Meh, I'm an owner and big fan of the Tamron 28-200 as it's become my goto lens for filming. I really hope they're gonna make a Gen2 version of it that's either faster on the upper end, has less focal length on the lower end and/or gets better glare resistance. But the 28-300 is just way too slow for my taste.Anyway, great review as usual!
I own the lens too and it almost never leaves my camera. In my opinion the aperture is already the most practical if not ideal for its weight, zoom range, and price especially if someone considers this to be a kit lens upgrade. What I wish for a new version are better flare resistance, customizable button, and most importantly their VXD motor. Of course, a brighter aperture would be welcome if that won't noticeably increase the price and weight
Interesting. I just rented this lens for a trip to the San Diego zoo. I came home unimpressed. Few of my shots were what I'd consider "keepers". Turns out at this zoo, the habitats are fairly large, so the animals wisely, stay back from all the squacking tourists. Consequently I was at 300mm a large portion of the time. Just where Christopher described the IQ as "just ok". Combine that with F7 at 300mm and a very heavy forest canopy in a lot of the park, and I came home with a lot of mush. Ironically, my kids iPhone shots, while needing a lot more reach, were for the most part, bright and sharp. I think I'll stick with my Tamron 28-200.
What I find remarkable is that when looking at the charts, you can tell the performance is below average, but the ACTUAL images you took look great! For someone that wants/needs a one and done 10X travel zoom, it's a great option! Along with a fast 35-ish prime for low light, it would make a great kit. Fingers crossed that Sony comes out with an updated version of their 24-240 at some point in 2025...
I was really hoping for your usual APS-C test on this lens. 42-450mm effective field of view is a crazy zoom range, and the corner softness should theoretically be less of an issue. Yes, I know there's the APS-C specific 18-300mm, but I haven't seen a comparison of these two, and pretty much no other reviewer bothers testing FF lenses on APS-C cameras. Seems like the 18-300mm is the better choice anyway if the user only has APS-C, but some people have both types.
@@tobiasyoder The difference between 200 and 300 is surprisingly not as significant as one might expect. Cropping that difference will still produce a better result with the 28-200 due to better optics.
Would indeed be interesting. From what I remember to have seen in tests, it performs somewhat similar. The Canon has a considerably brighter aperture at the longer end, though, but the weight boy.. You don't want this lens, it's 1.67kg, while the Tamron has only 610g.
f7.1 rules it out I’m afraid. I’m a bit surprised that lens manufacturers make a Sony option first. With the number of lenses available on Sony mounts you’d think it was a diminishing market or maybe photographers have more money than sense.
They don't have a choice really. There are only 4 full frame mirrorless ecosystems on the market (Canon RF, Sony E, Nikon Z and L-mount alliance), of which: Canon has the largest user base, but is vigorously enforcing a closed ecosystem. Building a full frame RF lens is a surefire way to get yourself a C&D. Sony E has an enormous user base as well, and is mostly open to 3rd party. Sony does cap 3rd party lens burst rate to 15FPS, but none of the A7 cameras can reach even that. Nikon's user base has shrunken considerably after a rough late 2010s, down to 4th place in the overall ILC market. Nikon also *seems* to selectively approve 3rd party lens. e.g. Tamron makes a 70-180 f/2.8 G1 under the Nikkor brand, so their 70-180 f/2.8 G2 isn't being made for Z. L-mount is half open. Manufacturers need to join the alliance to access the spec, and Tamron isn't a member. They also lack a high profile camera manufacturer. There's Panasonic, which makes an assortment of IMX410 cameras; Sigma, whose cameras are ridiculously compromised; and Leica, whose user base are so rich they'd probably hire a photographer to go with their camera purchases. In this environment, Tamron is doing the sensible thing by launching their designs on E first and bring them over to Z once Nikon gives the green light.
How do Nikon 28-400mm f4-8 compare to this? Does it has barrel distortion ans pin cushion distortion like this lens and how does video zooming with lens with this kind of problem in general, noticeable and is it easily fixable too like in photo?
7:38 Poor closeup performance. Very unfortunate given how good the lens is in every other aspect, especially impressive in distortion control all things considered, but I guess we can't have everything at the same time.
Bummer not parfocal. I didn't expect it, but it could be a great crash zoom. Especially with the lack of breathing. I kinda like the old Tamron gold bands, sue me! Haha. That's a pretty impressive performance. I've seen a lot worse images on a lot easier lens designs. Low contrast is easy to fix, the color fringing is not bad and relegated to the corners, and the sharpness is not bad. I'm not sure it's a exciting enough design for me to own, and the VC looked a little weak. But for one lens to rule them all, that's a dang good job.
