Would be great to see a proper comparison video between the 28-200, new 28-300, new 50-300, 70-300 and 50-400. Specially focus, macro and image quality in the 70-200/300 range between all of those.
@@jonathankim-reuter2462 As the video you just watched said, that song they played here was not The Roots, as they might have to pay a license fee, it was a from their sponsor Audiio.
9 bladed iris, AI based stabilization that changes behaviors live while recording, unbelievable level of programmability for on-location video, proper weather sealed construction, excellent close focus performance, dual voice coil AF?! Etc etc f/4-7.1 is hardly a compromise. A fantastic all-in-one travel companion.
I'll tell you what's awesome: high ISO performance in cameras has become good enough that you can shoot a night concert at f/7.1 and the shots look decent. Would the pictures be better with a 70-200/2.8? Absolutely! ...but the 70-200 would be losing out in size, cost, and lack of range. Like all optics, it's a tradeoff. I have the Tamron 18-300 for Fuji, like it somewhat. It's more practical for my uses than just getting a 70-300, even though the lens mostly on the shelf while I use a prime. I'm a prime-guy at heart, but when I need to zoom, I'd rather have a do-it-all lens and accept the losses. And it's totally fine that this is a tradeoff that a lot of folks just don't want to make--we all have our own set of tradeoffs.
Also have that Tamron superzoom for my fuji - and I really like that it can do it all, despite the necessary bulk and worse haptics. I just find the colors out of that particular lens to not be very pleasant and switching to a Fuji or Viltrox even is a huge difference… Sharpness however is really good for such a zoom range, but fine tuning the focus with that flimsy way to high ratio control ring is virtually impossible
I had the Canon 24-240 f/4-6.3, it was still too dark for most shows. I don’t think you “need” 2.8 zooms anymore, but I wouldn’t go past f4 zooms for serious work.
Better doesn't mean sadly good and 7.1 for 90% of the shows doesn't cut it, big gigs with lights I agree but that's minor even if it what much people will see it not representative! And on a personal not if you want speed and quality still and will ever be better too take primes or 2.8 zooms or wider
Even more, this is a full frame lens, considering the bokeh effect, it's equal to m43 lens's f2-f3.6! And its light-weight and small body gives me more desire to swap my m43 photograph system😂
I remember a video on MFT lenses from your DP Review days where you noted that the light gathering of those lenses is 2 stops slower than the same aperture would be on full frame, but the MFT lenses are much smaller. The Olympus 12-100mm f/4 lens, for instance, is equivalent to a 24-200 f/8 full frame lens. You encouraged lens designers to consider slow aperture but smaller lenses for full frame cameras. With this, and comparable lenses from other manufacturers, has your plea been answered?
Of course these apertures are expected on a lens like this. There is no way in a practical sense to make it brighter. Higher ISOs are just the name of the game with these lenses. At least on full frame it is easier to work around.
I had a Tamron superzoom for Canon EF. It was well made and cheap, but the slow aperture and the weight meant I rarely wanted to use it. It's just a set of tradeoffs to be aware of and ok with.
I prefer the 28-200 2.8-5.6 it's optically better and has brighter aperture. Few years ago I sold my Sony 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4 m1 to get the Tamron, it's about as good as those 2 lenses combined. Would love to see an G2 update with vxd motors and improved chromatic abberations. If Tamron manages to get VC in that without compromising sharpness it would be an insane lens.
I was planning to get that 28-200. But I have stopped myself and waiting for G2 😄. Not sure it would be worth waiting, as we don't know when it is going to be released. But the updates you mentioned is going to make the lens incredible, if Tamron manages to put those, specially sharpness at 200mm f/5.6.
Can you show the**EDGES** as well on the sharpness tests, usually lenses are worse at the corners (which are rarely needed) but the edges maybe ok and edges are used a lot in tight group shots, gardenscapes etc
@@Roysphotos8 Thank you for your answer I have 50-400mm but not sure should I trade to 28-300 for size and weight but I still want quality image, I keep it than
I would say it is a lens for capturing a variety of moment without caring about the charactor and image quality too much. The walk around shooter would love it.
I would love that lens for shooting in festivals or any events where people are really far from each other and from the background. For now, I'm still using my now ancient adapted Minolta 70-300 lens
Nothing wrong with the ISO compromise here. Getting the shot with a versatile lens versus getting the shot with the perfect one is the exact compromise you’re buying with a super zoom lens. It does what it’s designed to do very well.
I would guess the old version wasn’t as sharp? It is interesting though how some old dslr lenses have both brighter apertures and smaller size than mirrorless counterparts, I wish the mirrorless lens manufacturers would prioritize form factor over image quality more often. On the other hand, the sony 24-240 is frowned upon by many due to its bad IQ.
At the end, all is matter what you can do with this lens and what you get out of it. The 18-300 what I use very frequently in holiday has also AI based AF, but just from 18-100, so anything after that is very shaky even on 5-axis body with 8 stops (for video - no problem for stills). At 300mm you need to stop down to f/11 to get a bit sharpness, but nothing which can compete with a 70-300mm lens. But of course you get a lot of shots and don’t have much weight in your bag. Before I buy this lens, I recommend testing this at 300mm and verify if the sharpness is enough for you. Because with a lens like this, you won’t take your 70-300, 100-400mm with you and add maybe something like a small 20mm / 24mm 2 or 2.8 lens to this, which will do your indoor and important shots when you need more sharpness.
