I have been reading reviews and watching YouTubes on these two lenses, as one of them may be a fit for my needs. While I haven't exactly kept a rigorous scorecard, I am getting the sense that there is no clear consensus on which one of these is "better" (whatever "better" may mean), with some reviewers preferring the 20-200 and others, the 25-200.
Could this be a sign of QC issues? i.e., significant copy variations? thoughts?
Certainly, copy variation is a factor, since most reviewers only test one copy. A few years ago, Roger Cicala (LensRentals) would test 10+ copies of a lens model on a very expensive machine that took the camera out of the equation, showing standard deviation, etc. You really had a good idea of what you were buying and the relative odds that you would receive a good lens.
Having said that, it seems as though manufacturers have really tightened their tolerances, in recent years. It used to be common for me to return a lens that did not pass my tests, but it is now rare that I encounter such problems (as long as I am not too picky about de-centering).
In December we took a trip to Europe. I didn't want to carry a lot of gear, as I usually did, so I purchased the newly released Sigma 20-200mm. My expectations, to be truthful, were not very high. When I got home, and in reviewing my RAW images at 100% on a 27" 5K monitor, I was almost stunned with the sharpness of this lens in the central area. Tiny details, when blown-up, were amazingly sharp - similar to my GM lenses.
I then looked at the tests on LensTip.com which showed an unusually high level of sharpness for this lens, so I don't think mine is a fluke. Also, the contrast was excellent (much better than the Tamron 28-200mm lens that I had).
I highly recommend this lens not only for the IQ, but for the ability to go down to 20mm, which makes it highly versatile when you do not want to spend a lot of time switching lenses.
The last review I watched (German, I think) compared them both and found the Sigma pretty mushy in the corners and the Tamron better overall. But this was not necessarily the findings of others.
It leaves those uncommitted of us in a bit of a dither
I spent a lot of time also trying to research and decide between these two lenses, since I had sold my 28-200 and was missing it. I liked the rendering and color cast of the Sigma better in the comparison videos I watched, but it did seem to get dinged a little for being a bit softer in the corners than the 25-200.
Ultimately I went with the 25-200 since I knew how much I liked my 28-200 and it had the assignable button. BUT.... I don't know, the 25-200 just never really did it for me. I used to get impressed all the time at how sharp my 28-200 was, but I never felt that way about the 25-200 I had. Always felt a bit lacking, and left me thinking I should have gone for the wider 20-200 if I had known the 25-200 was going to not be as sharp as the 28-200.
"if I had known the 25-200 was going to not be as sharp as the 28-200"
This is concerning. I have considered the 25-200 for the faster AF.
I only take the 28-200 when I need the range, not my everyday zoom, however I do love the rendering and always happy with the results.
I've been quite pleased with the sharpness and usability of my 25-200 thus far, having only taken it on one trip so far. I debated between these two lenses for a while also. Image comparisons that I saw had them roughly equal to the point where I consider it a wash. Some reviewers seemed to favor the Sigma, others the Tamron. Ultimately, I decided I would opt to bring a lens wider than 20mm alongside any of these, so the Sigma's main advantage was less important to me.
graytrekker wrote:
Part of the "hype" about the 25-200 is that it is supposed to be sharper than the 28-200
That was my assumption too, but perhaps it was just my copy. It wasn't bad, but I never found it pleasantly surprising me on that front like the 28-200 did when I had it. I crop a lot (A7CR) afterwards, so I ended up ultimately just getting the 70-200GII to pair with my 20-70.
I'm still debating if I want to eventually give the Sigma a go though, I did tend to prefer the warmer color cast it gave images compared to the 25-200 in the comparisons I saw. Any of the lenses we are talking about are just so convenient to have.
grahamgibson wrote:
Ultimately, I decided I would opt to bring a lens wider than 20mm alongside any of these, so the Sigma's main advantage was less important to me.
