I bought the 28-200 about a year ago, and I have to say it is now my favorite travel lens. Sharp enough, fast enough, and very light, versatile, and I don't have to constantly switch lenses on a vacation. I imagine this lens will be the same for someone who wants a little extra reach. Current travel setup is a 16-35, 28-200, and ONE prime. My full frame travel kit is under 5 lbs with cards, batteries, and a mini-tripod.
I did somewhat the same thing. Bought the 28-200. Haven't really used my sigmas 14-24 and my 150-600 since. I mostly travel with my 14-24 and the 28-200 now.
I had a Tamron super zoom in the past and found it very good. I now have the Nikon 28 - 400 z mount and find it equally as good. The "pros" don't like them as they think everyone should use prime lenses. I don't have any such hangups.
When I'm out hiking, 28-300 would give me everything I need in one lens. Currently I use a 24-105 backed up with a 70-300. This would save weight and changing in the wild - win, win!
I normally dislike superzooms due to the high f-fstop on the far end, but they are good for this type of work when you're in a well lit environment and don't want to be switching lenses or carrying to cameras.
The sceptism rooted from dslr era. Because at that time there no such thing as inbody stabilisation… nowadays its easier to use such lens and make it so sharp
@@azuretv787 well I have to say that the stabiliser on the Nikon lens works great! I've used it to shoot a cycling race from inside the official photography car and with the shutter set at 1/500 and the stabilizer on + active mode I had no issue whatsoever
I bought my 28-200 as a travel lens with every intention of replacing it with a couple other lenses for when I'm not traveling....but honestly I haven't felt the need to yet. I kinda feel like the aperture tradeoffs for that extra 100mm and VC are just a little too much for me. I'm sure there is a market for that trade-off though. Maybe the 28-200 isn't the right comparison though. PS - Good on Tamron for sticking to 67mm filter threads for A LOT of their lineup. I love that.
Thank you for the video, very helpful, i go to ask because i could find, do you have any video showing the best lens for sony a7siii with internal zoom? like not moving parts, so i can use it on gimbal?
I have the Tamron 28~300 on my Nikon D-7200. I enjoy what it allows me to do. I am just a hobby photographer so I don't worry about some of the cons that come with zoom lenses.
I have a question. Have you created a video that summarizes best practices for post processing, image organization, and exporting? If not, on behalf of those who don’t know where to start would it be possible to create one? Btw I learn a lot from your channel. Thank you.
I bought the Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 for my R6Mii. I love the versatility and convenience, but the variable aperture vexes me in lower light or indoor sports situations. I'm now leaning toward getting a Canon EF 70-200 2.8 USM iii for hockey with the enclosed zoom. The 100-400 f4 is attractive for its reach...but I'm afraid the f4 is not fast enough for hockey and low light sports. What do you think? Love your content Jared!
Jared there's nothing in Canon RF equivalent to this lens so was thinking of picking up an old ES-L 30-300 which is still available new at B&H. Is it a good idea to do so, as you mentioned not a pro photographer looking for the best photo.
I have a 25 year old sigma 28/4.5-300/6.3 AF which I use most often of all my lenses. Then I have a 19-35 and for 16 or panorama I use my phone, which is ok for me. The prime lenses 35, 50, 85 all f/1.4. Plus a few kit zooms and pre autofocus lenses. Probably a 150-450 would be nice. And the 28-300 would be even better as a 14-150 for MFT, because FF gear is often too heavy to take along... But the combination of a one universal zoom plus special lenses is really working for me. I can do most of what I want with the lenses I have.
I have looked at some of these all in one lenses, but at the end of the day when I want a super zoom type travel lens I want something compact and end up coming back to something like the OM 28-300 equivalent lens that weighs half as much and is much smaller. At F5.6 it does have a little more depth of field, but will still give great results for non professional shooting.
Context is king. He had just mentioned the α1 before the α7 IV. The real problem was that he kept referring to that kid's bicycle / bike, which was obviously a tricycle. If he can't even count to three, then ok, don't listen to what he says about the α7 IV.
