Edgar M wrote:
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
To me it's mostly about the range, I've been thinking recently if something more universal but slower (e.g. FE 24-105 f4) would suit my vacationing needs better since I've been mostly using primes for the last 2 years, but I'm trying out zooms this summer .
What I find even more crazy about this lens is:
It’s moderate price of $729 USD places it well under to the $1049 that the Sony 24-240mm OS goes for
... here in EU I have to pay about 20% more (based off Sony 24-240 price) for the Tamron .
Boom! Done! That beautifully done review and the “bang for the dollar” price on this lens’s actual performance is off the charts. If you need it there’s an attractive way to purchase which I tend to have going every year. Buy from Adorama through Amazon and use my Amazon Store card. 12 months pick your payment amount flexibly each month above the small minimum ..... no interest. Anything over $575 I think. Any problem Adorama has always taken care of me. Same as B&H.
But this lens will SHINE with both my A7r III and excitingly with my A7s II as well. Both cameras are amazing for photography with those incredible sensors. Have been exactly needing what this lens can do ...... even with having available a whole bunch now after 9 years of accumulation, of just tremendous IMO other Sony, Zeiss and Sigma and yes Minolta ..... other lenses, notwithstanding. That review alone will sell thousands of these 28-200s I think. Right product and “specs” and size and weight and performance at the right time. Long as you stay away from the onion skin bokeh instances. Its one real flaw? Tiny price to pay. The rest of the bokeh looks certainly NICE enough to me for all the valuable things this lens will do for me. Including not having to rent a 24-105 F4 Sony any more for certain types of shoots. Love that lens with the A7s II for avaiable low light PLUS reach and wide angle, but it would not surprise me after seeing Dustin Abbot's demo photos if this Tamron lens is every bit as sharp or sharper (??). Same with having nice bokeh. Try to stay away from water droplets on plants and things if you want those to be used for out of focus backdrop ..... if it really bothers you.
On another note, since something didn't go right with @Luball's tests with the lens that led to all those many really and wrongly soft photos .... respectfully I think they ought to be deleted from taking up all that space right above and nearly obscuring even the "mention" OF Dustin's review. They're not representative and to casual observers could easily make them want to move on ..... possibly skipping over unknowingly the mention of that review.. Just my unsolicited 2 cents. Clearly the lens IS "sharper" and Faster through the entire range than ANY other competing Super Zoom alternatives from other manufacturers out there. Or redo the tests if the thread no longer would make sense? Since it is after all about comparing the 3 Tamron zooms.
To the commenter above, I made multiple and super obvious notes in each post that any 28-200 fanboys can see that it did better in later tests... HOWEVER, the tests still say quite a lot about the other three lenses (And something about the 28-200 as well), so I am not taking anything down.
Furthermore, the other three lenses were all tested the EXACT same way (except the adapted lens, which I used MF because I knew from the get-go that it couldn't AF in 12.4x magnification accurately... which is kinda fair for an adapted lens). The other lenses MAY have dropped the focus at one random focal length, but it was never repeated errors at multiple focal lengths in a row... EXCEPT FOR THE 28-200. If the 28-75, 70-180 or 35-150 ever looked suspiciously soft at one focal length, it would be impressively sharp at the adjacent focal lengths in my test. So for those three lenses it was pretty obvious when it was just a mulligan.
ONLY the 28-200 repeatedly produced grossly different focus accuracies for FOUR CONSECUTIVE SHOTS (arguably 5-6, as that's how many shots improved on Tripod test #2 over tripod test #1). I get how one missed shot here or there could be user error. All the other lenses could handle my user error just fine, though. this is not rocket science: camera on steady tripod with 2 second timer, place 12.4x AF-S crosshairs on same target each time, back button focus until camera locks, then hit the shutter without shaking the camera. Only the 28-200 repeatedly had issues with this technique.
