Thanks to this thread this is now my main hiking lens. IMO it’s incredibly versatile and perfect for mounting on my backpack strap with PD Capture Clip. Combined with A1 I can’t think of a better quality lightweight combo…a few recent pics from my “backyard”
Blue Moon pre-sunrise over Blue Ridge Mountains
ILCE-1E 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 A071 lens200mmf/5.61/160s100 ISO-0.7 EV
Mountains peaking through the clouds
ILCE-1E 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 A071 lens165mmf/10.01/800s100 ISO0.0 EV
Gratuitous selfie @ 6,200’, Black Balsam Knob BRP
ILCE-1E 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 A071 lens41mmf/13.01/160s320 ISO0.0 EV
DuPont State Forest wildflower bloom
ILCE-1E 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 A071 lens118mmf/10.01/160s100 ISO0.0 EV
SouthFla wrote:
Thanks to this thread this is now my main hiking lens. IMO it’s incredibly versatile and perfect for mounting on my backpack strap with PD Capture Clip. Combined with A1 I can’t think of a better quality lightweight combo…a few recent pics from my “backyard”
That Blue Ridge Mountain photo is beautiful! Looking at the 28-200 and honestly pretty convinced from that photo alone.
1bwana1 wrote:
I was fortunate enough to be invited by Tamron to participate in their annual VIP Summit. The Tamron team put on a fantastic event. I have to say that I know of no other company in the U.S. photographic industry that takes better care of its customers than Tamron. Besides superb products, Tamron offers Life time warranties, free annual service, super repair service, and many other benefits.
We spent the week up in the Carmel/Big Sur area shooting all of the Tamron lenses, and having seminars. Everyone had a great time and learned a lot. The weather was mixed with some periods of heavy storms, and sunshine. I enjoyed the challenge the changing weather provided.
Below is a small collection from the week shot using the Tamron 28-200mm lens shot with my Sony A1. This lens proved to be very flexible as an all-in-one lens while still providing excellent results optically. I am currently recovering from an accident, and require a walker to get around. The means I have to travel light. I choose to bring just the 17-28mm, and the 28-200mm. Even with my limitations it was a very manageable kit size and weight wise. Just as important, I don't feel like I was missing opportunities. I would be very comfortable taking just this kit to most places I travel. I am including a variety of images from portraits to landscapes to what an excellent travel lens this is.
I picked this lens up about a week ago......maybe I just got a good copy, but it is really a great lens, sharp and with good rendering. Love the FL as well. I was really surprised by it, especially at the long end.....even 200mm looks good.
Sold my 24-105 and 35-150 (size was a problem), keeping this one.
aldenparam wrote:
From your honest opinion, did you see any disadvantages in the 28-200? Trying to determine what limitations it may have before buying it.
I am not sure what one would view as disadvantages in a lens of this type. This is an all in one convenience lens. As such its primary attributes are size, weight, and broad focal range. For this you compromise some optical optimizations. It will not be as sharp or have as much contrast or wide apertures for background rendering as primes expensive primes.
Once that is understood we should compare performance to other all in one size lenses. In that comaprision we see that the Tamron 28-200 has:
One of the largest focal length ranges in the market.
Is light and small in comparison to others.
Has faster apertures at the wide end where it counts.
Is fast to focus.
Has excellent relative optic performance when looking at sharpness, distortion and aberrations.
In short I find it to be the best overall lens in its category. I have shot portraits, casual street, sports, wildlife, and landscapes with great results with it.
aldenparam wrote:
From your honest opinion, did you see any disadvantages in the 28-200? Trying to determine what limitations it may have before buying it.
This lens does what it says on the tin, it is nice that it’s fairly bright on the wide end and has good reach.
It has 200mm, but at f/5.6 it’s not going to replace a Tamron 70-180/2.8 for action photography
It has a big zoom range, but it’s not as good as some lenses with a small zoom range in their shared focal length (Tamron 70-180, 70-200GMii, 24-70Gmii, 24-70 sigma, Tamron 35-150….)
It’s a one lens wonder, but does not go wider than 28mm. People are willing to pay more for a sigma 24-70/2.8 over the cheaper and lighter Tamron 28-75/2.8 for a reason
If reach is what you want, the 28-200 paired with a wide angle does not give you as much reach as other options. For example with the new 17-50 and 50-400 you can get 17-400 with two lenses. If the 50-400 is too heavy there’s the 70-300. If you used a 17-28 and 28-200 it’s only 17-200, which is much less reach.
However it does pair well with a longer lens like the 200-600, covering 28-600 with two lenses.
I may have the minority view on this but I think having 2.8 at telephoto focal lengths (70-180) is more important for me than 2.8 on the wide angle (17-28). For this reason with a 2 lens kit I would rather run a 17-50/4 + 70-180/2.8 over a 17-28 + 28-200. If you shoot more landscapes than action then this matters less
Overall if you want to run only one lens, the 28-200 is a good choice.
However if you want wider than 28mm, or faster than f/5.6 at 200mm, then look at other lens options.