Can you make a video where somebody who knows what hes doing shoots lets say an indoor hockey game with a 50-400 or something like that that is around F6.3. Great video as usual man
So for plebs non pros like me, whats a decent lens that hits 400mm and keeps the f stop low if thats the causes the background blur? I have a Tamron 28-200 2.8-5.6 now. Pretty damn good lens, but sometimes, I just want a little more zoom, tinge more light, more focal blur. Also in the market for a macro to take some really close photos. Have an A7rV. Often shoot lots of night skies, so auto just doesnt seem to get stars crisp. Have to manual focus.
I mean if you want the ultimate then 400 2.8 or 300 2.8. Realistically though I think you’re looking for a 70-200 or 70-180 2.8. Maybe with a TC if you want to hit 400mm.
Hey Jared, love your content. Just got into photography and videography about a year ago and all your stuff has helped me so much. I decided to buy your Fropack bundle. I do mainly sports photography (indoor and outdoor) and portraits. Which preset from the bundles would work great for what I do? Thanks
I would suggest Skittles (FP1), Kaleidoscope (FP4), Prestige Worldwide (FP3) THICC (FP4), Universal Soldier (FP1), AC/DC (FP2) for sports for a more realistic aesthetic depending how saturated you want the colors and contrast to be. However, if you want more stylized, you can use any of them like Coppertone (FP4), Zoolander (FP3), Canadian Tuxedo (FP3), Cinnamon Toast Crunch (FP2), Brooklyn (FP4), Salt Water Taffy (FP4) and more
I have the Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 for my Fuji X-S20. Great travel lens and fairly decent for occasional wildlife. Can’t really complain about the IQ at all. Just wish the lens OIS worked better with Fuji IBIS and that Fuji’s AF worked better. Tamron kills it in this segment
I just looked up the sharpness tests on this lens - man, in the middle it does NOT disappoint, especially at that price, size and weight. And, for me, corner sharpness never did matter much. Sadly, it's Sony E-mount only, I think, so that lets me out. The earlier version I can get in the EF mount doesn't have the center sharpness.
Question: why would you review the Tamron but not Canon's 28-70 f/2.8 STM? I was hoping for a review to make a purchase of this lens as you're the Canon guy.
Jared, please HELP! I have made up my mind that I will either buy the R5 ii or R3. I do mainly wildlife en pet photography(outdoors). Wildlife I do do quite a bit of cropping(only what I feel is necessary 😂). I dont pixel peep but noise do irritate me a bit and love a clean looking image. The precapture en the mp of the R5 ii has me intersted but sounds like R3 is an amazing camera, and them being so close in price makes it really really difficult. Before the R1 you would compare the R3 to the 1dx series and the R5 to the 5d series. Back then, the difference between those were quite big but not its much smaller and makes the decision much more difficult. I have went from making my mind up and then switching the other one probably hourly… i am not in a rush so holding on for maybe a black friday or end of the year sale. But I want my mind made up so when it does go on sale, I can buy it and have my very convincing monologue ready for my mrs…it includes things like I will become wildlife photographer of the year and we will be able to retire in a few years. Please just tell me which one I need to buy😂
hi - your choice if lenses for your pictures? set the lenses first, choose the body as a tool for your lenses to save the picture you want. sport? use 30 or 40 or more fps.
Excellent review. I bought the original 28-300 back in 2006 and it got me a lot of great pictures. I believe you used the term higher apertures twice but with opposite meanings
50-300 for the proxi/macro 0.5x which is nice for nature/hiking paired with the Viltrox 16 1.8 + crop if needed I'm on Nikon Z there is only the 50-400 which is bigger, or the 70-300 with no proxi macro option. I don't want to have a dedicated macro lens while hiking For no Proxi photo I'll go for the 28-400 Nikkor or the 24-200 Nikkor
I use a Sony A-6000 so the 28-300 mm felt a little long for short range photos. Yet I found a "better" one; the Tamron 18-300 f 3.5-6.3. This is the perfect companion for travel (now following me on 3-4 weeks trips instead of my heavy (20 pounds) bag with 3-4 lenses) and for all those grand-pa photos of the grand-kids at baseball, football, soccer, hockey (not as much) or just playing around the pool. I have finally settled for not being called a pro anymore, and enjoying it...
