Woke up early morning and drove an hr to the coast. There were two more photographers in front of me. I moved back and ocean side to get this. Tamron is a versatile lens.
I bought my A9 mainly for wildlife and the 200-600. I bought the Tamron to do the rest. I almost never shoot wider so the 28-200 does everything for me.
A7R II + Tamron 28-200. I love this lens. I still own the Sony 24-105 f/4, but I'm getting closer to selling it. I've read many reviews comparing these lenses, and the differences seem small enough to be worth losing a small amount of sharpness and 24mm in exchange for a lot more range and light. I have not done any sort of rigorous testing myself, but to me it seems like the Sony is just slightly sharper at the wide end, whereas the Tamron is slightly sharper at the long end of their shared range.
Here are some images I took with the Tamron last summer:
Is it as sharp as the best primes like Voigtlander APO Lanthar? Definitely not.
Sharp enough? Depends on your standards. This is not a "bag of primes", but I found my better copy good enough from 28-130mm for landscape photography when closed down to f/4-5.6 with some minor fall-off at the edges. It does start to have a lot CA from around 130/150 to 200mm, getting progressively worse and corner sharpness falls off as well on my copy. Mine is about as sharp as my 24-105mm in the shared focal length range, give or take depending on the focal length.
