p.4 #2 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
I'm seeing some reviewers preferring the Sigma and others the new Tamron. The votes on which one is sharper also seem to be split, or at least nuanced across the range and frame. It's probably close enough not to matter for most people choosing this type of lens.
I myself still cannot decide. Seeing the old Tamron 28-200 at sub $500 for a used copy even has me considering that one. With the 17-28, I still have full coverage anyways. I'm curious to hear more people's experience who have "upgraded" from the old to the new Tamron.
p.4 #3 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
I have to admit I somewhat regret selling my Tamron 28-200mm lens. Sharp, worked in dimmer light, could get portraits with it. Used the money to buy a Tamron 50-300mm lens which I absolutely love! But is not quite so portrait friendly. The Tamron 28-200mm really is the best bang for your buck. If you have money to splurge, the 25-200mm and 20-200mm are better. Even with the Sony a7ii which is nowhere near as good at focusing as a7iii (and beyond), most photos turned out in focus with the 28-200mm. Fast birds or shaky hands would be the only reason a photo would blur.
p.4 #4 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
I traded my abused Tamron 28-200 while in Japan at Map Camera for a reasonable price and walked out with a new Tamron 25-200 for a great price. I actually wanted the Sigma 20-200, but they were sold out. Tamron had been my light travel lens for all hiking trips.
p.4 #5 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
I find the 25-200 is only maybe 5-10% better than the 28-200, factoring everything in like handling, sharpness, build, etc. It's nice having the newer stuff added in the 25-200, but even those come with some compromises compared to the 28 version. If you're on the fence about getting the 25-200 or Sigma, spending $500 on a 28-200 is a steal. It's been one of the most universally praised zooms the last few years, hard to go wrong with it IMO.
p.4 #6 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
Have been shooting with the 25-200 G2 since Nov 20. I'm delighted with image quality. Definitely improved vs. the 28-200. No longer is there lateral CA in high contrast edges at the wide end. Nor is there any when zoomed. Resolution is fine, about on par with my Sony 20-70 f4 G though, of course, not as good as with my 24-70 GM ii.
Handling is also improved. A thumb on the programmable button, set to MF Hold, and a finger tip on the focus ring, and I can override AF now with the same ease I enjoy on my Sony lenses (and on the Tamron 50-400).
I'll be using the G2 much more than I did the old 28-200 with which I often felt compelled to tote better glass to cover the wide end.
p.4 #7 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
Have been shooting with the 25-200 G2 since Nov 20. I'm delighted with image quality. Definitely improved vs. the 28-200. No longer is there lateral CA in high contrast edges at the wide end. Nor is there any when zoomed. Resolution is fine, about on par with my Sony 20-70 f4 G though, of course, not as good as with my 24-70 GM ii.
Handling is also improved. A thumb on the programmable button, set to MF Hold, and a finger tip on the focus ring, and I can override AF now with the same ease I enjoy on my Sony lenses (and on the Tamron 50-400).
I'll be using the G2 much more than I did the old 28-200 with which I often felt compelled to tote better glass to cover the wide end.
p.4 #9 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
I like Mads videos a lot, but this is the second lens comparison he’s done where the main lens he’s reviewing is out of focus in a bunch of the comparison images. Makes it hard to see the real world differences (or similarities) like he’s describing.
Compared to Tamron 28-200m: "In the wide-open-aperture image quality comparison, the 25-200 is slightly sharper except at 200mm, where the 28-200 is slightly sharper in the periphery. The 25-200 showed less flare in the site's standard test. The 28-200 has considerably less barrel distortion at the wide end (but that is at 28mm vs. 25mm) and modestly less pincushion distortion at the long end."