I need a travel lens. Travel is the operative word. I won't be lugging around a tripod, and most of my photos will be captured in daylight. I'm driving myself nuts, going around in circles, trying to decide between the 28-200 and 28-300. On one hand, brighter/faster appeals and how likely am I to use the 200-300 range handheld and get good results even with the lens stabilization? On the other hand, will that stabilization make a big difference in the 28-200 range, where the longer lens would be used most often?
how does the image quality compare to uwing a sony rx10 iv? are there any superzoom lenses on full frame or aps-c thst csn msrch the imsge wuality of that sony bridge camera?
There is no 24-600 Closest is a 10x zoom like this one, but On an a7rv with the 28-300 you can crop 1,5-2x and get 26-15mp with the long end at 450-600mm. Thats the closest equivalent
Of course this is not a professional wedding lens. But as a travel lens I like these Tamron super zooms very much. I used my old 18-400 a lot this June in Yellowstone NP and it was so easy and relaxed. No changing of lenses - from landscape to wildlife everything was just a turn on the zoom ring. Image quality is absolutely good enough for photo books or a slide show on Bluray or even in 4K. So I hope for such a lens for Canon RF-S.
Whether Sony a7CR + Tamron 200mm + crop = as sharp as Sony A7CR + new Tamron 300mm natively (due to huge resolution of A7CR)? Everyone says than the older 28-200mm lens is sharper than the newer 28-300mm lens, but whether it's sharper to the extent rhat it can match it when used with A7CR and cropped to resemble the field of view of 300mm?
For video use, it would be interesting to know if it's Parfocal, or close. Appreciate you mentioned breathing at 7:10, would have loved if Jordan had chipped in too!
I would have liked to know how it handles distortion. For example, the Nikkor 28-300 used in city environments where there are an abundance of straight horizontal and vertical lines generates distortion especially at the edges that cannot be corrected with a click. Barrel distortion is one of the main problems with zooms when they are at wide angle focal lengths and when you compare it with the lower distortion of a fixed focal lens it makes you want to not use the zoom. Thanks!
I have Canon 55-250 mm EF-S 4-5.6 IS STM.. it is just Amazing with my R5.. focal lenght is 88-400mm at F4-5.6 (cropped with R5). That lens also has IS and macro. I know it is not wide as this is but enough good for most cases. For 80€ what I paid is just great!
Great to see you both! Great review, I own the 28-200mm on your advice for a travel lens and it's fantastic. There are moments where extra distance would be great - such as when a bird (albatross in my case) or interesting plane flies overhead but I don't feel 300mm would have been enough. I'm going to continue saving up for the Sony 200-600mm, with the knowledge that I'd have a great day to day travel lens and then a specialist zoom bazooka for those occasional day trips out.
I would love to see this particular lens for other mounts like M mount. It's not the fastest for sharpest lens, but despite it's zoom range, it isn't too heavy at 610 gramms, thus still suitable for casual use, and overall pretty strong price-wise. For bokeh use, you can still carry an affordable Viltrox in your bag.
For my a7cR, I'm getting the APS-C Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD Lens for Sony E $599.00 It's an equivalent of 27-450mm and 26MP in crop mode. It's cheaper, lighter, and smaller too.
I don't think it's too bad. Canon and Nikon dont seen to mind higher apertures. Full frame can handle it these days and you don't expect the moon on a stick for a do it all lens of this price.
The former Tamron 28-300mm was a f3.5-5.6. So the new one is 1/2 stop slower at 28mm and 3/4 stops at the end. Asking 900$ for this thing, is close to be a joke. 600-700$ would be the max for this kind of lens.
When Nikon was on ancient F mount they were making that 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens. I'd rather just shoot that adapted. It's $500 or less used. This lens seems like it's going backward.. especially in terms of light gathering.
It would be nice to mention this review and everything about it is for Full Frame Sony E mount. If you have APSC Sony E, the Tamron 18-300 is superior in literally every way.
I love Tamron. And without their lightweight yet quality lenses, I don’t know that I’d have been able to get restarted in photography after my wrist injury. But lately I wonder what they are thinking. This doesn’t sound like all that good a lens. And it’s the third lens in the lineup to reach 300mm. With the last one being a 50-300 that doesn’t seem hugely different from the 70-300. I’m sure they know their business better than I do, but seriously. I don’t get what they are thinking.
I just do not like using telescoping telephoto's (unless its a minor extension such as the EF 70-300 /4-5.6 IS USM)...for Sony I prefer the 200-600/5.6-6.3 for long reach. cheers
I'd stick with my 28-200 f2.8-5.6. It would have been a rightly upgrade if it did f2.8-5.6. Wish my one had VC and VXD motors. They should try making an outlandish 24-300 or even 400 which starts at f2.8. That would hurt the superzoom bridge market imo, the RX10, RX100 etc. And Tamron should stop limiting themselves with that stupid 67mm filter size limit.
@@youmysterious it would be bigger and bulkier, but not that much. 5 years back people couldn't think about full frame 1.8 zoom, yet here we are. Things keep on evolving.
I love their 28-200mm as a walk around lens on a sunny day, but the f/5.6 maximum aperture on the long end is definitely a hindrance on cloudy days. I highly doubt I’d enjoy this lens with its darker maximum aperture.
