200. Finally, reviewers have noticed pretty severe CA (purple fringing around high contrast areas) with the 28-200 at large apertures. The 28-200 sounds like a fine travel/landscape lens, but for portrait, sport/action, wildlife, event, flash, low-light photography the 70-180 is the clear winner.
Well phrased!
Which would give the better image quality for landscape photography on tripod stopped down? 70 180 v 28 200. Regardless of focal length differences. I'd usually use them 100mm to 200ish. Thanks
@@deanlewis2215 Gosh, I’ve never used the 28-200, but plenty of reviewers have noted that the 28-200 is good stopped down, but soft in the corners wide open. They also noted purple fringing in high contrast images, but seems to be controlled with post-processing. I shoot with the 42MP A7rii, so it becomes pretty obvious when you don’t put a lens with that kind of resolving power on it, thus I tend to opt for more expensive lenses with limited focal ranges vs the slower zooms with more focal range (plus I’ll shoot moving objects in low light, so high apertures are also useful for me). But I’ve heard plenty of dedicated landscapers on UA-cam stating that the 28-200 is their favorite travel/landscape lens.
IMO you nailed it and why I'm strongly considering the 70-180. And currently on sale (6/10/22).
@@sportkiteflyer Since I made that post, Tamron has now released a 35-150 f2-2.8. It's gotten rave reviews, as well. Something to consider if you don't need as much reach and would like more width. I will say, the 35-150 is larger, heavier and more expensive, but that might be ok if it replaces two lenses in your bag, and it does cover almost all the range of the 28-200.
These make the Sony more versatile and easy to own for the average user.
Affordable options like this makes full-frame cameras closer to everyone's reach. Some folks do not enjoy this. There are people who literally get irritated hearing the word "Tamron" now, in Sony forums.
They're snobs of the highest order, trying to justify paying more for equal performance, or less (in many cases). I enjoy my Sony 35 and 85mm lenses, but I also enjoy my 28-200 as much as my Samy 14mm and 7Artisans 50mm.
This is why I consider to switch to full frame. The lenses are not ridiculously pricy like the GM lenses. But still GM lenses is great
Bought the 28-200 for my A7ii 2:years ago and it worked orecently upgraded to a7iii and am using the 28-200 on it. Works significantly faster on the a7iii. Need a faster lense for basketball in poorly lite school gyms, so I’m planning to get the 70-180.
Thank you for the great review!
Man I love your content
Appreciate that my friend 👊
Bite test? Hearing test? Sniff test? You being very thorough with this vid.
Stefan, I rewatched the very nice video, maybe for the 3rd time. I own both lenses. As you point out, each has its purpose and both accomplish their goals very well. What I wish to add is that Sony IBIS has come so far that the lack of lens IS, even at 180 & 200mm, may be irrelevant. I have just received a used a7Rv. To play with AF animal eye tracking, I mounted the 70-180 and aimed at our small Westie across a dimly lit living room, at 180mm ISO 100 f/2.8 1/15". To my astonishment every eye detail was crisp and in focus, 1/15" at 180mm! Wow! IBIS suffices for these lenses. (Also Westies can only sit still for 1/15".)
Would you recommend either of these for wedding photography? I have some sony primes 50 and 85 and sigma 24-70 but have had a few situations where some zoom would be ideal vs being more intrusive.
As always a terrific and very thoughtful review.
Awesome stuff. If I dare request, could you do detailed review on 70-200 f2.8 GM (with 1.4x or 2x tele) and perhaps compare to 100-400 GM?
Sure
Tamron 28-200 or Sony 24-105 for travelling videos? I'll be pairing with my 16-35
Depends on you. A constant aperture is great to have but comes at a high cost. Tamron is smaller and more versatile with macro capabilities. Both are good.
Stefan Malloch thanks mate, hard decision though
If I were looking for one to shoot video with, which one would be better?
For a one lens solution the 28-200 is tough to beat. It's light enough for a gimbal, at its short end, 28-50 is it sharp and fast plus you have reach if you need it. But the 70-180 is far better optically producing sharper images and at dusk you will have difficulty at the long end with the 28-200. I have both and for $729 US the 28-200 is a steal. But the 28-75 plus 70-180 will deliver superior results.
Great review and nice job from Tamron.
I wish they run on my Nikon Z6 ...
Awesome video as usual!!!
Would the built in image stabilization make a difference if you're using a Sony A7?
The 28-200 replaced my 28-75/2.8 and my 70-200/4... for that, absolutely worth it. Losing at most a stop of light to get the same quality in one lens... worth it.
