hasenbein wrote:
Really? Which country is that? A sh***y place to be...
Hey, mate, I don't hide my country of origin and it is stated in my profile. I am from Russia, the country thanks to which your country - Germany - today is not devided into two parts and still can be found on the map. Choose your words carefully, buddy.
AlexDROP_2.0 wrote:
Hi there,
I am on the market for a lens in 70-200 range and considering Tamron 28-200 as a good alternative to 70200G/GM. Yet I looked up online full-sized images and found that many of them (taken on 28-200) are quite decentered for landscape photography.
CameraLabs samples are not sharp on the right side and the defect is well pronounced in this sample at 68mm, f/4 https://flic.kr/p/2jnMKRF
Dpreview samples show the same behavior at 28mm, f/2.8 dpreview sample
DCFever samples show the issue at 200mm, f/8 https://www.dcfever.com/lens/enlarge.php?id=23183
Could you please share your experience with Tamron 28-200 lens? Was it good from the 1st delivery or you exchanged it (how many times) before getting a good copy?
In my country it is hard to exchange lenses if they show slight or even mint decentering.
The issue reminds me the one with Tamron 70-180 lens I described 1 month ago here. And the same right side is affected....Show more →
That Cameralabs image doesn't seem ideal because it's shot at f/4, but the subject is not at infinity and both subjects on sides are in front of the plane of focus, I am also not sure about the DCFever image (it's hard to tell which buildings are at the same distance, the left yellow building though is clearly further in front, the far buildings near the edges clearly show the CA this lens has though).
But I can say that I tried 2 copies, my first copy is good, not quite perfectly centered but very good even on my A7RIV at 60mpix. The second copy was not decentered but generally softer at almost every focal length.
Keep in mind, though:
1. This is a quite inexpensive, light and compact super-zoom not a "pro" tele or even prime lens. It's excellent for what it is, but it's not a miracle-lens for 1/3 the price of the 70-200 GM. If you want the best IQ, probably wait for the new 70-200 GM II.
2. The image quality varies with focal length and probably copy. Mine is very good at 28-40, ok 40-60, great 60-135 and gradually drops off to 200 where it's mediocre. The lens has pretty strong LaCA at the longer focal lengths, especially at 200.
I have a good copy of the highly regarded Sony 24-105 G and the Tamron is about as sharp (give or take, depending on focal length) but I like the Tamron's rendering of foliage and nature a lot more, don't know maybe micro-contrast and color-cast if I had to guess. My Sigma 100-400 and Sony 200-600 are visibly sharper at 200mm.
Honestly, for the type of shooting I mostly do with this lens, depth of field is often more of an issue than the edge and corner sharpness of the lens, even at 200mm. It's a great landscape and documentary lens for me, especially for hikes and out in nature (check out aldburg's images, e.g.). I'll try to cross-post some images from a recent 16km alpine hike later.
AlexDROP_2.0 wrote:
Hey, mate, I don't hide my country of origin and it is stated in my profile. I am from Russia, the country thanks to which your country - Germany - today is not devided into two parts and still can be found on the map. Choose your words carefully, buddy.
Oh, I love Russia! And the Russians! (And, cough, the Russian girls even more...)
Your policy regarding returns is nevertheless sh***y :-)
lora_to wrote:
That Cameralabs image doesn't seem ideal because it's shot at f/4, but the subject is not at infinity and both subjects on sides are in front of the plane of focus, I am also not sure about the DCFever image (it's hard to tell which buildings are at the same distance, the left yellow building though is clearly further in front, the far buildings near the edges clearly show the CA this lens has though).
But I can say that I tried 2 copies, my first copy is good, not quite perfectly centered but very good even on my A7RIV at 60mpix. The second copy was not decentered but generally softer at almost every focal length.
Keep in mind, though:
1. This is a quite inexpensive, light and compact super-zoom not a "pro" tele or even prime lens. It's excellent for what it is, but it's not a miracle-lens for 1/3 the price of the 70-200 GM. If you want the best IQ, probably wait for the new 70-200 GM II.
2. The image quality varies with focal length and probably copy. Mine is very good at 28-40, ok 40-60, great 60-135 and gradually drops off to 200 where it's mediocre. The lens has pretty strong LaCA at the longer focal lengths, especially at 200.
I have a good copy of the highly regarded Sony 24-105 G and the Tamron is about as sharp (give or take, depending on focal length) but I like the Tamron's rendering of foliage and nature a lot more, don't know maybe micro-contrast and color-cast if I had to guess. My Sigma 100-400 and Sony 200-600 are visibly sharper at 200mm.
Honestly, for the type of shooting I mostly do with this lens, depth of field is often more of an issue than the edge and corner sharpness of the lens, even at 200mm. It's a great landscape and documentary lens for me, especially for hikes and out in nature (check out aldburg's images, e.g.). I'll try to cross-post some images from a recent 16km alpine hike later....Show more →
Thanks, Lora, for your input. Would love to see your images here. Do you have any images of night/blue hour cityscapes with street lights to share? I look for samples of sunstars the lens produces.