Let's be honest this lens plus topaz ai will be more than enough for 95% of users. When i look at many images online...I think it would be good enough too.😊
@froknowsphoto not everyone has thousands of dollars or pounds to spend on a hobby (which it is for most people) man... fact is topaz will help some get better images.
No. We grabbed the wrong lens for the thumbnail and it’s actually a 50-300 lens. So I didn’t want to miss lead anyone as we already sent the lens back and can’t re make a thumbnail. Why must everything be a conspiracy instead of asking
because we grabbed the wrong lens when we took the thumbnail. I am technically holding the 50-300 lens by accident and we already sent back the 28-300. So I had to improvise.
It's fine. 7.1 is nothing for a full frame camera , look at a lot of canon lenses and you'll still get subject separation. Look how compact it is. I think it's a great addition.
A pro photographer can use any camera and any lens . . . a crap "pro" photographer can have the best glass and best camera but it does not make him/her a great photographer. Gear is not everything, bro.
I bought the 28-200 about a year ago, and I have to say it is now my favorite travel lens. Sharp enough, fast enough, and very light, versatile, and I don't have to constantly switch lenses on a vacation. I imagine this lens will be the same for someone who wants a little extra reach. Current travel setup is a 16-35, 28-200, and ONE prime. My full frame travel kit is under 5 lbs with cards, batteries, and a mini-tripod.
I did somewhat the same thing.
Bought the 28-200.
Haven't really used my sigmas 14-24 and my 150-600 since.
I mostly travel with my 14-24 and the 28-200 now.
@mewym527 I swapped for the 16-35 f/4. So much lighter.
@@RG-rm9jt 16-35 is that a range you often use? (Or a good range in common?)
Nice, mine is 16-35 gm, 24-70 sigma art, 70-200 sigma sport. Big lenses, but there are only 3 and I'm covered.
@@glovearm sounds great
personally I love this type of lens
once you understand how these work they're alot of fun
I had a Tamron super zoom in the past and found it very good. I now have the
Nikon 28 - 400 z mount and find it equally as good. The "pros" don't like them
as they think everyone should use prime lenses. I don't have any such hangups.
Good story tellers use deep DoF. Shallow DoF is interesting at first, but I grew tired of it.
When I'm out hiking, 28-300 would give me everything I need in one lens. Currently I use a 24-105 backed up with a 70-300. This would save weight and changing in the wild - win, win!
I normally dislike superzooms due to the high f-fstop on the far end, but they are good for this type of work when you're in a well lit environment and don't want to be switching lenses or carrying to cameras.
I LOVE my Nikon 28-300 f/3,5-5,6. Very underrated imo.
The sceptism rooted from dslr era. Because at that time there no such thing as inbody stabilisation… nowadays its easier to use such lens and make it so sharp
@@azuretv787 well I have to say that the stabiliser on the Nikon lens works great! I've used it to shoot a cycling race from inside the official photography car and with the shutter set at 1/500 and the stabilizer on + active mode I had no issue whatsoever
Yes, used my Nikon 28-300 lens at 300mm with my old D800 to photo and video the lunar eclipse a few months ago. Beautiful shots.
I bought my 28-200 as a travel lens with every intention of replacing it with a couple other lenses for when I'm not traveling....but honestly I haven't felt the need to yet.
I kinda feel like the aperture tradeoffs for that extra 100mm and VC are just a little too much for me. I'm sure there is a market for that trade-off though. Maybe the 28-200 isn't the right comparison though.