Love to see "slow" lenses like this finally coming to FF. Looking to buy the Sigma 60-600 myself. The cameras handle extremely high ISO very well. Good one about "good Sony IBIS" though 🤣
If you don't mind the distortion you can do it. I recommend that you review the video "Legendary D3 Takes on Latest Mirrorless Z8" in 8.34 and you can see what they mention about distortion.
Impressive that compared to the 28-200mm they were able to add 100mm of reach, and image stabilization, AND it's only about 10% heavier (due to the smaller aperture). Quite an achievement. But, as per the 28-200mm, it's just a shame about the wide end only starting at 28mm. Depends what you shoot though.
I have a Tamron SP 70-300MM F/4-5.6 DI VC USD (A005E) and it doesn't works good with my Canon R5. No OIS even if you force switch it ON. Guess any third party lenses will do same issues with a fresh top cameras.
Thanks to Canon. They are only company with doesn’t support third party lenses on their FF mirorless line. Sorry, you have to stick with original expensive Rf lenses for R5. So it’s not problem with Tamron but with Canon…
Would love to see you review Tamron's new 50-300 which has image stabilization. Is that a sharper lens than the Tamron 28-300 ? Would I be better off buying their new 50-300 ?
28-200mm is great. This is just too narrow. This is the first time I've heard anyone describe the Sony 24-240mm as "excellent," and I'm guessing that he's never touched one.
Is it a parfocal lens? The Tamron 100-400 are a parfocal lens. So Tamron know how to make them. There is a video that test it "Parfocal test of the Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD"
@@the_wiki9408ok so everyone here continues to mistake how equivalent f-stops work. In terms of depth of field, a FF 2.8 may well be an MFT 1.4. HOWEVER THAT IS NOT TRUE OF BRIGHTNESS. Smaller sensors are actually *FASTER* than larger ones. Think about it, for the same scene, same absolute aperture, the smaller sensor will have the light from the whole scene concentrated on a smaller area.
@@JMurph2015 Brightness is also controlled by Sensitivity (ISO) and larger sensor can use a higher sensitivity with the same noise. So yes it is also equivalent for brightness as well as DOF.
@@JMurph2015 The smaller sensor will collect a proportionally smaller amount of light. If the photons from the scene were concentrated more as you say, the lens would be actually faster. A small sensor means that you have enlarge the captured image more which means the noise is amplified too. That's why m4/3 ISO 800 is equivalent to full frame ISO 200. You need to scale up or down all three parameters of the exposure triangle so that the math works out.
@@the_wiki9408Sensitivity is about the same, you mean amplification of the captured signal. Full frame pixels, buckets of photons are larger and together the whole sensor collects more light for given aperture.
@@Nitor_ yep, but for that I need to buy m43 camera and with good AF that is 😭 I already have fuji x-t3, but couldn't find any affordable options aside from certain manual focus ones, and I've tried manual focus at 200mm and it was painful lol
there's no shortcuts with wildlife and as the format gets bigger the lenses get heavier and more costly. micro four thirds is a good suggestion and some people who just want birds asap and dont't care about the tradeoffs will get for example the panasonic fz80
@@quite1enough Don't fall into the micro four thirds trap. The lenses are expensive and terrible. An APS-C DSLR with used lenses is the only way to go in your situation.
@@youknowwho9247 back when I was buying my first digital camera, I almost bought Nikon D500 which would be amazing for wildlife, but since I needed good video stuff too, people talked me out of it
Too many compromises, and it looks intimidating when fully extended. People don't like it when you point a canon at them (no pun intended). I used to carry 2 full frame Nikon cameras with prime lenses : a 28 mm and a 105 mm. The 105 mm (2.8) was also the best macro lens I have ever owned and it could even be used for portraits. Zoom lenses are either too bulky or underperforming. Best advice: carry 2 cameras. No lens changes needed, easier to handle, no compromise on image quality.
I totally agree and you don't mention the other big compromise, which is the distortion generated by zooms. Distortion that cannot be corrected with the lens profile or with a click.
@@mistergiovanni7183 Indeed. Don't get me started on distortion. I have once paid a fortune for a professional 80-200 2.8 ED lens by Nikon (1997-2005 series). That lens was actually too bulky to point and shoot (nearly 1.5 kg if I remember well), but it also struggled with barrel distortion, regardless of the focal length. The images were very sharp between 100 and 150 mm, but still unusable if there were buildings in the frame, or other objects with straight lines. Above 150 mm or below 100 mm chromatic aberration became an issue. And remember this was a professional lens, with a matching price tag. Top of the range. But what I really ended up with was a lens that weighed a tonne and only performed at its best around 135 mm. For half the price I could have bought a lightweight, prime 105 or 135 mm and spent the other half on a second camera. Well, that's of course what I ended up doing and oh what a joy it was. No more lens changes and sending the camera back for professional cleaning, better pictures because a small lens allows you to remain discretely in the background, and 100 other advantages.
Carrying two cameras is also pretty darn bulky, but certainly faster than I could switch any lens. Some are surely quicker with swapping mounts though. For daytime and some of sunset (rarely up early enough for dawn lol) I enjoy the convenience of zooms though.
I really don't like the look you get from the GH7. The dull colours and lack of subject isolation compared to the S1H is not ideal, to say the least. Gives off a significantly less professional impression.
Sony makes an excellent 24-240 mm lens? That must be the very first time that lens gets the word "excellent" attached to it. The Tamron 28-200 destroys that lens in almost every aspect...