Because AF-S on Sony cameras involve CDAF, the camera moves through the focus range, using the video feed, look for a point where the contrasting edges look the sharpest. It is more precise, but less speedy, than PDAF, where the camera tries to align what its left/right hemispherical phase detect pixels see. AF-C is phase detect only.
@@dixinggao7178PDAF must still be involved in AF-S though. Otherwise the camera won’t know the direction of focus and has to guess, leading to changes in focus direction.
@@starbase218 there are CDAF-only implementations, some DSLRs did this in LV, and some Panasonic cameras did as well. Apparently the camera would just guess the direction. Sony's implementation is a hybrid system, and does involve PDAF.
I am not sure if this isn't just a fluke in Chris's testing setup. As he switches between bottle and background, the camera has some time for calculations before the AF motors kicks in. I'd be curious if there was a different outcome if he just put on a lens cap for the switch. Then again: The current setup is probably closer to real world use. His Sony camera being a bit dated could also be related to the test outcome. @chris, if you are reading this: I think, it would be in your viewers and the manufacturers' interest that you test AF with both, current and dated bodies. Maybe they can help you out with some long time loaners? I wouldn't consider it a corrupting influence :-)
I'm not sure what to think of this lens. On one hand I'm super greatful to Tamron that they listened and improved the bokeh over the apsc version (18-300mm). As well it's holding up rather well until 150mm on the high resolution sensor. Then again the 300mm result is really not convincing. I'll stay with the apsc version and rock it besides my full frame setup on a seco dary apsc body. But as you said, it's a great lens if you are on the move with the family and you can still take nice shots with it even if the sharpness isn't top notch.
@muttishelfer9122 If you use the 28-300 on an A7CR and hit apsc mode once you need more reach, you get about the same focal range. What they seem to have done in the full frame version is to improve the sharpness in the wider focal lengths and on the other hand almost like stretch the longer end to fit the wider sensor for the price of reduced center sharpness. In essence I expect the full frame lens to blow the apsc version away in wide angle shots, but at 450mm equivalent to produces softer results. A pity he didn't test the crop on apsc, kind of a missed opportunity there.
Well, if you really need all the reach you can get in an all in one and you don’t consider a switch to Nikons much better 28-400mm, it is ok. But apart from that, Tamrons own 28-200 is just miles ahead of this lens, in pretty every aspect other than reach and maybe AF speed.
Speaking of how ugly the old Tamron lenses were. Remember when Sigma had a Matte finish to them that would wear off after a few years? The 3rd party lenses pre 2010 were just so ugly. No wonder I had such pride in owning Canon L lenses with that red ring.
Too dark. Canon releases an f/5-f/7.1 lens and everyone is trolling how terrible the aperture is, but everyone loves this? I think it's just Sony fanboys trolling Canon lenses because this is basically the same aperture.
Your comment make not much sense, as the trend is, that newer mirrorless lenses have slightly slower aperture. It's compromise to get better sharpness and smaller lenses. As today's cameras have much better high ISOO performance, slower aperture is not so big issue.
Meh, I'm an owner and big fan of the Tamron 28-200 as it's become my goto lens for filming. I really hope they're gonna make a Gen2 version of it that's either faster on the upper end, has less focal length on the lower end and/or gets better glare resistance. But the 28-300 is just way too slow for my taste.Anyway, great review as usual!
I bet they'll release something big to replace Tamron 28-200mm. It's the best all-around go-to lens for travel IMO.
I own the lens too and it almost never leaves my camera. In my opinion the aperture is already the most practical if not ideal for its weight, zoom range, and price especially if someone considers this to be a kit lens upgrade. What I wish for a new version are better flare resistance, customizable button, and most importantly their VXD motor. Of course, a brighter aperture would be welcome if that won't noticeably increase the price and weight
Finally! Been waiting for it for a long time! I compare it with your 18-300mm Tarmon review, by having two open tabs in the browser.
This is The review Ive been looking for, thank you， Chris
Seems the 28-300 is a little pushed. The 28-200 is brilliant in comparison to this.
Wow. I was comparing Christopher's review of the Nikon 28-400 lens. The central sharpness on the Nikon is much better especially on the wide end.
That says a lot given how soft the 28-400 is. The Tamron 28-200 is the way to go 👍
Always enjoy your lens reviews, almost bought a Sony camera but went the cannon route for the older affordable used EF lens options 🤩
I would love Tamron to throw in some high quality glass once in a while and do the 200-400 f/4 they patented a couple of years ago.
It's awesome that we have so many options for E mount. Thanks for the content.
Interesting. I just rented this lens for a trip to the San Diego zoo. I came home unimpressed. Few of my shots were what I'd consider "keepers". Turns out at this zoo, the habitats are fairly large, so the animals wisely, stay back from all the squacking tourists. Consequently I was at 300mm a large portion of the time. Just where Christopher described the IQ as "just ok". Combine that with F7 at 300mm and a very heavy forest canopy in a lot of the park, and I came home with a lot of mush. Ironically, my kids iPhone shots, while needing a lot more reach, were for the most part, bright and sharp. I think I'll stick with my Tamron 28-200.