---------------------------------------------
hasenbein wrote:
Oh, I love Russia! And the Russians! (And, cough, the Russian girls even more...)
Your policy regarding returns is nevertheless sh***y :-)
So let's talk about return policy then and not the place. Considering the return policy of photogear, yes, it is shitty and I agree with that thoroughly.
I really, really like this lens, it's almost a perfect all-in-one travel package. It pretty much makes any standard F4 zoom a non starter unless you really need 24 mm on the wide end. It also compares very fav. against Tamron and Sigma 28-70/75 F2.8 zooms.
How well does the 28-200 keep up with most action and continuous tracking? I'm also curious if anyone who owns both the 70-180 and 28-200 can speak to the autofocus differences in the two models. I'm just using this on my A7rII.
grahamgibson wrote:
How well does the 28-200 keep up with most action and continuous tracking? I'm also curious if anyone who owns both the 70-180 and 28-200 can speak to the autofocus differences in the two models. I'm just using this on my A7rII.
First and foremost with continuous tracking in action you will be limited by your body not really by any of those lenses. I have or had (28-70/2.8) all Tamron zooms and there is pretty big difference in tracking and focus speed depending on the body.
So for me on A7R III all of them were pretty fast and accurate, 28-200 is pretty much the same as 28-70 in the same range and a bit slower when you go to 150+ mm since you're at 5.6 but it's still fine unless you shoot in pitch black. Tamron 70-180 is faster then both of those lenses, it's noticeable but not really day and night difference.
That being said on my second body - A9 - all of those lenses are even quicker and stickier in tracking. That's why for you - body is gonna be the limiting factor. Thou i still think it's gonna be decent even with A7R II. Overall Tamron auto-focus system is excelent (silent, fast and accurate) and in my tests quite a bit better then the one in Sigma ML lenses.
Immortal wrote:
First and foremost with continuous tracking in action you will be limited by your body not really by any of those lenses. I have or had (28-70/2.8) all Tamron zooms and there is pretty big difference in tracking and focus speed depending on the body.
So for me on A7R III all of them where pretty fast and accurate, 28-200 is pretty much the same as 28-70 in the same range and a bit slower when you go to 150+ mm since you're at 5.6 but it's still fine unless you shoot in pitch black. Tamron 70-180 is faster then both of those lenses, it's noticeable but not really day and night difference.
That being said on my second body - A9 - all of those lenses are even quicker and stickier in tracking. That's why for you - body is gonna be the limiting factor. Thou i still think it's gonna be decent even with A7R II. Overall Tamron auto-focus system is excelent (silent, fast and accurate) and in my tests quite a bit better then the one in Sigma ML lenses....Show more →
Thanks for your input. I bought the 70-180/2.8, but I keep thinking about the 28-200. Probably half of my use is for travel where the smaller size, lighter weight, and extended focal range would be a big benefit. I do quite like the image quality and tracking speed with the 70-180 though. I might just pick up the 28-200 also and see whether I like owning both or end up using one or the other exclusively.
Question, do any of you have a longer lens? I have been thinking of 100-400. I can't hike and sometimes with a longer lens I can narrow down on a small section to get an interesting shot. I was all set on 100-400GM but I have been seriously thinking of just shooting with Fuji GFX instead of using both Sony and Fuji.
Bobby,
I do have the 100-400. It is my long travel lens. It has very high IQ, and very flexible in uses. I have taken some of my favorite landscapes, and wildlife with it.
One of my favorite travel kits is:
CV 15 or Tamron 17-28
Sony 24-105
Sony 100-400 plus 1.4 TC
CV 40 1.2
All fits easily in travel bag, and I can get very high quality images in almost any circumstance
bobby350z wrote:
Question, do any of you have a longer lens? I have been thinking of 100-400. I can't hike and sometimes with a longer lens I can narrow down on a small section to get an interesting shot. I was all set on 100-400GM but I have been seriously thinking of just shooting with Fuji GFX instead of using both Sony and Fuji.
If you're looking at a longer lens for travel, also consider the Sigma 100-400. Smaller and lighter than the Sony.
Spent a few days up in the White Mountains of NH and took the A1 and 28-200 as the primary hiking combo. Very happy with the results and that range is great. Carried the combo on a Peak Design Capture Clip that worked perfectly.
Here are the lunch views for the 4 days. Highlight was the Crawford Mountain hike, 360 degree views including the presidential range. The only one we've done before was Lowe's Bald Spot (a number of years ago).
Just some other shots from the weekend with the 28-200. The Arethusa Falls photo is a stack of 8 photos so simulate the smooth water look. I had lugged my tripod and Sigma 14-24 with filters but it was raining when we got there so I wasn't about to do a lens change and opted to try the stack photo approach.
The last photo is just to give some perspective on the size of the falls.
