Sony Showcase Tamron 28-200 f/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD FE-mount showcase

The Electric Squirrel

The Electric Squirrel

Top Veteran
Location
Finland
I remember back when superzooms were just for convenience, not image quality. Heck, zooms in general were compromising greatly on IQ back in the days of the film era, even in the very end of it. So now that I've used this Tamron 28-200 superzoom for Sony FE-mount for a while, I'm still quite baffled as to how good it can be. It's not only the sharpness that is mind boggling for a zoom, but also the colours and contrast rival those of much more expensive and exotic lenses.

I use this superzoom in a combo with the Tamron 17-28/2.8, and in landscape use they've proven to rival and at times even best the performance of some venerable Red Ringed lenses I've owned in the past. Never would I have thought that what I'd give up choosing a superzoom over separate standard and tele zooms is mostly only weight, complexity and price.

DSC06123-1-LR_s.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


So, post your work with this wonderful little beast of a lens!

edit: I really should read what I write before posting to avoid tautologies...
 
Last edited:
GRRR.....you're killing me! Buying the Sony 24-240 instead of this lens was a huge mistake on my part, one of those times I thought I knew better but didn't. This lens is in my future, don't really need it, but still want it.
 
I so wanted this lens to come out for Z mount...and am still waiting...although my desire for a good walk about lens has been satiated with the Z 24-120/4.

Still, though, I have a weakness for the Tamron lenses and will probably get one anyway. LOL
Looking forward to what others that have this lens will share.
 
Brownie said:
GRRR.....you're killing me! Buying the Sony 24-240 instead of this lens was a huge mistake on my part, one of those times I thought I knew better but didn't. This lens is in my future, don't really need it, but still want it.
Click to expand...
Well, you can always trade stuff in, ya know? Wants and needs are funny things, they don't always align.

Here's one at a longer FL:
DSC04644-1-LR-2_s.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
UnderOpenWater said:
How fast do you find it focuses? It looks like a really useful lens. (I have an A7III.)
Click to expand...
I haven't really put it through it's paces, since I mainly use it for landscapes. I'll put it this way: the times I've used it to shoot the kid, it's performed just fine. But I still trust the AF more on the 24-105 f/4 G. So neither catastrophic nor phenomenal, if that's vague enough for you...
 
It is an excellent description... Mads Peter Iversen uses the 28-200 for his landscape photography. His results are, of course, often stunningly beautiful. But the mountains, trees, and waterfalls he photographs don't move nearly as fast as the dragonflies and butterflies that I sometimes encounter. :) I've got the 24-105 as well and find it to be an excellent lens, just not as long as I would like.
 
Finally bit the bullet and bought one. MPB had one in EC with original packaging, instructions, hood etc. for $560 US.

Hoping this makes a better walk around lens than the 24-105 and Minolta 28-135. Both are great lenses but not enough reach. The 28 instead of 24 isn't a big deal to me for this kind of stuff. Wondering how much moving around it will take to make it work at the track for the up-close side shots. I think 24 is about it, but it's mostly about location.
 
I, too, am considering the 28-200 for the extra reach it would provide over my 24-105. I have the Tamron 20-40 to cover the wide end, so no loss there. For those who have the 28-200, is the lack of optical stabilization a significant bummer? I have an a7c with IBIS, but its IBIS is nowhere near as effective as that in my Olympus bodies, so the OSS in the 24-105 is welcome.
 
dermaus said:
I, too, am considering the 28-200 for the extra reach it would provide over my 24-105. I have the Tamron 20-40 to cover the wide end, so no loss there. For those who have the 28-200, is the lack of optical stabilization a significant bummer? I have an a7c with IBIS, but its IBIS is nowhere near as effective as that in my Olympus bodies, so the OSS in the 24-105 is welcome.
Click to expand...
I don't know how long you've been shooting, so please excuse me if you already know all of this.

In the days before IBIS the rule was to shoot a shutter speed no slower than the lens' focal length. Thus, a 200mm lens required a 1/200 shutter speed. Now that we have IBIS, I try to maintain reasonable expectations. If we gain one stop from IBIS in the above scenario, we can slow the shutter to 1/100. 2 stops gets us to 1/50. On the short end you shouldn't really need it anyway.