Interesting write-up aCuria - thanks! Any comparison to the Sony 18-135mm? I am pondering between the 28-200mm for my A7II or soon to be A7c or the 18-135 for the A6000 for travels with the kids. Does the brighter lens result in significant better control of DoF? Also own a 28-75mm which lacks for travelling the reach. Usually, I would pair it with the 35mm F1.8 on Fullframe, so having the 18-135mm would have benefit of not needing to switch the lens. Also it is half the price (used)...
Ineound wrote:
Interesting write-up aCuria - thanks! Any comparison to the Sony 18-135mm? I am pondering between the 28-200mm for my A7II or soon to be A7c or the 18-135 for the A6000 for travels with the kids. Does the brighter lens result in significant better control of DoF? Also own a 28-75mm which lacks for travelling the reach. Usually, I would pair it with the 35mm F1.8 on Fullframe, so having the 18-135mm would have benefit of not needing to switch the lens. Also it is half the price (used)...
Appreciate any input!
I think where your travels take you should inform your lens choices =)
I would sell the A6000 if I already have an A7C, unless your kids occasionally want to borrow a camera.
I have traveled with just a 24/1.4, and on a different trip lenses covering 16-600mm.
Regarding DOF, if subject distance and fov is held constant FF has a one stop advantage over apsc. That is 50mm f/2.8 on apsc has the equivalent DOF of 75mm f/4 on full frame.
The way I think about picking lenses these days is to minimize the number of total lenses and cameras while maximizing the scope of different types of photography I can do
This is because I had way too many lenses and the % utility of some of them was way too low
The lens # minimization strategy is avoiding overlaps between zooms, avoiding duplicate prime focal lengths, and avoiding primes of focal lengths that I will use rarely in favor of zooms
For example owning both the 28-75 and 28-200 is something I would avoid, it does mean taking the a 70-200/2.8 for certain trips which is not nearly as convenient as having a 28-200
With 3 lenses you can cover a huge range: 12-24, 35-150 and 200-600, but this setup is not so good for action (70-200GMii focus is faster) and video (no oss)
The 3 zooms I run are the 16-35, 70-200 and 200-600, this sacrifices 12-15mm (I use my phone 0.5x or stitch images in a pinch) in exchange for better autofocus for action, better magnification in the 16-200 range and oss on the 70-200 for video
In the past my utility of canon mount 15, 17 and 135mm was rather low, so if things go according to plan I’m going to stick to bright 24, 35, 50, 85mm primes
If you don’t shoot wildlife or field sports the 200-600 isn’t necessary, and if you do not shoot action either there are alternatives to the 70-200 with more range (the 70-300, 50-400, 100-400GM)
For those interested in whether the Tamron 28-200 is a capable portrait lens, her is an example I shot.
This is a portrait of Heather Tripi who is Tamron America's Event Coordinator. It was shot during a trip to Monterrey/Big Sur with the VIP workshop. The Tamron team is a great group of people. A bonus that comes with their lenses.
aCuria wrote:
This lens does what it says on the tin, it is nice that it’s fairly bright on the wide end and has good reach.
It has 200mm, but at f/5.6 it’s not going to replace a Tamron 70-180/2.8 for action photography
It has a big zoom range, but it’s not as good as some lenses with a small zoom range in their shared focal length (Tamron 70-180, 70-200GMii, 24-70Gmii, 24-70 sigma, Tamron 35-150….)
It’s a one lens wonder, but does not go wider than 28mm. People are willing to pay more for a sigma 24-70/2.8 over the cheaper and lighter Tamron 28-75/2.8 for a reason
If reach is what you want, the 28-200 paired with a wide angle does not give you as much reach as other options. For example with the new 17-50 and 50-400 you can get 17-400 with two lenses. If the 50-400 is too heavy there’s the 70-300. If you used a 17-28 and 28-200 it’s only 17-200, which is much less reach.
However it does pair well with a longer lens like the 200-600, covering 28-600 with two lenses.
I may have the minority view on this but I think having 2.8 at telephoto focal lengths (70-180) is more important for me than 2.8 on the wide angle (17-28). For this reason with a 2 lens kit I would rather run a 17-50/4 + 70-180/2.8 over a 17-28 + 28-200. If you shoot more landscapes than action then this matters less
Overall if you want to run only one lens, the 28-200 is a good choice.
However if you want wider than 28mm, or faster than f/5.6 at 200mm, then look at other lens options.
Super insightful feedback, thank you aCuria! You have me second guessing all of my lens choices now. I’m just getting into photography with the primarily goal of shooting landscapes, where I’m considering weight a huge factor due to wanting to take a single camera+lens setup on long hikes. In this case, I think the 28-200 is going to suit me well as a single lens solution on an A7Riii until I get my feet wet. It is good to hear a lot of your feedback confirming both my concerns and positive thoughts about this lens. Gives me a lot of food for thought as to possible wider range setups and ways I can improve in the future. Thanks a bunch!
Here are a couple from a trip to Switzerland and then a Rhine Cruise. Just some samples. The "painting" is a portion of a much larger image in the Rijksmuseum.
Here's a few I took with the rather amazing Tamron 28-200. These were on a A7RV last year. I was very surprised and pleased with it's landscape capabilities. It wasn't wanting for detail and sharpness that's for sure.
