So I am in too far now... I went back to the same park and shot the same tripod/infinity tests today (as well as handheld/midrange tests if I need more data points to make conclusions after doing this) to compare the a7riii/28-200 vs the APSC equivalent a6400/18-135 for my own satisfaction. Here are the tripod/infinity tests shot at f8 (I know the depth of field for FF and APSC are different for a given aperture/focal length, but I kept the exposures the same), ISO 100, and 1/60 second to get a good exposure within +/-1 EV of ideal for all focal lengths from 28-200mm. the framing is almost exactly the same as the initial tripod/infinity tests and the camera/tripod were never moved once set up (only zoomed into the scene). The images were focused using AF-S in the max possible magnified view for each camera. The focal lengths were approximated to give equivalency. As before, no editing was done other than the manufacturer lens profiles and default sharpening applied to the RAW file when imported by capture one 12. the screenshots were downsized in affinity photo to 1600px long edge this time to keep the jpeg quality higher but still staying within the forum's posting limits for size.
I have tried my best to make the magnification the same between the 42mp a7riii and 24mp a6400, but it was not perfect and it makes a difference whether I compared the a7riii at 200% to the a6400 at 300% (the closest match, but slightly more zoomed in and demanding of the APSC image) vs 200% (always made the APSC look more favorable than at 300%). I will post one example below to demonstrate what happens when I compare the FF at 200% vs the APSC at 300% or 200% so you get an idea of how it changes thing knowing that I chose to just go with 200% FF and 300% APSC magnification because it came closest, but definitely handicapped the APSC somewhat. Just take that into consideration when making conclusions of your own.
The first image is the APSC at 300% vs. FF at 200% and the second image both APSC and FF are at 200%
18/28mm (APSC always on the left and FF always on the right)
The 28-200mm is just so good at 28mm. This has always been this lens's strongest focal length and it is prime-like, so it hands down crushes the 18-135 in all areas of the frame. The tamron lenses always have warmer colors than the sony lenses, which I prefer personally.
The 28-200 wins everywhere again. It's definitely noticeable. Chock some of the victory up to the 300% magnified view of the 18-135, but it's definitely still there when both are viewed at 200%. The thing is that the 28-200 looks pretty dang good here after I said it fell apart at 35mm and infinity when comparing it to the other FF lenses. So I went back and compared today's shot from the shot taken the other day. The truth is that it is not that different. Any major differences can be summed up by autofocus inaccuracies by using AF-S and not MF, heat shimmer (as it was at least 15-20*F hotter last time than it was today), significantly different lighting between the two days, and the fact that the last test I think I zoomed into a ridiculous 400% at 35mm for the sake of comparison (vs 200% this time). It is still too soon in the comparison to make a definitive conclusion, but I'm thinking I might have given the 28-200 a bad rep in the middle focal range too quickly. When compared to another good lens/camera setup it is doing pretty good this time.
the 18-135 comes very close in the foreground, but once again the 28-200 takes it all the way across the background. The tamron is once again doing pretty impressively at a focal length where I said it tanked last time. I went back and compared the 50mm shots from last time and today and, once again, they are not that different aside from the softer light from today's overcast sky making some areas look better than the harsh light last time. My conclusion at this point is that the 28-200 is being compared at much more reasonable magnifications (200% vs 400%) this time and versus a known "pretty good" APSC lens as opposed to some arguably "fantastic" FF lenses last time. IN REAL WORLD USE this is starting to look pretty good even at the previously maligned middle focal lengths. I have used the 18-135 plenty and I have always been perfectly thrilled with the images it makes without any desire to pixel peep. If the 28-200 stays this much better than the 18-135 I know it will be a totally "good enough" for anyone except hardcore pixel peepers.