50-300 would be a better lens for that purpose, or, if you can handle the weight (and price), 50-400, which is even better optically.
@@nSpiraliArchitectb I suspect you're right, but the 28-300 range is more flexible. I was just hoping.
"let's get straight to it!" LOVE IT😂❤
What I find remarkable is that when looking at the charts, you can tell the performance is below average, but the ACTUAL images you took look great! For someone that wants/needs a one and done 10X travel zoom, it's a great option! Along with a fast 35-ish prime for low light, it would make a great kit. Fingers crossed that Sony comes out with an updated version of their 24-240 at some point in 2025...
I was really hoping for your usual APS-C test on this lens. 42-450mm effective field of view is a crazy zoom range, and the corner softness should theoretically be less of an issue. Yes, I know there's the APS-C specific 18-300mm, but I haven't seen a comparison of these two, and pretty much no other reviewer bothers testing FF lenses on APS-C cameras. Seems like the 18-300mm is the better choice anyway if the user only has APS-C, but some people have both types.
Not a lens for me with those results! Merry xmas Christopher, best wishes to you and your family!
Tamron 28-200 2,8-5,6 is the better choice.
Not if you want 300mm
@@tobiasyoder The difference between 200 and 300 is surprisingly not as significant as one might expect. Cropping that difference will still produce a better result with the 28-200 due to better optics.
Grazie per l'audio in italiano, è molto utile.👏👏👏
Good lens all in one for backpacking/hiking
Thank you for your review! I will stick to my Tamron 28-200 and wait for Sony 24-200 mark ii or 24-105 mark ii
I'm curious how this would compare to the Canon EF 28-300 L lens since it's available used now relatively cheap.
Would indeed be interesting. From what I remember to have seen in tests, it performs somewhat similar. The Canon has a considerably brighter aperture at the longer end, though, but the weight boy.. You don't want this lens, it's 1.67kg, while the Tamron has only 610g.
f7.1 rules it out I’m afraid. I’m a bit surprised that lens manufacturers make a Sony option first. With the number of lenses available on Sony mounts you’d think it was a diminishing market or maybe photographers have more money than sense.
I mean. looking around, tamron is the only one making a 28-300 for E-mount. so I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
They don't have a choice really. There are only 4 full frame mirrorless ecosystems on the market (Canon RF, Sony E, Nikon Z and L-mount alliance), of which:
Canon has the largest user base, but is vigorously enforcing a closed ecosystem. Building a full frame RF lens is a surefire way to get yourself a C&D.
Sony E has an enormous user base as well, and is mostly open to 3rd party. Sony does cap 3rd party lens burst rate to 15FPS, but none of the A7 cameras can reach even that.
Nikon's user base has shrunken considerably after a rough late 2010s, down to 4th place in the overall ILC market. Nikon also *seems* to selectively approve 3rd party lens. e.g. Tamron makes a 70-180 f/2.8 G1 under the Nikkor brand, so their 70-180 f/2.8 G2 isn't being made for Z.
L-mount is half open. Manufacturers need to join the alliance to access the spec, and Tamron isn't a member. They also lack a high profile camera manufacturer. There's Panasonic, which makes an assortment of IMX410 cameras; Sigma, whose cameras are ridiculously compromised; and Leica, whose user base are so rich they'd probably hire a photographer to go with their camera purchases.
In this environment, Tamron is doing the sensible thing by launching their designs on E first and bring them over to Z once Nikon gives the green light.
Grande Kack!
so i have to buy the
old 28-200 for perfect imagequality?
gnaaa...
Looks really good for a 28-300mm
How do Nikon 28-400mm f4-8 compare to this? Does it has barrel distortion ans pin cushion distortion like this lens and how does video zooming with lens with this kind of problem in general, noticeable and is it easily fixable too like in photo?
Take a look at my review of that lens :-) the tests are all standardised, so you'll be able to see!
7:38 Poor closeup performance.
Very unfortunate given how good the lens is in every other aspect, especially impressive in distortion control all things considered, but I guess we can't have everything at the same time.
It's very strange to see a deterioration in the product from Tamron. They had 28-300 f 3.5-5.6. Why make the aperture 7.1?
I am ok with that aperture, but the image quality is worse...really unacceptable!
Bummer not parfocal. I didn't expect it, but it could be a great crash zoom. Especially with the lack of breathing.
I kinda like the old Tamron gold bands, sue me! Haha.
