p.3 #1 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
"There’s no question that you can get very useful amounts of magnification out of this lens [25-200mm], but achieving that 0.50x magnification is nearly impossible in real world use. I consider Tamron’s approach to mostly be marketing, while Sigma’s approach is actually useful."
- Dustin Abbott, https://dustinabbott.net/2025/11/tamron-25-200mm-f2-8-5-6-di-iii-vxd-g2/
What it boils down to is do you need more bokeh and more low light performance? Or do you want 20mm and more macro? While I absolutely loved the Tamron 28-200mm, the Sigma 20-200mm speaks to me as a nature photographer. If portraits were a higher priority, I'd get the Tamron 25-200mm.
p.3 #3 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
Luballs wrote:
It's a shame the close focus on this lens is a marketing gimmick though, since i thought we were trading slightly slower aperture at equivalent focal lengths for better close focus and sharpness. Seems like sharpness is only incrementally better and close focus was kinda a joke, so it was really made slower aperture for 25mm over 28mm? I loved the 28-200 for what it was and see myself probably getting the 25-200 over the 20-200 in the future, but would still like to see the head to head with the old 28-200 as well
In the written review, DA's assessment was that we lost aperture to keep the weight similar despite a wider formula. Personally, I would have preferred a bit of weight for more aperture and VR.
The review left me positive on the 25-200mm (and less positive on the 20-200mm). I'm really curious to see fringing and contrast at 200mm in more real world content, as that always felt like the weakest element of the 28-200mm.
Still, the best world would have been a meatier V2 that added VR and expanded the formula without aperture compromise.
p.3 #4 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
NYCCameraGuy wrote:
In the written review, DA's assessment was that we lost aperture to keep the weight similar despite a wider formula. Personally, I would have preferred a bit of weight for more aperture and VR.
The review left me positive on the 25-200mm (and less positive on the 20-200mm). I'm really curious to see fringing and contrast at 200mm in more real world content, as that always felt like the weakest element of the 28-200mm.
Still, the best world would have been a meatier V2 that added VR and expanded the formula without aperture compromise.
I'm not exactly the most steadiest of holding a camera and lens and I would have preferred having VR added. I see myself shaking when shooting with my Sigma 105 macro lens. Not so much with my Viltrox 16mm. I'm on the fence with getting the all in one Sony 20-70 f4 or the Tamron 16-30 or 17-50 for my landscapes.
I currently have the Sony 24-105 but for some reason photos are coming out soft. So many choices. Too much confusion.
p.3 #5 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
Some plots comparing the 28-200, 25-200, and 20-200 based on Dustin's table. I know similar have been posted before, but I found the percentages useful instead of looking at f numbers.
I have the 28-200 and was interested in this lens, but the dip in relative aperture from 90-115mm makes me a bit hesitant. I shoot 28mm f/8 a lot and frequently wish I had something a hair wider without changing lenses. So that box and faster autofocus on the telephoto end are checked. But I also shoot a lot of photos around 100mm f/4.5 to squeeze out some shallow depth of field (previous camera was a d750 with a 24-120). Maybe the sony 24-105 is the lens I've really wanted this whole time.
p.3 #6 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
rhawidantas wrote:
I am really interested on the 20mm of the Sigma but that distortion was brutal.
What is your opinion on the matter?
The Lightroom profile significantly eases this. But I'm hoping Capture One releases their own version which would be enough to convince me to renew my older copy.
Dustin Abbott says regarding 20mm: "Even the correction profile proved incapable of addressing all the distortion and vignette. It’s much better than my manual correction, but there is definitely no barrel distortion left behind."
p.3 #8 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
Josh Lewis wrote:
The Lightroom profile significantly eases this. But I'm hoping Capture One releases their own version which would be enough to convince me to renew my older copy.
Dustin Abbott says regarding 20mm: "Even the correction profile proved incapable of addressing all the distortion and vignette. It’s much better than my manual correction, but there is definitely no barrel distortion left behind."
p.3 #12 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
I just received notice from B&H that my 25-200 will be delivered on November 20th. That's a day earlier than projected. Looking forward to giving it a whirl...
p.3 #14 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
Josh Lewis wrote:
The Lightroom profile significantly eases this. But I'm hoping Capture One releases their own version which would be enough to convince me to renew my older copy.