@Mr. Kattan Absolutely. The 28-60mm is by all accounts fine, but the 28-200mm covers so much ground. It's effectively a f/2.8-4 indoors (28-75 range) and gets a little slower in the telephoto range (which you'd presumably use outdoors in the sun, or on a tripod for landscapes at night). It could be the only lens you ever need, though I keep a fast, small, wide prime around for when I want an even smaller kit.
@Mr. Kattan or you can buy the sigma 28-70 f2.8. even smaller and lighter.
@@MikeLikesChannel Do you still enjoy the 28-200mm or change for a 35-150mm tamron?
@@lewiss66 nah still on my 28-200. The 35-150 is too large a lens on an A7C. If I shot more at zoos/wildlife I’d probably consider the 50-400 though, that’s a nice piece of glass. Maybe one day I’ll buy it used.
70-200mm f/4 as in the sony G lens? You replaced with the 28-200? Are you still enjoying it?
How many shots do you miss changing lenses when you need to go wide when you have 70-180? All around lens winner is the 28-200! Lightweight compact, starts at 2.8, perfect!
Not a fair auto focus comparison - dog running full speed at you with the 28-200, vs. toddler roaming around with the 70-200. Too funny!
exactly what I was thinking. plus both lenses are with an old firmware so both are preforming better by now.
Did they ever release a firmware update
the 28-200 is in my wishlist.....
The Tamron now has the 70-180mm G2 . Its supposedly has faster focus motor.
The have 200mm @f/2.8 you need a wider front lens, which means the lens is bigger and more expensive. I think that's why Tamron stopped at 180mm.
Tamron should use 72mm instead 67mm.. I hate their policy to keep 67mm in every lens they make for an E-mount.
@@Jan-eh7nf That good for video guy. one size ND filter rule them all.
I just bought 70-180G2, i can tell you, it is alot better sharper than 28-200. Also it has VC.
wow nice lens ..i love it..
Native lens man expensive but worth it
Enough mid video ads? Sorry, just can't finish the video.
UA-cam changed ads recently and added more. Ill do my best to keep them reasonable.
First 😀
I think ur auto focus on the 28-200 is a skill issue tbh
Why would Sigma put a AF switch on their Sigma 24-70mm if it doesn't have AF in it?
A photographer shooting weddings won’t pull out the 28-200. It’s a more general lense and the 180 is more pro
A photographer shooting weddings who needs 28-70mm or 180-200mm would pull this out. Its just as capable as the 70-180, I own both. What makes the 70-180 more "pro" in your opinion?
@@michaelbell75 the 2.8 aperture throughout the whole focal length. In Low light situations you’d need to bump iso up 🤷🏽♂️. From
The reviews I’ve seen yes it takes good photos. But for myself I prefer a fast lens for my professional work. That lens id use for travel or just general shooting.
@@jamalymall well the Sony 24-105 f/4 G is a pretty nice lens. The Tamron 28-200 stays f/4.5 out to 105mm and for half the price. If you NEED f/2.8 then it is what it is, but I’d much rather have 28-200mm in one lens then 2 or 3 faster ones I needed to lug and swap around. I have no problems bumping my ISO up a bit if needed. Not an issue with newer mirrorless cameras.
@@michaelbell75 I’m a new Sony shooter and am learning that they produce sharper images than canon at higher ISO. That’s something I need to keep in mind. I was looking at lenses and see a lot of f4 lenses for good prices. I’m not an expensive lens guy by any means. 1.8 is plenty good for me.
It depend on your photo style. I know some wedding photographer carry two bodies with each pair a prime lens. Some carry 2 bodies each pair with f2.8 zoom.
Or if you are outdoor, you can do one with ultrawide and one with this 28-200. That combo also works. It really depends on your style.
Well I am afraid you are trying to compare lenses that can t be compared :) Will you compare next time a 20mm with a 135mm :)? That said your individual performance evaluations are valuable. The 70-180 is scratching Sony 70-210 f4 for thé same price and offer more or less same perf of Sony 70-210 f2.8 for half size and half size except ibis and 20 last mm ... but as owners of this lens are A7iii, A7riii or more users who cares ? It s really for me the best Tamron lens for Sony even if a little expensive ... but as all Sony’s are. Believe me owners of 70-210 f2.8 are crying :). The other one is quite a good versatile lens very good for travelling with only one lense... but a little expensive too. We got here what Nikon built several years ago with his 28-300 for two third of this price AND with VR... But we all want Sony these time so it s price to pay ...
They're not exactly the same, but since they're both Tamron lenses that cover the same telephoto range, somebody might be wondering if it's better to get a dedicated telephoto zooms, or if the all-in-one is good enough to cover it. I personally found it to be a helpful comparison, and I wish there were more reviews comparing lenses that overlap but aren't exactly the same.