That's a pretty impressive performance. I've seen a lot worse images on a lot easier lens designs. Low contrast is easy to fix, the color fringing is not bad and relegated to the corners, and the sharpness is not bad. I'm not sure it's a exciting enough design for me to own, and the VC looked a little weak. But for one lens to rule them all, that's a dang good job.
Why is the autofocus on Sony cameras always faster in AF-C than it is in AF-S? Is it maybe because AF-S is more precise?
Because AF-S on Sony cameras involve CDAF, the camera moves through the focus range, using the video feed, look for a point where the contrasting edges look the sharpest. It is more precise, but less speedy, than PDAF, where the camera tries to align what its left/right hemispherical phase detect pixels see. AF-C is phase detect only.
@@dixinggao7178PDAF must still be involved in AF-S though. Otherwise the camera won’t know the direction of focus and has to guess, leading to changes in focus direction.
@@starbase218 there are CDAF-only implementations, some DSLRs did this in LV, and some Panasonic cameras did as well. Apparently the camera would just guess the direction. Sony's implementation is a hybrid system, and does involve PDAF.
I am not sure if this isn't just a fluke in Chris's testing setup. As he switches between bottle and background, the camera has some time for calculations before the AF motors kicks in. I'd be curious if there was a different outcome if he just put on a lens cap for the switch. Then again: The current setup is probably closer to real world use. His Sony camera being a bit dated could also be related to the test outcome.
@chris, if you are reading this: I think, it would be in your viewers and the manufacturers' interest that you test AF with both, current and dated bodies. Maybe they can help you out with some long time loaners? I wouldn't consider it a corrupting influence :-)
Imagine a 24-200 where the 24-70 is 2.8 and 70-200 is f4 all in one kit. And still somehow make it reasonablely compact!
No doubt an excellent lens, however 24mm at the wide end is vital for me, know others want the longer legs.
I loved my Nikon 28-300 F3.5-5.6 but this might be a bit slow for my liking. The 50-400 seems to be a bargain topping out at f6.3.
I'm not sure what to think of this lens. On one hand I'm super greatful to Tamron that they listened and improved the bokeh over the apsc version (18-300mm). As well it's holding up rather well until 150mm on the high resolution sensor. Then again the 300mm result is really not convincing. I'll stay with the apsc version and rock it besides my full frame setup on a seco dary apsc body. But as you said, it's a great lens if you are on the move with the family and you can still take nice shots with it even if the sharpness isn't top notch.
The APS-C Version (18-300mm) is a 27-450mm fullframe equivalent, so even more impressiv.
@muttishelfer9122 If you use the 28-300 on an A7CR and hit apsc mode once you need more reach, you get about the same focal range. What they seem to have done in the full frame version is to improve the sharpness in the wider focal lengths and on the other hand almost like stretch the longer end to fit the wider sensor for the price of reduced center sharpness. In essence I expect the full frame lens to blow the apsc version away in wide angle shots, but at 450mm equivalent to produces softer results. A pity he didn't test the crop on apsc, kind of a missed opportunity there.
Well, if you really need all the reach you can get in an all in one and you don’t consider a switch to Nikons much better 28-400mm, it is ok. But apart from that, Tamrons own 28-200 is just miles ahead of this lens, in pretty every aspect other than reach and maybe AF speed.
Speaking of how ugly the old Tamron lenses were. Remember when Sigma had a Matte finish to them that would wear off after a few years? The 3rd party lenses pre 2010 were just so ugly. No wonder I had such pride in owning Canon L lenses with that red ring.
There's also dslr version of this
Canon won’t give him the RF 35mm 1.4 lens lol.
Not starting at 24mm always makes these type of lenses so much less useful.
Nah this is too much. The aperture is too variable
Not for me
28mm to 300mm is nuts. I could see this as a decent (and cheap) landscape lens when all you do is shoot at f8 to f11 all day long.
Could it BEEEEE any more slower!
Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 is much better lens.
Too dark. Canon releases an f/5-f/7.1 lens and everyone is trolling how terrible the aperture is, but everyone loves this? I think it's just Sony fanboys trolling Canon lenses because this is basically the same aperture.
F7.1 🤮
Tamron is pretty disappointing 9 out of 10 times. But it's usually for people on a tight budget so I guess it's okay to fill that market
The lens costs 900$. Hard for people on a thight budget i would say.
@@muttishelfer9122 it's a lens for the average Joe so he or she won't ever have to buy another lens, it covers basically anything, but poorly
Aside from these mass market superzooms, Tamron actually make some excellent and good value lenses
4-7 in 2024...no
Your comment make not much sense, as the trend is, that newer mirrorless lenses have slightly slower aperture. It's compromise to get better sharpness and smaller lenses. As today's cameras have much better high ISOO performance, slower aperture is not so big issue.
First!
Rubbish