Nikon lenses are always better than third party in similar categories. This gives you 300mm but 200 to 300 is only .5x extra zoom. For wildlife Nikon makes the 180-600 at a reasonable price for a full frame lens.
Thanks for the review as it provides lots of information for me to think about. I have tried the 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 a few years ago for short trips and the compact size & weight was wonderful for all day use and attracts less attention in public with a small camera bag and a A7R V or A1 body (all taped up with gaffer tape to look like a pieces of broken junks). That been said, when compared to the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 the usability with faster shutter speed, the wider aperture ranges and the image quality that is as good as the 70-200mm f/2.8 GM II except at the far corners. It is big & heavy; however, the IQ & usability in most conditions I shoot in it also pays me back with a big & heavy smile in every image and still gives me 225mm f/2.8 in APS-C crop mode so I returned the 28-200mm at the end. I am fully aware denoise in LR-CC can clean out a lot of high ISO noise and my cameras are very good even at ISO 12,800 ; however, it is an extra step I don't need to deal with. I think for All-In-One lens like this, it would be a great one lens only travel companion in areas that has great lighting coverage especially when paired with a high megapixel sensor 50MP/60MP camera body to shoot in APS-C mode to extend the maximum range to 450mm f/7.1 in a pinch and still have plenty room to crop after from 20MP/26MP images. If I have this lens, I think the best companions would be to have a lot of time & patience to process the images through the A.I. De-Noise & A.I. Lens Blur software. I have no doubt it will produce a lot of very usable processed images in the end.
Nearly nobody use a lens f2.8 at 300mm. These cost 15k$. Most are f4-f5.6. Or f4.5-6.3. There is the 70-180 or sony 70-200 at f2.8 but it is not 28-300.
Really don’t like it when you don’t mention the weight in Nocts in the video. Don’t wanna have to pause to know what the weight in real world terms is.
Another 3rd party lens for full format where Canon RF users don't have to complain about being excluded from the Tamron community. The price is almost identical to the Canon RF 24-240 mm.
Would be great to see a proper comparison video between the 28-200, new 28-300, new 50-300, 70-300 and 50-400.
Specially focus, macro and image quality in the 70-200/300 range between all of those.
Would love to see such comparision!
Yes please
What are the odds of Petapixel taking photos of one of my favorite hip hop band during a gear review!
What’s the band's name?
@@narupol27 The Roots
@@lackoliver55 And the song title?
@@jonathankim-reuter2462 As the video you just watched said, that song they played here was not The Roots, as they might have to pay a license fee, it was a from their sponsor Audiio.
9 bladed iris, AI based stabilization that changes behaviors live while recording, unbelievable level of programmability for on-location video, proper weather sealed construction, excellent close focus performance, dual voice coil AF?! Etc etc f/4-7.1 is hardly a compromise. A fantastic all-in-one travel companion.
“Too Many Numbers and Letters”
lmao a great way to start and a great thing to put on a shirt
I'll tell you what's awesome: high ISO performance in cameras has become good enough that you can shoot a night concert at f/7.1 and the shots look decent. Would the pictures be better with a 70-200/2.8? Absolutely! ...but the 70-200 would be losing out in size, cost, and lack of range.
Like all optics, it's a tradeoff. I have the Tamron 18-300 for Fuji, like it somewhat. It's more practical for my uses than just getting a 70-300, even though the lens mostly on the shelf while I use a prime. I'm a prime-guy at heart, but when I need to zoom, I'd rather have a do-it-all lens and accept the losses. And it's totally fine that this is a tradeoff that a lot of folks just don't want to make--we all have our own set of tradeoffs.
Also have that Tamron superzoom for my fuji - and I really like that it can do it all, despite the necessary bulk and worse haptics. I just find the colors out of that particular lens to not be very pleasant and switching to a Fuji or Viltrox even is a huge difference… Sharpness however is really good for such a zoom range, but fine tuning the focus with that flimsy way to high ratio control ring is virtually impossible
I had the Canon 24-240 f/4-6.3, it was still too dark for most shows. I don’t think you “need” 2.8 zooms anymore, but I wouldn’t go past f4 zooms for serious work.
Better doesn't mean sadly good and 7.1 for 90% of the shows doesn't cut it, big gigs with lights I agree but that's minor even if it what much people will see it not representative!
And on a personal not if you want speed and quality still and will ever be better too take primes or 2.8 zooms or wider
Even more, this is a full frame lens, considering the bokeh effect, it's equal to m43 lens's f2-f3.6! And its light-weight and small body gives me more desire to swap my m43 photograph system😂
7.1 vs 2.8? That is too optimistic even for me.
I remember a video on MFT lenses from your DP Review days where you noted that the light gathering of those lenses is 2 stops slower than the same aperture would be on full frame, but the MFT lenses are much smaller. The Olympus 12-100mm f/4 lens, for instance, is equivalent to a 24-200 f/8 full frame lens. You encouraged lens designers to consider slow aperture but smaller lenses for full frame cameras. With this, and comparable lenses from other manufacturers, has your plea been answered?
Of course these apertures are expected on a lens like this. There is no way in a practical sense to make it brighter. Higher ISOs are just the name of the game with these lenses. At least on full frame it is easier to work around.
