Context is that I'm looking to replace an Olympus 12-100/4.0 (equivalent to 24-200/8.0) which has been pretty much ideal as a travel lens. Wide apertures aren't really that important, but sharpness stopped down is. Definitely shoot more at the wide end, but reach is nice. I'm shooting with an A7C II if it matters.
I definitely haven't used them all, but based on reading reviews and my research into these lenses:
sony 24-240: older and just not that good compared to the others
tamron 28-200: the brightest apertures for the range, but not quite as good image quality as the newer ones below. still good image quality though and plenty of reviewers use this lens on a 61MP camera
tamron 25-200: better image quality as it's predecessor, but with slightly smaller apertures through the range and half macro at 25mm. better bokeh than the sigma so better if you skew towards portraits while traveling
sigma 20-200: better image quality than 28-200. best macro capabilities of the bunch since it's half macro from 28-85mm. and obviously the most flexible with the 20mm end but the smallest apertures of them all.
I ended up purchasing the sigma because I thought it fit my shooting style the best due to the macro capabilities, but I think depending what you prioritize either of the tamrons can make sense.
If starting fresh, if looking "one lens," I'd look first to the 20-200. With an A7C series, especially if a lot of urban and/or walking, I might go 20-70 and add a wider or longer lens suited to the location. I think the three xx-200s might be a tad large for the A7Cs.
It's all variable, might depend on interests and locations, etc. When in Switzerland, the 28-200 never came off for a wider lens. Later in the trip on the Rhine River portion, swapping often to the 17-28 and back. I had a Washington, DC, trip where the aps-c 12-24 and 18-70 (so 18-36 and 27-105 ff angle of view), got all the use and the 70-300 never came out of the bag.
planethex wrote:
I ended up purchasing the sigma because I thought it fit my shooting style the best due to the macro capabilities, but I think depending what you prioritize either of the tamrons can make sense.
How do you like the Sigma at the wide end? I do have a 20-70/4 and in terms of sharpness I have no complaints, but my working assumption was the Sigma would probably not match up.
dhazeghi wrote:
How do you like the Sigma at the wide end? I do have a 20-70/4 and in terms of sharpness I have no complaints, but my working assumption was the Sigma would probably not match up.
I sold my 20-70mm after receiving my 20-200mm (I only use these lenses for travel; otherwise, I prefer faster lenses). At 20mm, they are compatible, except for the very edges and extreme corners, where the 20-70 is better. Practically speaking, I do not notice this in most all shooting. The 20-200 is a marvel, IMHO.
I sold my 20-70mm after receiving my 20-200mm (I only use these lenses for travel; otherwise, I prefer faster lenses). At 20mm, they are compatible, except for the very edges and extreme corners, where the 20-70 is better. Practically speaking, I do not notice this in most all shooting. The 20-200 is a marvel, IMHO.
Can you speak to the AF of the 20-200 a but, especially at the long end where one might be trying to capture moving people or animals/birds?
Horses for courses. I prefer the faster aperture more for subject separation than any meaningful nighttime shooting capability, and love the 28-200. I had a preorder on the 25-200, but canceled it after seeing how quickly it starts at f/5.6, which really would have materially changed many of my travel photos over the years. I am traveling and shooting 2 months a year and I rarely wish I had a wider travel zoom. For wider, I shoot multishot panos or swap to the 20G or 14GM.
If you value shooting wide, then my favorite lens is terrible, and the 20-200 is a much better choice.
The 25-200 supposedly has better focusing than either other lens, but in my experience shooting the 28-200 with the OG A9, A7Rv and A9iii, focusing performance is quite good. There is a noticeable difference compared to Sony GM glass, but it is definitely a lot better than the Sigma 24-70 DG DN and the couple of Samyang primes (45 and 50AFii) that I have used.
I had the Sony 24-240 when it was one of the few tele options available. I found it soft past 100mm, enough that I didn’t see much value in that part of the lens, which is kind of the whole point of a 10x. That said, I still have a ton of great images shot with it, which I think just speaks to the value of having so many focal lengths available easily in one lens. For that reason, I’m leaning towards getting the Sigma myself also now, though I could certainly cover the wider end with my Tamron 17-28 if I got one of the two Tamron lenses.