Editing my findings to make the 28-200 look how someone wants them to look for confirmation bias is pointless. They can read the note posted like 6 different times so they know the lens is actually capable of high resolution when focused perfectly. I would hate to think that I contributed to a false reputation of this lens being garbage in the middle of the zoom range. I nade sure to quickly and publicly retract those specific statements.
However, I am not NOT saying that the lens has poor focus accuracy in AF-S. Right now it certainly looks like that may be a valid possibility. What other lens missed focus 4-6 times in a row using a fairly consistent technique? None of the other four lenses tested! I am not going to actively perpetuate this possibly valid aspect of the lens' performance either, but the guy who started the 28-200 thread over on DP Review said his copy was crap in AF-S specifically as well, so...
Information is information. What you do with it is up to you, but I was in search of understanding without any agenda, and I think I am closer to that now than I was before
Luballs wrote:
To the commenter above, I made multiple and super obvious notes in each post that any 28-200 fanboys can see that it did better in later tests... HOWEVER, the tests still say quite a lot about the other three lenses (And something about the 28-200 as well), so I am not taking anything down.
Furthermore, the other three lenses were all tested the EXACT same way (except the adapted lens, which I used MF because I knew from the get-go that it couldn't AF in 12.4x magnification accurately... which is kinda fair for an adapted lens). The other lenses MAY have dropped the focus at one random focal length, but it was never repeated errors at multiple focal lengths in a row... EXCEPT FOR THE 28-200. If the 28-75, 70-180 or 35-150 ever looked suspiciously soft at one focal length, it would be impressively sharp at the adjacent focal lengths in my test. So for those three lenses it was pretty obvious when it was just a mulligan.
ONLY the 28-200 repeatedly produced grossly different focus accuracies for FOUR CONSECUTIVE SHOTS (arguably 5-6, as that's how many shots improved on Tripod test #2 over tripod test #1). I get how one missed shot here or there could be user error. All the other lenses could handle my user error just fine, though. this is not rocket science: camera on steady tripod with 2 second timer, place 12.4x AF-S crosshairs on same target each time, back button focus until camera locks, then hit the shutter without shaking the camera. Only the 28-200 repeatedly had issues with this technique.
Editing my findings to make the 28-200 look how someone wants them to look for confirmation bias is pointless. They can read the note posted like 6 different times so they know the lens is actually capable of high resolution when focused perfectly. I would hate to think that I contributed to a false reputation of this lens being garbage in the middle of the zoom range. I nade sure to quickly and publicly retract those specific statements.
However, I am not NOT saying that the lens has poor focus accuracy in AF-S. Right now it certainly looks like that may be a valid possibility. What other lens missed focus 4-6 times in a row using a fairly consistent technique? None of the other four lenses tested! I am not going to actively perpetuate this possibly valid aspect of the lens' performance either, but the guy who started the 28-200 thread over on DP Review said his copy was crap in AF-S specifically as well, so...
Information is information. What you do with it is up to you, but I was in search of understanding without any agenda, and I think I am closer to that now than I was before...Show more →
I hope everyone appreciates your effort put into the tests, but as we can see testing lenses reliably is not easy (I've also learned the hard way recently that MF is the way to go when testing sharpness/uniformity across the frame ) ...
I think it would make the situation a bit more clear, if you put your comment about varying results in one of the first posts of the thread.
As for AF-S infinity focus accuracy, I think there was a similar issue with the other new Tamron lens: 70-180, but I'll have to dig that post up to be sure.
hasenbein wrote:
Sharpness tests should always be done in MANUAL FOCUS, period.