PS - Good on Tamron for sticking to 67mm filter threads for A LOT of their lineup. I love that.
Your buddy Kyan was using the camera the right way, he was taking a selfie.
Thanks Redfoo. I learned so much today about cameras
Thank you for the video, very helpful, i go to ask because i could find, do you have any video showing the best lens for sony a7siii with internal zoom? like not moving parts, so i can use it on gimbal?
I have the Tamron 28~300 on my Nikon D-7200. I enjoy what it allows me to do. I am just a hobby photographer so I don't worry about some of the cons that come with zoom lenses.
"He looks like a rapper" lol. Maybe a candy wrapper lol
At 1:03 , please let me add “and hiking in the mountains”. 😊
For me the 28-200 f2.8 to f5.6 is better , what do you think jated?
2:35 and it protects the front element from being whacked a little better if you’re hustlin around
I have a question. Have you created a video that summarizes best practices for post processing, image organization, and exporting? If not, on behalf of those who don’t know where to start would it be possible to create one? Btw I learn a lot from your channel. Thank you.
I bought the Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 for my R6Mii. I love the versatility and convenience, but the variable aperture vexes me in lower light or indoor sports situations. I'm now leaning toward getting a Canon EF 70-200 2.8 USM iii for hockey with the enclosed zoom. The 100-400 f4 is attractive for its reach...but I'm afraid the f4 is not fast enough for hockey and low light sports. What do you think? Love your content Jared!
Jared there's nothing in Canon RF equivalent to this lens so was thinking of picking up an old ES-L 30-300 which is still available new at B&H. Is it a good idea to do so, as you mentioned not a pro photographer looking for the best photo.
This would be a great addition if it could be linked to the Canon Rf 28-300 which would be 45- 480 equivalent cover my needs when out walking.
I have a 25 year old sigma 28/4.5-300/6.3 AF which I use most often of all my lenses. Then I have a 19-35 and for 16 or panorama I use my phone, which is ok for me.
The prime lenses 35, 50, 85 all f/1.4. Plus a few kit zooms and pre autofocus lenses. Probably a 150-450 would be nice. And the 28-300 would be even better as a 14-150 for MFT, because FF gear is often too heavy to take along... But the combination of a one universal zoom plus special lenses is really working for me. I can do most of what I want with the lenses I have.
I have looked at some of these all in one lenses, but at the end of the day when I want a super zoom type travel lens I want something compact and end up coming back to something like the OM 28-300 equivalent lens that weighs half as much and is much smaller. At F5.6 it does have a little more depth of field, but will still give great results for non professional shooting.
At 1:55. Yikes my guy, saying the a7iv is more “affordable, lower-end style camera.” Really out of touch comment
Is it? Or is it relative speaking? Everything’s relative.
It's only lower end compared to the A1
Context is king. He had just mentioned the α1 before the α7 IV. The real problem was that he kept referring to that kid's bicycle / bike, which was obviously a tricycle. If he can't even count to three, then ok, don't listen to what he says about the α7 IV.
To me, who just made the jump from an a6000 to an a7iii, the a7iv seems high end. I'm sure it doesn't to anybody on an a1 or a9iii.
The A7iv is an entry-level body.
There's nothing wrong about it.
He didn't say it's bad or something like that.
this could make for a fun beach lens. i actually keep it at f/8, anyhow, so i would like to try this.
What zoom lens should i get for a sony 6400 to shoot indoor volleyball?
Day 4 of asking Jared Polin to review the Canon RF 24-240
I have the Tamron 28-200mm f2.8 and it’s my all around lens for family photos and school events. 200mm is plenty of reach for me.
Can you make a video where somebody who knows what hes doing shoots lets say an indoor hockey game with a 50-400 or something like that that is around F6.3. Great video as usual man
I would love to see your thoughts in a review on the Canon RF 24-240mm.