Compared to Sigma 20-200mm: "The image quality comparison shows the Tamron 25-200mm lens is sharper at the wide end, especially in the periphery. The Sigma lens is slightly sharper in the periphery in the short telephoto comparison. The Tamron lens has slightly less peripheral shading at the wide end and slightly stronger pincushion distortion at 200mm."
p.4 #12 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
I've had this lens 3 days now, looking to replace my 20-70 and 50-300 combo for hiking, backpacking, and cycling. So far I'm impressed with the IQ. I had 3 copies of the 28-200, the first copy was the great but I was unfair to it by comparing it to my G/GM glass, finding the 20-70 IQ significantly better, plus the 20-28 range, so I sold it with some later regret as I really like the 70-200 range. My next 2 copies were weaker than the first, being quite soft at longer focal lengths, and worse fringing, so I sold them too.
This lens finally feels on par with the 20-70, though I need to do some more testing when I find some time before I sell that lens, though the 50-300 is definitely getting sold now. I still may keep 20-70 to pair with a 50-400 for times when I can tolerate more weight.
I never really jived with the 20-70, though it's a bit odd, the large prints I've made from it are fantastic but it never seems to pop the same way when viewing in small print. Something about the overall image quality feels off and I've never loved it.
My use case is such that I want this kind of lens while I'm biking or backpacking. Hence why adding the 70-200(4.5-5.6) in the standard 25-70 range is amazing for the weight. I might bike 60+ miles with 6000ft of elevation while hauling this on my A7CR, or long 10-20 mile hikes with tons of elevation. I went with the 25-200 over the 20-200 for a few reasons:
1) I think the 2.8 @ 25/26mm can help images pop a bit(something the 20-70 lacks) at commonly used focal lengths.
2) Not having 20mm will make polarizing filters less annoying to manage with blue skies.
3) I think tamron has nice IQ, and I trust the reviews that it slightly outedges the sigma in terms of distortion and edges, plus the better aperture values
3) I think the build quality of tamron is nice, and I generally enjoy the rendering and out of focus rendering of tamron lenses (weak points of the 20-70 IMO). I was less certain about the sigma 20-200.
4) I am bad at shooting 20mm
5) 67mm filters will pair nicely with the 16mm 1.8
These shots aren't special but trying to just test it while it's been rainy so a dog walk and a bike ride.
p.4 #13 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
cxpics wrote:
I've had this lens 3 days now, looking to replace my 20-70 and 50-300 combo for hiking, backpacking, and cycling. So far I'm impressed with the IQ. I had 3 copies of the 28-200, the first copy was the great but I was unfair to it by comparing it to my G/GM glass, finding the 20-70 IQ significantly better, plus the 20-28 range, so I sold it with some later regret as I really like the 70-200 range. My next 2 copies were weaker than the first, being quite soft at longer focal lengths, and worse fringing, so I sold them too.
This lens finally feels on par with the 20-70, though I need to do some more testing when I find some time before I sell that lens, though the 50-300 is definitely getting sold now. I still may keep 20-70 to pair with a 50-400 for times when I can tolerate more weight.
I never really jived with the 20-70, though it's a bit odd, the large prints I've made from it are fantastic but it never seems to pop the same way when viewing in small print. Something about the overall image quality feels off and I've never loved it.
My use case is such that I want this kind of lens while I'm biking or backpacking. Hence why adding the 70-200(4.5-5.6) in the standard 25-70 range is amazing for the weight. I might bike 60+ miles with 6000ft of elevation while hauling this on my A7CR, or long 10-20 mile hikes with tons of elevation. I went with the 25-200 over the 20-200 for a few reasons:
1) I think the 2.8 @ 25/26mm can help images pop a bit(something the 20-70 lacks) at commonly used focal lengths.
2) Not having 20mm will make polarizing filters less annoying to manage with blue skies.
3) I think tamron has nice IQ, and I trust the reviews that it slightly outedges the sigma in terms of distortion and edges, plus the better aperture values
3) I think the build quality of tamron is nice, and I generally enjoy the rendering and out of focus rendering of tamron lenses (weak points of the 20-70 IMO). I was less certain about the sigma 20-200.
4) I am bad at shooting 20mm
5) 67mm filters will pair nicely with the 16mm 1.8
p.4 #19 · Tamron 25-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III VXD G2 (Model A075)
I have actually been thinking about getting this lens. I am a beginner and thought it would be a good fit for an all around lens for just finding what I like.