Physics
Alsp f4 at the wide end is actually quite awesome ( f2 mft equiv )
Hello, would be interesting to know how it compares to the New Tarron 50-300 4.5-6.3 VC ?
I had a Tamron superzoom for Canon EF. It was well made and cheap, but the slow aperture and the weight meant I rarely wanted to use it. It's just a set of tradeoffs to be aware of and ok with.
For a fair comparison with the 28-200, it would be good to know what the aperture is at 200mm. My guess is it would be around 5.6-6.3.
I prefer the 28-200 2.8-5.6 it's optically better and has brighter aperture.
Few years ago I sold my Sony 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4 m1 to get the Tamron, it's about as good as those 2 lenses combined.
Would love to see an G2 update with vxd motors and improved chromatic abberations.
If Tamron manages to get VC in that without compromising sharpness it would be an insane lens.
I was planning to get that 28-200. But I have stopped myself and waiting for G2 😄. Not sure it would be worth waiting, as we don't know when it is going to be released.
But the updates you mentioned is going to make the lens incredible, if Tamron manages to put those, specially sharpness at 200mm f/5.6.
Can you show the**EDGES** as well on the sharpness tests, usually lenses are worse at the corners (which are rarely needed) but the edges maybe ok and edges are used a lot in tight group shots, gardenscapes etc
Would be interested in a comparison between this lens and the Tamron 50-300, which I just purchased lol!
50-300 is better
@@Roysphotos8what about 50-400 tamron?
@@Keilikeramen thats even better than the 50-400. 50-400 is as good as it gets imo
@@Roysphotos8 Thank you for your answer I have 50-400mm but not sure should I trade to 28-300 for size and weight but I still want quality image, I keep it than
@@Keilikeramen yeah i dont see a point to swap. 50-400 is solid.
Great concert photos!
I would hope the image quality at ISO 800 on full frame today is good enough!
I would say it is a lens for capturing a variety of moment without caring about the charactor and image quality too much. The walk around shooter would love it.
I would love that lens for shooting in festivals or any events where people are really far from each other and from the background. For now, I'm still using my now ancient adapted Minolta 70-300 lens
Nothing wrong with the ISO compromise here. Getting the shot with a versatile lens versus getting the shot with the perfect one is the exact compromise you’re buying with a super zoom lens. It does what it’s designed to do very well.
I have an older version of this lens, but in EF mount and it was faster (3.5 to 6.3). This new version confuses me a bit...
I would guess the old version wasn’t as sharp? It is interesting though how some old dslr lenses have both brighter apertures and smaller size than mirrorless counterparts, I wish the mirrorless lens manufacturers would prioritize form factor over image quality more often. On the other hand, the sony 24-240 is frowned upon by many due to its bad IQ.
At the end, all is matter what you can do with this lens and what you get out of it.
The 18-300 what I use very frequently in holiday has also AI based AF, but just from 18-100, so anything after that is very shaky even on 5-axis body with 8 stops (for video - no problem for stills).
At 300mm you need to stop down to f/11 to get a bit sharpness, but nothing which can compete with a 70-300mm lens.
But of course you get a lot of shots and don’t have much weight in your bag.
Before I buy this lens, I recommend testing this at 300mm and verify if the sharpness is enough for you. Because with a lens like this, you won’t take your 70-300, 100-400mm with you and add maybe something like a small 20mm / 24mm 2 or 2.8 lens to this, which will do your indoor and important shots when you need more sharpness.
I need a travel lens. Travel is the operative word. I won't be lugging around a tripod, and most of my photos will be captured in daylight. I'm driving myself nuts, going around in circles, trying to decide between the 28-200 and 28-300. On one hand, brighter/faster appeals and how likely am I to use the 200-300 range handheld and get good results even with the lens stabilization? On the other hand, will that stabilization make a big difference in the 28-200 range, where the longer lens would be used most often?
how does the image quality compare to uwing a sony rx10 iv? are there any superzoom lenses on full frame or aps-c thst csn msrch the imsge wuality of that sony bridge camera?
There is no 24-600
Closest is a 10x zoom like this one, but
On an a7rv with the 28-300 you can crop 1,5-2x and get 26-15mp with the long end at 450-600mm. Thats the closest equivalent
Of course this is not a professional wedding lens.
But as a travel lens I like these Tamron super zooms very much.
I used my old 18-400 a lot this June in Yellowstone NP and it was so easy and relaxed. No changing of lenses - from landscape to wildlife everything was just a turn on the zoom ring.
Image quality is absolutely good enough for photo books or a slide show on Bluray or even in 4K.
So I hope for such a lens for Canon RF-S.
Whether Sony a7CR + Tamron 200mm + crop = as sharp as Sony A7CR + new Tamron 300mm natively (due to huge resolution of A7CR)? Everyone says than the older 28-200mm lens is sharper than the newer 28-300mm lens, but whether it's sharper to the extent rhat it can match it when used with A7CR and cropped to resemble the field of view of 300mm?
For video use, it would be interesting to know if it's Parfocal, or close. Appreciate you mentioned breathing at 7:10, would have loved if Jordan had chipped in too!
I bought the lifetime audiio bundle a few years ago, it's been great.
I would have liked to know how it handles distortion. For example, the Nikkor 28-300 used in city environments where there are an abundance of straight horizontal and vertical lines generates distortion especially at the edges that cannot be corrected with a click. Barrel distortion is one of the main problems with zooms when they are at wide angle focal lengths and when you compare it with the lower distortion of a fixed focal lens it makes you want to not use the zoom. Thanks!