The 28-200 is still solidly winning against the 18-135. The gap is narrowing, and I think at this point whatever differences you see in the sample comparisons below are about half real differences and half the different levels of magnification between APSC and FF lenses that I knowingly chose to use. The Tamron once again appears so good that I check it against my images from the other day. Last time I said that 70mm still lagged in the tripod test but started looking good in my handheld test. Well today's 70mm tripod image absolutely destroys the 70mm tripod image taken last time, so something went wrong last time. The difference is so dramatic that the third picture is a comparison of the 28-200 last time (left) vs today (right). This is a very good showing at 70mm for the Tamron.
by this point the 18-135 is very respectably close to the 28-200 when the different magnifications are considered. The 28-200 still wins, but by less and less each time so I only posted two comparison shots between the 18-135 and 28-200. More importantly, I once again compared the 28-200 today vs last time at 100mm and saw that, like at 70mm, today's shots blow away the shots last time. Originally I said the 28-200 lagged at 100mm compared to the other full frame lenses, but I messed up something at both 70mm and 100mm for the 28-200 last time that makes me think these focal lengths are just fine. The last two images here are the 28-200 at 100mm last time (left) and today (right)
The 28-200 starts opening up the gap on the 18-135 again. At no focal length has the 18-135 APSC lens been better than the FF 28-200 at any point in the frame, but it seemed to come the closest at the previous two focal lengths. At this point the 28-200 has put it's foot back on the gas. The first two images show the comparison to the 18-135. The second two images show the 28-200 at 135mm shot on the first day (left) and today (right). I don't know what to say... the images look way, way better for the 28-200 today. I explained my methodology last time, but I can only guess the AF-S in 12.4x (I kept saying 12.8x by mistake) freaked out in the harsh light and dark shadows from last time vs the soft, even, overcast light today? I really hope I didn't give the 28-200 a bad wrap with anyone, so I have gone back to my original posts an added notes to see the results from today before maligning the 28-200, which just keeps looking better.
The 18-135 responds here by improving in the center and on one side, closing the gap on the 28-200 and coming quite close to it. The other side worsens a little still possibly decentered here a little bit). The Tamron wins obviously and the first three shots show this. The fourth shot is the 28-200 at 150mm taken the first day (left) and today (right). once again, it looks fantastic today and even better than last time when I thought the 28-200 was already looking great compared to the other lenses again at 150mm.
WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN? i don't know, but something I did last time systematically disadvantaged the 28-200 vs today. I am not saying that it would wipe the floor with the 70-180, 35-150 and 28-75 if I were to retest them all (I won't...). The light was harsh (mid-day) and the temps were insane (high 80's to low 90's temps) on the first day, so all the lenses were disadvantaged equally, but today was cool and overcast (low 70's temps) and late afternoon/evening, so the images from today all make the 28-200 look great. Anyone who dismissed this lens because of my initial comments about the mid focal range performance should see this again. If I had to guess, the AF-S in 12.4x was not nailing it under the harsher light last time like it was today. This may also be a fault of the 28-200, but if there is a fault it is not its resolution apparently.
the 18-135 did it! It ties the 28-200 in some parts of the frame and WHOOPS it in other parts of the frame. The truth is I think I miss-shot the 200mm today on the 28-200 so take the "win" with a grain of salt, but the point is that the 18-135 looks truly excellent at this focal length and should be used here with confidence. I am not posting any samples comparing today vs last time for the tamron at 200mm, but it was actually better last time.
FINAL THOUGHTS: Today was the test that I needed to see. First, it confirmed that I can DEFINITELY tell the improvement over the APSC 18-135 that covers the same effective range, and I am very happy with that lens, so I should be very happy with this lens. Secondly, It tell me that I screwed up the 28-200 tests last time and gave this lens a bad rep that it didn't deserve. I must now sing the praises of this lens from the rooftops to make penance. In all seriousness, though, I won't draw TOO many conclusions about shots of different lenses taken under drastically different light on different days. However, now I know that just for this lens, it is not weak ANYWHERE in the focal range. It varies from excellent over parts, very good at others, and only mediocre for a very small portion of the zoom range. This test has convinced me to keep it when I was leaning towards selling. I will almost certainly not retest anything and I probably won't even look through the handheld 28-200 vs 18-135 shots anymore. I did what I set out to do, which is do my "mathematical proof" of this lens to understand it, and now I feel that I do well enough to never think about it again and just go make images. Thanks for playing.