I frequently use AF-S in 12.4x with very satisfactory results on most lenses, so this is every bit as much as part of the test as far as I'm concerned. I am not setting up a 28-200 on a tripod and using 2 second shutter delays for most shots. I am hiking 3+ mph covering lots of ground firing off shots while staying ahead of my friends or trying to catch up because I just took too many shots. I am simply sharing information, and for me, a lens should be able to AF-S in 12.4x accurately, or else it should be exposed that it does not. the 35-150 is adapted and does not, so I know not to bring that along if I'm covering miles with a group (on a side note, while I can UNDERSTAND when people talk about their 3 prime "hiking setup," I always laugh to myself that they are not eaten alive by their friends for being so freaking slow if they are in fact hiking and not just walking out for the sake of taking photos). It still has value to me, but TESTING made it obvious it requires MF. The 70-180 and 28-75 showed me they do NOT require MF to give satisfactory and consistent results. the 28-200 is a mixed bag to me now. I know it can be great. I know it might miss when I thought it was just fine. I would love to AF-C in 12.4x magnification, but Sony doesn't do that, so I have to either AF-C with a small spot focus, AF-S in 12.4x and just accept missed shots, shoot more shots refocusing each time, chimp after shots, or accept that I am slowing way the eff down and MF (which is suuuper satisfying on the 35-150 because it's a DSLR lens with mechanical coupling! but less so on any mirrorless lens...). and FWIW i did tests of the 28-75, 70-180, 35-150 and 24-105 that I never posted where I used both AF-S in 12.4x and MF for each lens. I would then go through and rate the better one of the two and use that for the comparison. guess what? it was not a statistically significant difference for any of those lenses other than the aforementioned adapted lens. which is why I knew it NEEDED to be used in MF for a test
j4nu wrote:
As for AF-S infinity focus accuracy, I think there was a similar issue with the other new Tamron lens: 70-180, but I'll have to dig that post up to be sure.
thanks! you definitely did read that in the 70-180 thread, as I made sure to see if my lens was any different in AF-S or AF-C, but I saw no difference. I have actually not seen a notable difference in almost any of my lenses from realworld usage (except the adapted 35-150 and the 28-200)
Was IBIS On during the tripod tests? That could be a big factor too. I've def seen IBIS mess up some of my past tripod shots on occasion.
Imo, it sounds like the AF just tripped-out during your first tripod tests because of the harsh-bright-lighting that day and/or high temperature and/or being a newly-released lens maybe needing a FW fine-tuning update already.
As far as AF performance in general... I do notice it is a bit slower/hunt'y than my previous 28-75mm at the tele ranges in dim light (75-200mm ranges).
Luballs wrote:
(on a side note, while I can UNDERSTAND when people talk about their 3 prime "hiking setup," I always laugh to myself that they are not eaten alive by their friends for being so freaking slow if they are in fact hiking and not just walking out for the sake of taking photos).
Absolutely! Right there with ya (avid backpacker/hiker/climber/climber). IF I had an extra hand and set of eyes, I'd be all for it swapping lenses and MF on the fly...but otherwise it's two competing goals.
Edgar M wrote:
Was IBIS On during the tripod tests? That could be a big factor too. I've def seen IBIS mess up some of my past tripod shots on occasion.
Imo, it sounds like the AF just tripped-out during your first tripod tests because of the harsh-bright-lighting that day and/or high temperature and/or being a newly-released lens maybe needing a FW fine-tuning update already.
As far as AF performance in general... I do notice it is a bit slower/hunt'y than my previous 28-75mm at the tele ranges in dim light (75-200mm ranges).
Yes IBIS was on, but I have shot consecutive IBIS on/off tests and have found no difference. I only turn it off for long exposure now. Dustin Abbott specifically says he also finds no difference using IBIS on tripod when responding to one of the comments in the 28-200 sample gallery of his website. Like I said, if my tests weren't perfect at least every lens got the same treatment. I really do think the harsh lighting freaked out AF-S the first day
IBIS doesn’t mess up tripod shots all the time (you would not likely see it with just a couple random consecutive shots)... but it def does happen, only very occasionally/rarely tho (maybe only 0.1-3% of the time).
Just a note of thanks for the work that you put in here. TBH, this lens wasn't at all on my radar of interest. But the photography that I love the most is backpacking landscape work, so I might just have to check this one out.