Yes! finally a train spotted in a PetaPixel video!
Waiting for Abbot to do a vs 28-200
It did surprisingly well with those low light concert photos.
I have Canon 55-250 mm EF-S 4-5.6 IS STM.. it is just Amazing with my R5.. focal lenght is 88-400mm at F4-5.6 (cropped with R5). That lens also has IS and macro. I know it is not wide as this is but enough good for most cases. For 80€ what I paid is just great!
Great to see you both! Great review, I own the 28-200mm on your advice for a travel lens and it's fantastic. There are moments where extra distance would be great - such as when a bird (albatross in my case) or interesting plane flies overhead but I don't feel 300mm would have been enough. I'm going to continue saving up for the Sony 200-600mm, with the knowledge that I'd have a great day to day travel lens and then a specialist zoom bazooka for those occasional day trips out.
I would love to see this particular lens for other mounts like M mount. It's not the fastest for sharpest lens, but despite it's zoom range, it isn't too heavy at 610 gramms, thus still suitable for casual use, and overall pretty strong price-wise. For bokeh use, you can still carry an affordable Viltrox in your bag.
Something Canon would sell as an L lens for 2499$
To be fair, the 24-240mm is a solid option from Canon in the same price bracket.
🤣🤣🤣
And it would likely be sharper and have faster af.
@@alansach8437 and have more digital corrections… these lenses might get under 20mpix resolution from a 45mpix sensor… maybe more in the center
Canon litteraly has the same lens made years ago and it’a also lighter
I own Tamron 28-200mm and it is great zoom lens with nice f2.8-5.6 range. This one is very interesting also. Great review as always.
For my a7cR, I'm getting the APS-C Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD Lens for Sony E
$599.00
It's an equivalent of 27-450mm and 26MP in crop mode. It's cheaper, lighter, and smaller too.
I'd really like to get something like this. I have 28-75 and 150-500, need something like 28-300.
On the concert video footage was that on the GH7?
Z6 III
@@PetaPixel looks fantastic
I love my 28-200 and was thinking about it getting to 300 yesterday 😂 but not at cost of light
I don't think it's too bad. Canon and Nikon dont seen to mind higher apertures.
Full frame can handle it these days and you don't expect the moon on a stick for a do it all lens of this price.
How would you rate this lens for video work?
No video review ? I still often use my A mount Tamron 28-300 I bought 20 years ago for casual videography on my a99II. Great camera/lens combo.
¿Cambiarias a este tamron 28-300 mm si ya tienes el Canon 28-300mm L IS ??? Pienso que solo por el peso?
Thank you brother for sharing ❤
where is the review on Tamron 50-300?
6:24 This might be the only lens I've seen where the foreground bokeh looks better than the background
Wait what does this mean 😂
I am very pleased that Nikon and Tamron are bringing there DSLR zoom lenses to the Mirroless camera's
The former Tamron 28-300mm was a f3.5-5.6. So the new one is 1/2 stop slower at 28mm and 3/4 stops at the end. Asking 900$ for this thing, is close to be a joke. 600-700$ would be the max for this kind of lens.
Because the inflation over the past 10 years is totally negligible right?
@@michaelpark952 Sorry, but you can still buy the old version including inflation for under 450$. The old prices where around 350$.
I own G master lenses but now a days some of the most fun I have with photography is my ancient 18-200 tamron
When Nikon was on ancient F mount they were making that 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens. I'd rather just shoot that adapted. It's $500 or less used. This lens seems like it's going backward.. especially in terms of light gathering.
It would be nice to mention this review and everything about it is for Full Frame Sony E mount.
If you have APSC Sony E, the Tamron 18-300 is superior in literally every way.
If Sony release an updated 24-240 2.8-5.6 I'll definitely buy it, or Tamron make a similar lens, like a 24-200 2.8-5.6 VC, it will be great
I love Tamron. And without their lightweight yet quality lenses, I don’t know that I’d have been able to get restarted in photography after my wrist injury. But lately I wonder what they are thinking. This doesn’t sound like all that good a lens. And it’s the third lens in the lineup to reach 300mm. With the last one being a 50-300 that doesn’t seem hugely different from the 70-300. I’m sure they know their business better than I do, but seriously. I don’t get what they are thinking.
I just do not like using telescoping telephoto's (unless its a minor extension such as the EF 70-300 /4-5.6 IS USM)...for Sony I prefer the 200-600/5.6-6.3 for long reach. cheers
Is it sharper than the Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS?
I'd stick with my 28-200 f2.8-5.6. It would have been a rightly upgrade if it did f2.8-5.6. Wish my one had VC and VXD motors. They should try making an outlandish 24-300 or even 400 which starts at f2.8. That would hurt the superzoom bridge market imo, the RX10, RX100 etc. And Tamron should stop limiting themselves with that stupid 67mm filter size limit.
I agree
24-400 starting from f/2.8 would be huuuuge. Highly unpractical, unless you like to traveling with basooka…
@@youmysterious it would be bigger and bulkier, but not that much. 5 years back people couldn't think about full frame 1.8 zoom, yet here we are. Things keep on evolving.
I love their 28-200mm as a walk around lens on a sunny day, but the f/5.6 maximum aperture on the long end is definitely a hindrance on cloudy days. I highly doubt I’d enjoy this lens with its darker maximum aperture.
