28-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III - thoughts

rob-nikon

rob-nikon

Messages
6,948
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
For a while I’ve been looking for a longer focal length lens to take out when hiking in the Lake District where I’d like a single lens solution that roughly covers the 24-200mm range. There isn’t many that get good reviews but I’ve come across the Tamron 28-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD. It doesn’t have the 24mm to 27mm range but it does go up to 200mm. For mountain/hills I’m probably more likely to use the longer end rather than shorter end anyway so starting at 28mm probably isn’t as much of a problem. The size and weight looks great as it’s about the same size and weight as the Sony 24-105mm I already have. Currently my other option is to carry both the 24-105 and 100-400 to cover the same focal range but at nearly 2kg.

My question does anyone have any experience of this lens especially where landscape photography is concerned?
 
It is a very viable alternative to the 24-105mm f4 G which is actually a rather sharp lens through the zoom range. What you lose in reach on the wide end you make up for in reach at the long end and also a stop more light at 28mm. The results from this lens does give more resolution than just cropping results out of 24-105mm, so that is a pretty good result overall. Sony 24-105mm does render more nicely and sunstars are very nice in comparison.

It noticeably lighter and smaller than the 24-105mm f4. i replaced my 24-105mm with this lens so it was more balanced on the A7C (also makes for a light travel combination). on a 24mp sensor not sure you'd be able to tell the difference between the two. on a A7RIV there is definitely some difference especially in corners but stopped down for landscapes the tamron still holds its own even at 200mm.

the tamron also keeps up with 24-105mm in terms of aperture for most of its range. Its a whole stop faster at wide end. they equal out to f4 at around 50-60mm and at 105mm its f4.5. So unlike most that superzooms you don't lose much light and in fact gain a fair bit at the wide end.
 
Last edited:
I really like it when I shot with Sony - its very sharp and I really liked the colours too.

If it had weighed 150g less it would have been perfect !

A view holiday snaps from this year taken with it..

50371484486_dc1df3ef76_k.jpg


50360271686_04fa110ce8_k.jpg


50213871936_1fbe72d10f_k.jpg


50559615142_cc3d86fa4c_k.jpg


Hope that helps :)
 
nandbytes said:
It is a very viable alternative to the 24-105mm f4 G which is actually a rather sharp lens through the zoom range. What you lose in reach on the wide end you make up for in reach at the long end and also a stop more light at 28mm. The results from this lens does give more resolution than just cropping results out of 24-105mm, so that is a pretty good result overall. Sony 24-105mm does render more nicely and sunstars are very nice in comparison.

It noticeably lighter and smaller than the 24-105mm f4. i replaced my 24-105mm with this lens so it was more balanced on the A7C (also makes for a light travel combination). on a 24mp sensor not sure you'd be able to tell the difference between the two. on a A7RIV there is definitely some difference especially in corners but stopped down for landscapes the tamron still holds its own even at 200mm.

the tamron also keeps up with 24-105mm in terms of aperture for most of its range. Its a whole stop faster at wide end. they equal out to f4 at around 50-60mm and at 105mm its f4.5. So unlike most that superzooms you don't lose much light and in fact gain a fair bit at the wide end.
Click to expand...
Sounds like it’s potentially what I’m looking for. It would make keeping the 24-105 a difficult decision as there would only be the 24mm to 27mm range missing. I guess replacing that with a UWA lens would probably be an option to cover the 3mm and a bit more.
 
rob-nikon said:
Sounds like it’s potentially what I’m looking for. It would make keeping the 24-105 a difficult decision as there would only be the 24mm to 27mm range missing. I guess replacing that with a UWA lens would probably be an option to cover the 3mm and a bit more.
Click to expand...

I already have the 24GM which is one of my favourite lenses.
While I definitely liked having 24mm on the zoom its not actually what I miss the most tbh. I really miss the nicer rendering and sunstars of the 24-105mm and that's my biggest/only regret.

200mm
50584262063_d0e422443e_b.jpg


28mm
50585125632_f96fced161_b.jpg


170mm
50584263908_e20f4bc79c_b.jpg


and a pano - @85mm (3shots)
50584264493_d6f5a994b7_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I’m still researching the tamron 28-200. There doesn’t seem to be much information available about it but I found this review that’s pretty positive from a landscape photographers perspective.

nextinphotography.com

Why the Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 is the best lens for landscape photography - Next in Photography

The Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Di III RXD lens for sony E Mount is rated as one of the best all around travel lenses for a few reasons. Most all-in-one travel lenses tend to have a few compromises such as a significant barrel distortion, chromatic aberrations, heavy vignette, and are usually not...
nextinphotography.com nextinphotography.com
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
this is the review that convinced me - https://dustinabbott.net/2020/06/tamron-28-200mm-f2-8-5-6-rxd-a071-review/

as always his video are long and a bit dry but he does cover all aspects of the lens pretty well.

and he took it himself on his holiday, so he's put his money where his mouth is in real life which is more a testament to it.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYxVWgMOgM0
Click to expand...
That review is pretty good.

As it’s not an imminent purchase (I’m unlikely to visit mountainous regions of the UK until sometime next year) I have quite a bit of time to read reviews and make a decision. At the moment it’s looking exactly like what I’m looking for to reduce kit and weight but still be able to get the photos I’d like to get.
 
Last edited:
rob-nikon said:
That review is pretty good.

As it’s not an imminent purchase (I’m unlikely to visit mountainous regions of the UK until sometime next year) I have quite a bit of time to read reviews and make a decision. At the moment it’s looking exactly like what I’m looking for to reduce kit and weight but still be able to get the photos I’d like to get.
Click to expand...

Up in the mountains (visited ones in Switzerland) I mostly ended up cropping from the 24-105mm. I did have my 100-400mm with me but taking it out and changing was quite a bit of a hassle and I rarely did it. And if I was hiking i just wouldn't carry such a big lens.
You actually end with better results with the 28-200mm than cropping with a 24-105mm.
So overall for such cases I'd prefer the tamron.

As mentioned if you are looking for nice sunstars in landscapes this is not the lens. For that I plan of just using my primes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top