Yeah, your first infinity shots are flawed or something went wrong. I tested mine today at infinity (f8 & f11, handheld though, 1/400th) at all the midrange FLs (28, 35, 50, 70) and it seems very sharp to me (corners and edges/sides) and is impressive (esp for a super zoom). But, I only have an A7iii and am not peeping at 400%.
Edgar M wrote:
Yeah, your first infinity shots are flawed or something went wrong. I tested mine today at infinity (f8 & f11, handheld though, 1/400th) at all the midrange FLs (28, 35, 50, 70) and it seems very sharp to me (corners and edges/sides) and is impressive (esp for a super zoom). But, I only have an A7iii and am not peeping at 400%.
I agree. I used a sturdier tripod last time and was very pleased with the exposure, so I am almost certain it comes down to AF-S at 12.4x magnified view over long distances on a hot day with harsh light.
Yeah... I'm no expert, but I can see so many variables can come into play - AF slightly mis-focusing, Ap blades functioning properly or not, camera body electronics, stability/shake, light, visibility, wind, temperature, humidity, etc., etc.
Great thread though and nice to see this lens holds its' own against some great non-super-zooms!
I was surprised f11 made things noticeably sharper in the corners and edges/sides. I wonder if the field-curvature of this or other super-zooms is much greater than non-super-zooms (this is my first super-zoom lens).
TLDR: This is the best superzoom available easily surpassing the Sony FE and Canon RF equivalents. It has surprisingly good sharpness & optical performance across the focal range and the autofocus also works well. The key downsides are the more limited range (starts at 28mm rather than 24mm), no image stablisation and onion ring bokeh in some situations.
I wonder how does this zoom at 35 FL compare to ZA 35 2.8 in term of contrast and sharpness ? (ZA 35 being my mostly used travel lens)
Samples and reviews seems to show strong performance.
colcha wrote:
Dustin Abbott has just published his review.
TLDR: This is the best superzoom available easily surpassing the Sony FE and Canon RF equivalents. It has surprisingly good sharpness & optical performance across the focal range and the autofocus also works well. The key downsides are the more limited range (starts at 28mm rather than 24mm), no image stablisation and onion ring bokeh in some situations.
This lens is now on my shopping list!
A very well written review by Dustin. Thanks for the reference.
colcha wrote:
Dustin Abbott has just published his review.
TLDR: This is the best superzoom available easily surpassing the Sony FE and Canon RF equivalents. It has surprisingly good sharpness & optical performance across the focal range and the autofocus also works well. The key downsides are the more limited range (starts at 28mm rather than 24mm), no image stablisation and onion ring bokeh in some situations.
This lens is now on my shopping list!
Ech, back on the hypetrain . I think I'll end up with this lens replacing my 28-75...
j4nu wrote:
think I'll end up with this lens replacing my 28-75...
I'm still trying to sell my 28-75mm, lol.
Not sure if I'll really miss the constant 2.8 Ap yet (esp for night and indoor travel situations). But I love the extra reach and versatility of the 28-200mm; so I will keep it. I'd bet the 28-75mm is probably slightly sharper too.
More versatility and reach = 28-200mm
Faster, constant f2.8 Ap and a little sharper = 28-75mm
PhilthePhrame wrote:
A very well written review by Dustin. Thanks for the reference.
Wow I'll say that is IMO a great review for a "super zoom" of this nature. Dustin did an awesome job and so does this lens. On my shopping list as well.
. I think I'll end up with this lens replacing my 28-75...