MedicineMan404 wrote:
Dallvr when I was on safari in the Timbavati/Kruger our drives were early morning and afternoon going into evening and I appreciated (though suffered the weight) 2.8mm primes....just thinking out loud about this lens and its aperture range versus the 70-180 and F2.8.
Of course that has to be weighed against lens changes and inside dusty Land Rovers
But I'm like you, 28-200 on the Riv and 200600 on the a9 (you have the a9ii I think) and I'll be good. AND I remembered I have the Rokinon 18/2.8 just in case I get a starry night It doesn't add much to the weight penalty....Show more →
I was thinking mostly about the 28-200 on game drives, where I have been using the 200-600, 100-400 and 24-105, each on an E-mount body. I also have on hand, and have to do a lens change when I need the 90 macro or for stars or Milky Way, the 12-24. I have cleaned more photos of dust spots than I care to remember, so I am pretty fanatic about not changing lenses on the fly. (I have the a9i, not the ii, a7R4 and a7R3). Of course, with travel these days being what it is, I have plenty of time to think about what the kit should be for my next safari.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Got out of the hospital this morning and into the blind I went. Rainy of course here in cloudland and a bit dark. Good test of Riv and the new Tam.
Sony ILCE-7RM4
E 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 A071
ƒ/5.6 200.0 mm 1/1000 ISO 2000
Those look really good. I'm seriously considering this lens. I also have the a7r iv and the a9ii. I just picked up the 200-600 for the a9ii and I'm not sure what to do with the 100-400 GM. The 28-200 on the a7r iv could work for a two lens carry with the 200-600 + 1.4x TC on the a9ii for wildlife/birds.
I also have the Sigma 14-24. I'm selling my Leica Q2 and I'm thinking the 14-24 and 28-200 could be a great travel combination with the r iv and a9ii during the day. At night I'll still probably carry some combination of the 14-24, Sigma 35 1.2 or Sony 50 1.4 ZA and the Sigma 105 1.4.
I really want to see how this lens ends up comparing optically to Nikon's 24-200 superzoom. Nikon has the wider end while Tamron has the better aperture.
Today's walkabouts snaps.
No I wouldn't use this lens for BIF (huge crops), macro(realy pseudo macro), or brick walls, or mating turtles (deep in the forest, ISO 4000), but I would use this for just an awesome walkabout lens for fun snapping. Tamron gets another thanks from me.
aldburg wrote:
I'd like to know how the 28-200 compares to the 70-200 f4 or 70-180 f2.8 at f8
I took some test shots with 24-70 f2.8 GM, 70-200 f4 G and this lens. I honestly do not see much difference between my Sony lenses and this Tamron. I was using A7R4 with f5.6-8.0, 1/500-1/1000 and ISO 100-400.
aldburg wrote:
I'd like to know how the 28-200 compares to the 70-200 f4 or 70-180 f2.8 at f8
I owned FE 70-200mm F4 for several years, gave it to my best friend's daughter as a wedding present for her and her a6500.
I can only go by memory and the Tamron competes well with it, beating it in several areas, and sharpness at 200 me feeling the Tamron 28-200 wins. The real victory is the obvious 2.8 at 28mm and the extreme close focus at 28mm.
I can't say anything about the 70180. Never had it.
samosh wrote:
I took some test shots with 24-70 f2.8 GM, 70-200 f4 G and this lens. I honestly do not see much difference between my Sony lenses and this Tamron. I was using A7R4 with f5.6-8.0, 1/500-1/1000 and ISO 100-400.
I'd love to see some of these, if possible. Not that I don't believe you, just really curious about this new Tamron now. Even just some more samples from the Tamron alone would be great. I have the 17-28, and was planning to get the 70-180 soon, but if I can fully cover 17-200 with two lenses that are pretty sharp at landscape apertures, I might go in a different direction for my lightweight backpacking kit. Either way, thanks for the info.
Any chance you can let me know what the aperture is at 70mm?
MedicineMan404 wrote:
I owned FE 70-200mm F4 for several years, gave it to my best friend's daughter as a wedding present for her and her a6500.
I can only go by memory and the Tamron competes well with it, beating it in several areas, and sharpness at 200 me feeling the Tamron 28-200 wins. The real victory is the obvious 2.8 at 28mm and the extreme close focus at 28mm.
I can't say anything about the 70180. Never had it.
dallvr wrote:
I was thinking mostly about the 28-200 on game drives, where I have been using the 200-600, 100-400 and 24-105, each on an E-mount body. I also have on hand, and have to do a lens change when I need the 90 macro or for stars or Milky Way, the 12-24. I have cleaned more photos of dust spots than I care to remember, so I am pretty fanatic about not changing lenses on the fly. (I have the a9i, not the ii, a7R4 and a7R3). Of course, with travel these days being what it is, I have plenty of time to think about what the kit should be for my next safari. ...Show more →
Dallvr, I forgot to tell you I did the kickstarter campaign for the rear pop in magnetic filters for the Sony FE 12-24mm. Sadly I leave for vacation in 2 weeks and they won't be here by then.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Many posters seem curious about this Tam28200.
What are your intended targets?
Just curious.
I do a decent amount of backpacking and hiking. Having a telephoto is a must for the type of landscape photos I take. I currently have a Voigtlander 21mm f3.5 and the 40mm Nokton f1.2 that I'd love to pair the Tamron 28-200 with.
Aldburg us too. Two weeks ago we did a 39 miler/4 days in GSMNP. My base weight out of the car was 15 pounds=everything for 4 days but water. Camera was a phone I'm too old to carry a real camera on real backpack trips anymore.
I've also got the VG 40/1.2=sweet lens!
Looking for a lens to use when I want good photos but photography isn’t primary concern, family outings are large portion of this. A lot of super zooms get too slow, too quickly to be a lot of interest. I think that might be what’s most am attractive to me here. f/4 at 70mm, f/4.5 at 100mm, not too much worse than 75/2.8 in practical use and 200mm too boot. It’s always compromises with optics, to me this makes a lot of good ones. It’s a fair trade off to the 28-75/2.8. Ultimately I’m not sure which I’d rather go with. Was thinking about comparing but not sure about the 28-75 I got.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Many posters seem curious about this Tam28200.
What are your intended targets?
Just curious.
aldburg wrote:
I do a decent amount of backpacking and hiking. Having a telephoto is a must for the type of landscape photos I take. I currently have a Voigtlander 21mm f3.5 and the 40mm Nokton f1.2 that I'd love to pair the Tamron 28-200 with.
Same for me as far as intended use...landscape shots on long hikes and backpacking trips. Right now I just carry my 17-28 and 70-200 when space and weight are important, but if I could fill in the 28-70 range while keeping similar IQ and actually reducing the weight, obviously that's intriguing.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Dallvr, I forgot to tell you I did the kickstarter campaign for the rear pop in magnetic filters for the Sony FE 12-24mm. Sadly I leave for vacation in 2 weeks and they won't be here by then.
MedicineMan, I have the Nisi filters for the 12-24, but am waiting for the rear magnetic filters to be manufactured. I had Aurora Aperture's rear filters when I had the Canon 11-24, and thought they were excellent.
I see this as a viable option for day hikes. Pair it with a 17-28/2.8 - or another large aperture wide angle - and you have your shots in the woods with poor light as well.