Dustin Abbott says regarding 20mm: "Even the correction profile proved incapable of addressing all the distortion and vignette. It’s much better than my manual correction, but there is definitely no barrel distortion left behind."
p.3 #15 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
NYCCameraGuy wrote:
Can't you just use the manufacturer corrections saved with the RAW file in Capture One?
Indeed you can - seems to replicate the jpg profile which is good to know. While the Sigma lens profile is a definitive improvement to the 20-200mm's distortion, the Light Room profile seems to be getting good attention. Perhaps better?
p.3 #16 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
I was able to spend a little time at B&H with the 20-200, 25-200 and Samyang 14-24 (separate interest). I tested some shots at various apertures on a tripod and also AF. I came home and looked over the photos and - for myself - determined:
1: The distortion of the 20-200 at 20 is not so bad.
2: The Tamron is sharper, at least at wide angles
3: In B&H I confirmed the Tamron has more confident AF.
I ended up buying the 25-200; it should arrive today. I have also lost interest in the Samyang 14-24, but that's a different story.
Please note I had very little time with the lenses and was able to take very few photos, so do not consider this hard evidence at all, but for me - although I wanted to love the 20-200 (i would trade aperture for focal range in a superzoom) - the 25-200 was the clear winner.
Will post photos when I get it - and compare it also to my Sony 20-70/4.
p.3 #17 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
Dustin Abbott has just released a dedicated video comparing all 3 lenses in depth (20-200mm, 25-200mm, 28-200mm):
It's making me re-think the Sigma 20-200mm which seems like the most intriguing lens of the year. After a photo shoot today from landscape to portrait it would have been very nice to have the Tamron 25-200mm.
p.3 #19 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
I knew both of these lenses were coming out and sold my 28-200 in advance, even though it was one of my most used lenses. I thought for sure I was going to go with the Sigma, but the 25-200 images I saw in reviews kept grabbing me so I waited and debated. Tough call as they both have a clear advantage over the other one while also being so damn close for day to day use.
While I like color cast the Sigma has more than the Tamron, since most of what I do is B&W the 25-200 is a little closer to the look I like on that front. Also, 20mm is nice, but I rarely use that far end of the range on my 20-70, and I knew I'd use the assignable button on the Tamron a lot too. So ultimately I went with the 25-200. Too early to say if I regret it over the Sigma, but after a couple weeks of daily use some thoughts:
- It's nicer in hand than the 28-200, while still plastic it feels better made. The body and controls all feel like they've improved a good bit over the 28-200.
- The zoom ring has the right amount of resistance and is consistent throughout its range. And it turns the correct way to extend the barrel, unlike Sigmas (I have the 100-400) which get it backwards and always catch me out at the worst time.
- My focus ring is actually nicely damped, which was surprising after seeing so many video reviewers comment how loose it was. Mine feels really good, even after a lot of use. Nice surprise.
- The LOCA is better than the 28-200, but still stronger than I would like ideally. I've also been using a Q3 43 for most of the last year so I know I'm spoiled there.
- I wasn't able to do a side by side comparison, but I actually think my 28-200 was sharper throughout the entire range. Or the 25-200 is just as sharp if not more so in most of the zoom range, but the extreme ends at 25 and 200mm feel a little softer. Even in the center. Maybe it's just me, but it's something I keep thinking as I'm editing my photos at the end of the day. Still more than good enough to print or whatever, but not as tack sharp as some of my other lenses like the 20-70.
Overall though I'm pretty happy with it, and actually have already appreciated the wider 25mm range of things more than I thought I would. Enough that I don't regret selling the 28-200 even though it's SOOO close in performance to the new 25-200.
p.3 #20 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
I can compare my previous 28-200 and new 25-200 nowadays. The focusing is now a way faster - my main complain in the case of 28-200. I would say, results on 25-200 are sharper, especially on the short end and contain less CA. All in all, it's a great upgrade in my eyes. I'm not a huge fan of the plastics used on the body. It could be more resistant to scratches (the same as all G2 lenses).