I've tested my camera to 5.5 stops. Given that, I could get to 1/12 pretty easily, and even slower. Then I consider that I have good usable ISO to 10,000 and beyond, and the IBIS kind of becomes irrelevant in all but the most extreme situations. Your A7C has a second native ISO at 640 that's about the same as 150. That's 2 stops just by shooting at ISO 640.

Unless I'm looking at something 400 or longer with relatively slow aperture, I don't even consider IBIS as a factor.

Mine shipped today, looking forward to it!
 
dermaus said:
I, too, am considering the 28-200 for the extra reach it would provide over my 24-105. I have the Tamron 20-40 to cover the wide end, so no loss there. For those who have the 28-200, is the lack of optical stabilization a significant bummer? I have an a7c with IBIS, but its IBIS is nowhere near as effective as that in my Olympus bodies, so the OSS in the 24-105 is welcome.
Click to expand...
I tend to either stick to the "shutter speed = 1/focal length"-rule or use a tripod, so I haven't really noticed a difference between the two lenses. I have succesfully hand held some slower speed shots with both of them, however, and I haven't seen any remarkable difference in hit rate.

I think the pros of the 28-200 far outweigh the con of it not having optical stabilisation. And I guess it's one part that makes it so lightweight for what it is, so for me it isn't even a con.
 
Brownie said:
I don't know how long you've been shooting, so please excuse me if you already know all of this.

In the days before IBIS the rule was to shoot a shutter speed no slower than the lens' focal length. Thus, a 200mm lens required a 1/200 shutter speed. Now that we have IBIS, I try to maintain reasonable expectations. If we gain one stop from IBIS in the above scenario, we can slow the shutter to 1/100. 2 stops gets us to 1/50. On the short end you shouldn't really need it anyway.

I've tested my camera to 5.5 stops. Given that, I could get to 1/12 pretty easily, and even slower. Then I consider that I have good usable ISO to 10,000 and beyond, and the IBIS kind of becomes irrelevant in all but the most extreme situations. Your A7C has a second native ISO at 640 that's about the same as 150. That's 2 stops just by shooting at ISO 640.

Unless I'm looking at something 400 or longer with relatively slow aperture, I don't even consider IBIS as a factor.

Mine shipped today, looking forward to it!
Click to expand...
I was able to pick up a used one, as well, for the same price on Monday. Should be here this weekend and I, too, am looking forward to it, especially for an upcoming trip to the great white north. Enjoy!
 
Mine came. It has three small scratches around the perimeter of the front element. FYI, MPB seems to have removed their CS email and telephone number, you have to start a 'chat'. I sent one yesterday and so far no response. Lens is certainly not in excellent condition, those scratches devalue it by at least $100. Not very happy.
 
Brownie said:
Mine came. It has three small scratches around the perimeter of the front element. FYI, MPB seems to have removed their CS email and telephone number, you have to start a 'chat'. I sent one yesterday and so far no response. Lens is certainly not in excellent condition, those scratches devalue it by at least $100. Not very happy.
Click to expand...
A picture of the scratches would be informative to this reader.
 
AlwaysOnAuto said:
A picture of the scratches would be informative to this reader.
Click to expand...
It's unlikely you could see them. I have to hold it in the correct light, but they're clear through the coating. Two are right next to each other, I didn't even notice the third one until I was trying to show my wife and it caught the light.

I really doubt they'd even affect the image, the problem is I tend to trade or sell gear from time to time, and this lens isn't in EC. They would grade it lower if I tried to trade it in. As stated above, the lens wouldn't fetch a price I'd be happy with because of the scratches. I may think about keeping it if they refund some money, after testing of course.

Having said all that, I suppose I should try and catch the scratches in an image in case MPB wants to see them. If the sun comes out tomorrow I may give it a try.
 

Similar threads

Brownie
    • Like
    • Appreciate
Sony Showcase Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 Di III VXD
Replies
17
Views
2K
Brownie
Brownie
mnhoj
    • Like
Sony Showcase Tamron 20-40mm F2.8
Replies
4
Views
577
AlwaysOnAuto
AlwaysOnAuto
L0n3Gr3yW0lf
    • Like
    • Appreciate
    • Informative
Sony Showcase Sony FE 28mm f 2
Replies
14
Views
986
AlwaysOnAuto
AlwaysOnAuto
Back
Top