So for plebs non pros like me, whats a decent lens that hits 400mm and keeps the f stop low if thats the causes the background blur? I have a Tamron 28-200 2.8-5.6 now. Pretty damn good lens, but sometimes, I just want a little more zoom, tinge more light, more focal blur. Also in the market for a macro to take some really close photos. Have an A7rV. Often shoot lots of night skies, so auto just doesnt seem to get stars crisp. Have to manual focus.
I mean if you want the ultimate then 400 2.8 or 300 2.8. Realistically though I think you’re looking for a 70-200 or 70-180 2.8. Maybe with a TC if you want to hit 400mm.
Hey Jared, love your content. Just got into photography and videography about a year ago and all your stuff has helped me so much. I decided to buy your Fropack bundle. I do mainly sports photography (indoor and outdoor) and portraits. Which preset from the bundles would work great for what I do? Thanks
I would suggest Skittles (FP1), Kaleidoscope (FP4), Prestige Worldwide (FP3) THICC (FP4), Universal Soldier (FP1), AC/DC (FP2) for sports for a more realistic aesthetic depending how saturated you want the colors and contrast to be. However, if you want more stylized, you can use any of them like Coppertone (FP4), Zoolander (FP3), Canadian Tuxedo (FP3), Cinnamon Toast Crunch (FP2), Brooklyn (FP4), Salt Water Taffy (FP4) and more
Hmm, good carry around lens like the Nikon Z 28-400
“OH LOOK THERE’S A BEE” 17:16
I have the Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 for my Fuji X-S20. Great travel lens and fairly decent for occasional wildlife. Can’t really complain about the IQ at all. Just wish the lens OIS worked better with Fuji IBIS and that Fuji’s AF worked better. Tamron kills it in this segment
I just looked up the sharpness tests on this lens - man, in the middle it does NOT disappoint, especially at that price, size and weight. And, for me, corner sharpness never did matter much. Sadly, it's Sony E-mount only, I think, so that lets me out. The earlier version I can get in the EF mount doesn't have the center sharpness.
reminds me of my first non-kit lens the Sigma 18-250
Wish there's a lightweight 100-400 Tamron. That's the only RF lens after moving on
I have the pzd version…it was suprisingly good
Question: why would you review the Tamron but not Canon's 28-70 f/2.8 STM? I was hoping for a review to make a purchase of this lens as you're the Canon guy.
We’re in the process of reviewing that lens as well. We just happened to get this one weeks before the Canon
Is this work on canon r50?
Only sony e-mount
10:50 looks like a kid nirvana cover xD
Such a cute kid, awesome to photograph.
was just looking at the older Tamron 28-300 EF for my own "one lens to rule them all"
Jared, please HELP! I have made up my mind that I will either buy the R5 ii or R3. I do mainly wildlife en pet photography(outdoors). Wildlife I do do quite a bit of cropping(only what I feel is necessary 😂). I dont pixel peep but noise do irritate me a bit and love a clean looking image. The precapture en the mp of the R5 ii has me intersted but sounds like R3 is an amazing camera, and them being so close in price makes it really really difficult. Before the R1 you would compare the R3 to the 1dx series and the R5 to the 5d series. Back then, the difference between those were quite big but not its much smaller and makes the decision much more difficult. I have went from making my mind up and then switching the other one probably hourly… i am not in a rush so holding on for maybe a black friday or end of the year sale. But I want my mind made up so when it does go on sale, I can buy it and have my very convincing monologue ready for my mrs…it includes things like I will become wildlife photographer of the year and we will be able to retire in a few years. Please just tell me which one I need to buy😂
hi - your choice if lenses for your pictures? set the lenses first, choose the body as a tool for your lenses to save the picture you want. sport? use 30 or 40 or more fps.
Can this work on a canon R8?
No, only for Sony e-mount cameras
@@froknowsphoto Thanks for the reply. New to photography, so wasn't sure!
Where is your R1 review? :)
Interesting lens as a lightweight lens on an A6700 APS-C for lightweight walkaround wildlife photo.