Why not plena scale? 02:56
Love to see "slow" lenses like this finally coming to FF. Looking to buy the Sigma 60-600 myself. The cameras handle extremely high ISO very well. Good one about "good Sony IBIS" though 🤣
Makes me want a pick up a Nikkor F-mount 28-300.
If you don't mind the distortion you can do it. I recommend that you review the video "Legendary D3 Takes on Latest Mirrorless Z8" in 8.34 and you can see what they mention about distortion.
Impressive that compared to the 28-200mm they were able to add 100mm of reach, and image stabilization, AND it's only about 10% heavier (due to the smaller aperture). Quite an achievement. But, as per the 28-200mm, it's just a shame about the wide end only starting at 28mm. Depends what you shoot though.
I have a Tamron SP 70-300MM F/4-5.6 DI VC USD (A005E) and it doesn't works good with my Canon R5. No OIS even if you force switch it ON. Guess any third party lenses will do same issues with a fresh top cameras.
Thanks to Canon. They are only company with doesn’t support third party lenses on their FF mirorless line. Sorry, you have to stick with original expensive Rf lenses for R5. So it’s not problem with Tamron but with Canon…
Black thought!! LFG!!!!
That Audiio plug was honestly fantastic.
The tamron 28-200 is fantastic at an affordable price. Great for vacations with the family.
Would love to see you review Tamron's new 50-300 which has image stabilization. Is that a sharper lens than the Tamron 28-300 ? Would I be better off buying their new 50-300 ?
Does it have a Nikon mount also...28-300mm
28-200mm is great. This is just too narrow. This is the first time I've heard anyone describe the Sony 24-240mm as "excellent," and I'm guessing that he's never touched one.
I prefer my Olympus 14-150 for EM5III and Sigma 18-250 OS for Pentax
The Roots crew
my problem is that nobody is making EF mounts anymore and RF is pretty much Canon only, expensive. Later maybe. [Canon 5Dsr/ R5]
Is it a parfocal lens? The Tamron 100-400 are a parfocal lens. So Tamron know how to make them. There is a video that test it "Parfocal test of the Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD"
At that price? I highly doubt it. Thats typically a high-end feature.
@@myblujl7503 The 100-400 have it.
@@myblujl7503 The 100-400 have it
@@myblujl7503 The Tamron 100-400mm is parfocal
It's basically a bridge camera lens
Given the FF sensor behind it, you'd need a really fast lens on a bridge camera to come close. Even with a 1" sensor, it's like an f1.5-2.5 lens.
@@the_wiki9408ok so everyone here continues to mistake how equivalent f-stops work. In terms of depth of field, a FF 2.8 may well be an MFT 1.4. HOWEVER THAT IS NOT TRUE OF BRIGHTNESS. Smaller sensors are actually *FASTER* than larger ones. Think about it, for the same scene, same absolute aperture, the smaller sensor will have the light from the whole scene concentrated on a smaller area.
@@JMurph2015 Brightness is also controlled by Sensitivity (ISO) and larger sensor can use a higher sensitivity with the same noise. So yes it is also equivalent for brightness as well as DOF.
@@JMurph2015 The smaller sensor will collect a proportionally smaller amount of light. If the photons from the scene were concentrated more as you say, the lens would be actually faster. A small sensor means that you have enlarge the captured image more which means the noise is amplified too. That's why m4/3 ISO 800 is equivalent to full frame ISO 200. You need to scale up or down all three parameters of the exposure triangle so that the math works out.
@@the_wiki9408Sensitivity is about the same, you mean amplification of the captured signal. Full frame pixels, buckets of photons are larger and together the whole sensor collects more light for given aperture.
"excellent 24-240" 🤔 It's anything but excellent. It's super soft and was totally destroyed by Tamron 28-200 when that lens was released.
ISO 1000 is no problem for modern cameras. Used to be a different story around 10 years ago.
why petapixel not make a video about Tamron 50-300?
my question is how to start wildlife photography considering those insane prices for telephoto lenses, while being barely able to afford ~$200 lens
Micro four thirds! Way cheaper optics than APS-C and Full frame
@@Nitor_ yep, but for that I need to buy m43 camera and with good AF that is 😭
I already have fuji x-t3, but couldn't find any affordable options aside from certain manual focus ones, and I've tried manual focus at 200mm and it was painful lol
there's no shortcuts with wildlife and as the format gets bigger the lenses get heavier and more costly. micro four thirds is a good suggestion and some people who just want birds asap and dont't care about the tradeoffs will get for example the panasonic fz80
@@quite1enough Don't fall into the micro four thirds trap. The lenses are expensive and terrible. An APS-C DSLR with used lenses is the only way to go in your situation.
@@youknowwho9247 back when I was buying my first digital camera, I almost bought Nikon D500 which would be amazing for wildlife, but since I needed good video stuff too, people talked me out of it
Too many compromises, and it looks intimidating when fully extended. People don't like it when you point a canon at them (no pun intended).
I used to carry 2 full frame Nikon cameras with prime lenses : a 28 mm and a 105 mm. The 105 mm (2.8) was also the best macro lens I have ever owned and it could even be used for portraits.
Zoom lenses are either too bulky or underperforming. Best advice: carry 2 cameras. No lens changes needed, easier to handle, no compromise on image quality.