Is anyone familiar with a test comparing the Tamron 28-200 against the Sony 24-105G? That's the single lens that I now bring for backpacking, but I could imagine switching to a pairs of either the Tamron 28-200 and either the Sigma 14-24 or the Sony 20 f/1.8 as combinations.
IBIS doesn’t mess up tripod shots all the time (you would not likely see it with just a couple random consecutive shots)... but it def does happen, only very occasionally/rarely tho (maybe only 0.1-3% of the time).
Dan watson just posted a glowing youtube review where he stated AF hunting as his only issue with the lens. I didn't have HUNTING (i thought it had locked focus....), but I am still of the opinion that AF and not IBIS was the cause. All the lenses had IBIS on. None of the others dropped 4-6 shots in a row because of it (maybe one?). I definitely get that I am not doing immaculate test work here, but I test similar to how I actually use a lens, And if my shutter speed is within normal handholding range, I'm pretty sure IBIS on a tripod has saved more shots from wind shake than ruined perfectly still shots for me. If SS goes over a second it's off for sure though. my mistakes were at least very consistent (and therefore "fair?") for the sake of a comparison I believe. I also logged back on to Dustin Abbott's 28-200 image gallery and the comments Section seems to have been made private for his members since I last was on, but there he 100% for sure replied to a commenter that he does not find IBIS To affect modern cameras on tripods. I am not arguing that it never does, actually, but the inference was pretty clear that our beloved dustin abbott does not worry about disabling IBIS for tripod tests yet we all treat his reviews as gospel ( me too!).
mhespenheide wrote:
Just a note of thanks for the work that you put in here. TBH, this lens wasn't at all on my radar of interest. But the photography that I love the most is backpacking landscape work, so I might just have to check this one out.
Is anyone familiar with a test comparing the Tamron 28-200 against the Sony 24-105G? That's the single lens that I now bring for backpacking, but I could imagine switching to a pairs of either the Tamron 28-200 and either the Sigma 14-24 or the Sony 20 f/1.8 as combinations.
My pleasure. I did no direct comparison as i sold my 24-105. Quite frankly i suspect a good copy of that lens is slightly sharper than a 28-200, but i can tell you the 35-150 is slightly sharper than both! Neither should disappoint if you want sharp images (if you nail focus). What sets them apart are hugely different focal lengths, tamron colors are waaay warmer (my preference) whereas sony colors are more "accurate," and sunstars are better in the 24-105, but the flaring and ghosting is worse too on the sony. Size and weight as well. Pick based off that
Luballs wrote:
Dan watson just posted a glowing youtube review where he stated AF hunting as his only issue with the lens.
Mine def hunts and is noticeably slower than the 28-75mm in AF speed (esp the tele ranges)... but, I never had a super-zoom before, so I don't really know how bad it is, lol. I just figured it was normal for such a large focal range. It's not too bad tho and I can deal with it.
AF infinity locks and mis-focusing were a problem with some other lenses in the past, iirc. I forget which already; but I remember there were some since I started photography. To me, not really a deal-breaker though; since those problems can usually be fixed via FW.
So for those who didn't see the 28-200 preorder thread or who stumble upon this thread in the future, i'm just gonna leave this tamron announcement about false af-s lock needing firmware update right here...
dudders82 wrote:
Hi all, first reply to a post here - I was wondering if anyone replaced their 28-75 for the 28-200 and wondered how they currently felt about it?
Its something I am seriously considering.
I have the 28-75 & 70-300 but could I reduce my kit to just the 28-200 without a performance sacrifice?
I started with the 28-75 and 70-180. I replaced the 28-75 with the 28-200 and have zero regrets. All around better lens. I never liked the rendering of the 28-75. I really see no reason someone would buy the 28-75 with the 28-200 available. The 70-180 however is irreplaceable. I have no experience with the 70-300.
.
.
) ...