There's a Tamron 18-300mm which works better for APSC.
I have this lens. It's great as an all in one.
When I started, this would have been my dream lens. But now I only want 2.8 or better lenses xD
Excellent review. I bought the original 28-300 back in 2006 and it got me a lot of great pictures. I believe you used the term higher apertures twice but with opposite meanings
now do the Tamron 50-400 for Nikon! Really interested in comparing that to Nikon's 100-400
50-300 for the proxi/macro 0.5x which is nice for nature/hiking paired with the Viltrox 16 1.8 + crop if needed
I'm on Nikon Z there is only the 50-400 which is bigger, or the 70-300 with no proxi macro option.
I don't want to have a dedicated macro lens while hiking
For no Proxi photo I'll go for the 28-400 Nikkor or the 24-200 Nikkor
I use a Sony A-6000 so the 28-300 mm felt a little long for short range photos. Yet I found a "better" one; the Tamron 18-300 f 3.5-6.3. This is the perfect companion for travel (now following me on 3-4 weeks trips instead of my heavy (20 pounds) bag with 3-4 lenses) and for all those grand-pa photos of the grand-kids at baseball, football, soccer, hockey (not as much) or just playing around the pool. I have finally settled for not being called a pro anymore, and enjoying it...
Keep in mind the 18-300 is specifically an aps-c lens where this is a full frame lens that can be used interchangeably
@@stepheneckert4006 you are absolutely right. But I was reacting to Jared talking about using this lens on a crop sensor camera (at 13:20) 🙂
Those of us who grew up in Mt. Airy take umbrage with the effect.
we need a canon rf version of this lens.
The lens to short change them all
Let's be honest this lens plus topaz ai will be more than enough for 95% of users. When i look at many images online...I think it would be good enough too.😊
Screw topaz
@froknowsphoto not everyone has thousands of dollars or pounds to spend on a hobby (which it is for most people) man... fact is topaz will help some get better images.
@@froknowsphoto X2!
When you buy a phone, you have to spend more money, then when you buy a camera and a lens like this. So it's a good deal :)
"beautiful contrusction equipment"😁
As someone with chronic lower back issues, I can’t watch field hockey without cringing.
I suppose it will be ok for the average person, but that 7.1 would bother me. There are better cheaper lenses out there.
You seriously blurred out the aperture markings from the thumbnail?? SERIOUSLY??
No. We grabbed the wrong lens for the thumbnail and it’s actually a 50-300 lens. So I didn’t want to miss lead anyone as we already sent the lens back and can’t re make a thumbnail. Why must everything be a conspiracy instead of asking
Why blur the aperture on the thumbnail?
because we grabbed the wrong lens when we took the thumbnail. I am technically holding the 50-300 lens by accident and we already sent back the 28-300. So I had to improvise.
@@froknowsphoto got to make due! Thanks for the answer!
I hope they get a second version with better aperture. F7.1 - I don't like it.
It's fine.
7.1 is nothing for a full frame camera , look at a lot of canon lenses and you'll still get subject separation.
Look how compact it is.
I think it's a great addition.
@ good to know thx
F7.1 is rather slow.
It is only ideal in an outdoor morning shoot.
My Jewish brother!
A pro photographer can use any camera and any lens . . . a crap "pro" photographer can have the best glass and best camera but it does not make him/her a great photographer. Gear is not everything, bro.
"lower-end A7 IV" 😭
No !
don't listen Jared, if you aint earning like 100k on photography, then respect your money and buy that filter.
Don’t buy that filter. I made zero dollars and still didn’t use a filter.
Just take care of your shit
In the rain I put a filter over my super-wide Sigma because one tiny rain-drop becomes humongous on that bulging lens but is manageable on the filter
CAN⭕N EF28-300/3.5-5.6 is 🙌✌️💪
Second
I will never shoot raw but I agree!😉
The lens is a piece of crap nothing new here Nikon had one 15 years ago.
Canon color science 😌.
First