I totally agree and you don't mention the other big compromise, which is the distortion generated by zooms. Distortion that cannot be corrected with the lens profile or with a click.
@@mistergiovanni7183 Indeed. Don't get me started on distortion. I have once paid a fortune for a professional 80-200 2.8 ED lens by Nikon (1997-2005 series). That lens was actually too bulky to point and shoot (nearly 1.5 kg if I remember well), but it also struggled with barrel distortion, regardless of the focal length. The images were very sharp between 100 and 150 mm, but still unusable if there were buildings in the frame, or other objects with straight lines. Above 150 mm or below 100 mm chromatic aberration became an issue.
And remember this was a professional lens, with a matching price tag. Top of the range. But what I really ended up with was a lens that weighed a tonne and only performed at its best around 135 mm. For half the price I could have bought a lightweight, prime 105 or 135 mm and spent the other half on a second camera. Well, that's of course what I ended up doing and oh what a joy it was. No more lens changes and sending the camera back for professional cleaning, better pictures because a small lens allows you to remain discretely in the background, and 100 other advantages.
Carrying two cameras is also pretty darn bulky, but certainly faster than I could switch any lens. Some are surely quicker with swapping mounts though. For daytime and some of sunset (rarely up early enough for dawn lol) I enjoy the convenience of zooms though.
I really don't like the look you get from the GH7. The dull colours and lack of subject isolation compared to the S1H is not ideal, to say the least. Gives off a significantly less professional impression.
its down to grading.
Skipped the LoCa test? Passive reviewing on the wide aperture end with bokeh?
I personally prefer the Tamron 18-300 on an a6700. (27-450).
Sony makes an excellent 24-240 mm lens? That must be the very first time that lens gets the word "excellent" attached to it. The Tamron 28-200 destroys that lens in almost every aspect...
Wow, real nice
Should we buy this lens or Nikon 24-200?
That would depend on the camera system you use.
Nikon lenses are always better than third party in similar categories. This gives you 300mm but 200 to 300 is only .5x extra zoom. For wildlife Nikon makes the 180-600 at a reasonable price for a full frame lens.
Nikon also has the 28-400mm f4-f8 available
Thanks for the review as it provides lots of information for me to think about. I have tried the 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 a few years ago for short trips and the compact size & weight was wonderful for all day use and attracts less attention in public with a small camera bag and a A7R V or A1 body (all taped up with gaffer tape to look like a pieces of broken junks).
That been said, when compared to the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-f/2.8 the usability with faster shutter speed, the wider aperture ranges and the image quality that is as good as the 70-200mm f/2.8 GM II except at the far corners. It is big & heavy; however, the IQ & usability in most conditions I shoot in it also pays me back with a big & heavy smile in every image and still gives me 225mm f/2.8 in APS-C crop mode so I returned the 28-200mm at the end. I am fully aware denoise in LR-CC can clean out a lot of high ISO noise and my cameras are very good even at ISO 12,800 ; however, it is an extra step I don't need to deal with.
I think for All-In-One lens like this, it would be a great one lens only travel companion in areas that has great lighting coverage especially when paired with a high megapixel sensor 50MP/60MP camera body to shoot in APS-C mode to extend the maximum range to 450mm f/7.1 in a pinch and still have plenty room to crop after from 20MP/26MP images. If I have this lens, I think the best companions would be to have a lot of time & patience to process the images through the A.I. De-Noise & A.I. Lens Blur software. I have no doubt it will produce a lot of very usable processed images in the end.
Omg THE ROOTS!!!!!!!!!
Still a great band 30 years after my first time hearing them
"Sony makes an excellent 24 to 240"...you're kidding right, this lens is as sharp as Joe Biden at the end of this term.
Chris still stands there telling people F7.1 on FF is slow and F4 on M43 is fast, like its 2008. As if ISO 8000 is an issue
The aperture lets in the same amount of light regardless of sensor size no?
@@Casmael01 no. The aperture let's in the same light density. Which means on larger sensor more total light
@@MegaWeitzel right, but same exposure for a given aperture all else being equal - just greater depth of field with a smaller sensor
@@Casmael01 and more noise
Thank you for the review.
PentaxPixel
Nearly nobody use a lens f2.8 at 300mm. These cost 15k$. Most are f4-f5.6. Or f4.5-6.3. There is the 70-180 or sony 70-200 at f2.8 but it is not 28-300.
Reminds me of Nikons 28-400
Hoping to see more interesting zoom focal ranges from Tamron. I guess they like to fill every niche of the superzoom 😅
it is a tripod lens for landscape shooters.
Glad I use Nikon :) 28-400 anyone?
✋good but in day light. Otherwise i use my 28-75 f2.8
Really don’t like it when you don’t mention the weight in Nocts in the video. Don’t wanna have to pause to know what the weight in real world terms is.
A lens for hobbysts and family travels, for noone else. If they don'e 28-300 mm f/2.8-f5.6 that would make more sense.
I avoid lenses that can't go to f/2.8 but I watched the whole video anyway.
Try to find a 300mm which do f2.8 under 10k$ or something like that.
Nice review. Considering the huge zoom range it would be good not only to test the two most extreme focal lengths.
The latest way to shoot, manual with auto ISO and let Topaz take care of the noise.
Or DxO
Another 3rd party lens for full format where Canon RF users don't have to complain about being excluded from the Tamron community.
The price is almost identical to the Canon RF 24-240 mm.