Right. I have the Sony 16-25, which would pair nicely. However, when backpacking, going wider to 20mm could be useful for more off-hand shots along the trail when one doesn't want to fiddle with changing.lenses, or conditions, such as wind, would advise against it.
In this comparison, though, the corners on the 20-200 sure don't look very good
As I and others have noted, there seems to be a lack of consistency in the results of these one-on-one comparisons but this one seemed particularly bad for the 20-200 compared to other reviews
I find my 25-200 to be much better than my 28-200 (I had 3 copies, 2 were terrible, 1 was great). Way less purple fringing in bright scenes and overall it feels as sharp as my 20-70 and holds up well at 135-200. I think a review showing better central sharpness at 200mm for cropping was what sold me. Additionally if I head out with a 2nd lens, it would likely share the 67mm filter size - the 16 1.8 G or 16-25. So far it seems to crop pretty well. I am still tempted by the 20-200 as I've seen some great shots from that. I think these lenses may come down to copy variation.
cxpics wrote:
I think these lenses may come down to copy variation.
Yes, that's what I was guessing at the beginning of this thread.
Does one want to go through the hassle of cycling through multiple copies to get a satisfactory one?
Another problem I had when I was evaluating the then 28-200 on my A7C II was these lenses are long enough to be unbalanced on my Aziak backpacking tripod - every time I lined up a shot there would always be some sag downwards despite trying to really lock it down. Maybe I should just go with the shorter 20-70 and a separate lens for telephoto shots?
That’s is definitely one thing I’m happy about since going to the 70-200, much more stable on a tripod I;’d actually want to bring backpacking since you can add a collar to it.
I think it depends on whether you are looking for a 1 lens solution or not. I haven't picked one up yet, but I am much more tempted by the Sigma 20-200mm. This would give me a 1 lens solution for times when changing lenses would be cumbersome. For example, when I am fishing. A 25-200mm would leave me wanting a wider lens, which gets back into needing to change lenses. Once you get to 2-3 lens kits, you have lots of options for better IQ.
At the end of the day, I don't see any of the current superzooms beating lenses such as the 24-105mm f4 for more serious photographic work. But then you're either losing 4mm on the wide end and 95mm on the long end to stick with one lens, or you ned 3 lenses to get the same range.
I feel like if I pick up the 20-200mm I will end up taking my camera with me again, more for casual use.
Roger also had something to say about zooms and testing. Usually he'd be referring to a 24-70 or 70-200. I think in the case of these two zooms he would be "sorry, not going there".
One could test at 20, 35, 50 and 200. Then make a decision on buy or keep. Results at 24, 28, 70 and 180 may well be very different though. A thorough test may well result destroying one's interest in photography 😭
InFocus2014 wrote:
Certainly, copy variation is a factor, since most reviewers only test one copy. A few years ago, Roger Cicala (LensRentals) would test 10+ copies of a lens model on a very expensive machine that took the camera out of the equation, showing standard deviation, etc. You really had a good idea of what you were buying and the relative odds that you would receive a good lens.
Having said that, it seems as though manufacturers have really tightened their tolerances, in recent years. It used to be common for me to return a lens that did not pass my tests, but it is now rare that I encounter such problems (as long as I am not too picky about de-centering).
In December we took a trip to Europe. I didn't want to carry a lot of gear, as I usually did, so I purchased the newly released Sigma 20-200mm. My expectations, to be truthful, were not very high. When I got home, and in reviewing my RAW images at 100% on a 27" 5K monitor, I was almost stunned with the sharpness of this lens in the central area. Tiny details, when blown-up, were amazingly sharp - similar to my GM lenses.
I then looked at the tests on LensTip.com which showed an unusually high level of sharpness for this lens, so I don't think mine is a fluke. Also, the contrast was excellent (much better than the Tamron 28-200mm lens that I had).
I highly recommend this lens not only for the IQ, but for the ability to go down to 20mm, which makes it highly versatile when you do not want to spend a lot of time switching lenses....Show more →
