Tamron 28-200 vs tamron 28-75 g2

There have been a few threads about rhe old tanron 28-75mm vs the 28-200mm with a lot of people showing a preference towards the 28-200. Now that the g2 of rhe former is available, what are people's thoughts.

The g2 is like a bag of primes between 28-75 but wirh a short range whereas the 28-200 is like a Swiss army knife.

Which would you get in 2022 if you had to get one kne and why?

Bijo Sam said:

There have been a few threads about rhe old tanron 28-75mm vs the 28-200mm with a lot of people showing a preference towards the 28-200. Now that the g2 of rhe former is available, what are people's thoughts.

The g2 is like a bag of primes between 28-75 but wirh a short range whereas the 28-200 is like a Swiss army knife.

Which would you get in 2022 if you had to get one kne and why?

Click to expand...

Got the 28-75 mki and would do it again. I have a Sony system for IQ. If I wanted a walkabout landscape lens, I’d get an Olympus 12-100/4 and be very happy with the IS and IQ wide open.

If I only had Sony, I might buy the 28-200 as well as a G2, certainly not before or instead of.

Andrew

I've got both lenses and it's really going to depend on your use case. The 28-200 is a great lens for travel. Its IQ is absolutely outstanding for a superzoom. Despite this, the 28-75 G2 has better IQ, particularly in the corners. If you're shooting landscapes this is the lens to have. If you're shooting in low light all the time I'd get the 28-75. If you're shooting mostly people where corners don't matter and need more range the 28-200 might be for you. The 35-150 f/2-f/2.8 is an interesting option as well. I find that I use the 28-75 more often as I don't always need the range and frequently need the f/2.8. the 28-75 G2 is very sharp wide open at all focal lengths.

Depends on the need. I already have a Sony 24-240 and a Tamron 70-180, so the 28-200 wouldn't be of interest for me. But if you don't already have a superzoom and can't afford to buy the Tamron 35-150 once it's finally on shelves, then the 28-200 is a perfectly fine lens for most needs.

But keep in mind that a 28-75mm f2.8 zoom is primarily used for events and portrait photography. While I also use my Tamron 28-75 for street photography and even travel when I'm on vacation, that's often not the reason why folks buy it. [The Tamron 35-150 would also not be comparable for many folks for that same reason.]

Therefore, in many ways, comparing the 28-75 to the 28-200 doesn't really work. You would really be better off comparing it to the Sony 24-240, the 70-350, the 24-105 and other superzooms.

For my work the 28-200mm is the obvious choice. Having that extra reach on the long end is priceless for ease of composition.
With good technique, sharpness is excellent as well.

djmParkCo said:

For my work the 28-200mm is the obvious choice. Having that extra reach on the long end is priceless for ease of composition.

With good technique, sharpness is excellent as well.

Click to expand...

Great video, I like that you give a lot of examples of what you have shot with this lens

RB37 said:

Depends on the need. I already have a Sony 24-240 and a Tamron 70-180, so the 28-200 wouldn't be of interest for me. But if you don't already have a superzoom and can't afford to buy the Tamron 35-150 once it's finally on shelves, then the 28-200 is a perfectly fine lens for most needs.

But keep in mind that a 28-75mm f2.8 zoom is primarily used for events and portrait photography. While I also use my Tamron 28-75 for street photography and even travel when I'm on vacation, that's often not the reason why folks buy it. [The Tamron 35-150 would also not be comparable for many folks for that same reason.]

Therefore, in many ways, comparing the 28-75 to the 28-200 doesn't really work. You would really be better off comparing it to the Sony 24-240, the 70-350, the 24-105 and other superzooms.

Click to expand...

Photography is just a hobby so I can’t justify spending so much on the 35-150

Glad you liked it. Here's another with many images taken with the Tamron 28-200mm.

I've yet to see a zoom that's actually like a bag of primes but maybe I'm just more picky in what I look for out of my primes (with regards to things like flare resistance, rendering, field of focus, bokeh, etc.; sharpness is just a small piece of it)... Since I'd probably never let go of my primes, the 28-200 would be the more obvious complement to them, not considering either right now tho. I tend to bounce between my UWA and teles and find I don't need a 24-xx or 28-xx as my main/walkabout option, but the tele end of the 28-200 would make it more appealing if I did go that direction.

If you never wanna bother with primes at all or with lens swapping then the 28-75 makes sense, and if you favor zooms in general I'd even say having both it and the 28-200 isn't all that redundant... Tho you might prefer pairing the 28-75 with a 70-300, 100-400, etc. You didn't talk about your use case at all in the first post or subsequent comments so all our suggestions will be pretty aimless IMO. I think the fact that the 28-200 is f2.8 at 28 & f4.5 at 100mm does make it pretty versatile tho. So, whatcha gonna use it for and what are you using right now?

Impulses said:

I've yet to see a zoom that's actually like a bag of primes but maybe I'm just more picky in what I look for out of my primes (with regards to things like flare resistance, rendering, field of focus, bokeh, etc.; sharpness is just a small piece of it)... Since I'd probably never let go of my primes, the 28-200 would be the more obvious complement to them, not considering either right now tho. I tend to bounce between my UWA and teles and find I don't need a 24-xx or 28-xx as my main/walkabout option, but the tele end of the 28-200 would make it more appealing if I did go that direction.

Click to expand...

Whatever works for you works for you. From where I sit, flexibility is more critical than f1.8; most of the time, unless I'm shooting at night for street photography, I'm usually shooting around f4-to-f8 (and around f5.6-f6.7 for wildlife and nature photography), so a prime isn't going to be of much use in most situations anyway. While I'm no big stickler for corner sharpness, bokeh isn't of great interest to me in most situations because I'm either shooting street scenes or environmental photography (where details matter more).

The Tamron 28-75 is more than good enough, with all of those things folks look for in primes. The 35-150 would be even better for me because it covers the focal lengths I'm usually shooting at. But I also use a Sony 24-240, and as someone has noted, if your technique is good, you can get good sharp photos out of any lens. And a 28-200 offers great value, too.

Impulses said:

I've yet to see a zoom that's actually like a bag of primes but maybe I'm just more picky in what I look for out of my primes (with regards to things like flare resistance, rendering, field of focus, bokeh, etc.; sharpness is just a small piece of it)... Since I'd probably never let go of my primes, the 28-200 would be the more obvious complement to them, not considering either right now tho. I tend to bounce between my UWA and teles and find I don't need a 24-xx or 28-xx as my main/walkabout option, but the tele end of the 28-200 would make it more appealing if I did go that direction.

If you never wanna bother with primes at all or with lens swapping then the 28-75 makes sense, and if you favor zooms in general I'd even say having both it and the 28-200 isn't all that redundant... Tho you might prefer pairing the 28-75 with a 70-300, 100-400, etc. You didn't talk about your use case at all in the first post or subsequent comments so all our suggestions will be pretty aimless IMO. I think the fact that the 28-200 is f2.8 at 28 & f4.5 at 100mm does make it pretty versatile tho. So, whatcha gonna use it for and what are you using right now?

Click to expand...

My use case for this lens will primarily be street and travel. I currently have a tam 17-28 f2.8, FE 35mm 1.8, several 50mm, sigma 45mm 2.8, Sony 85mm 1.8, Sam yang 135mm f2 and a Nikon 180mm f2.8d. A few months back I bought a canon 24-105L and it was my most used lens for travel because of the fact that it gave me the freedom to compose any shot I wanted. I have since sold it to buy a native lens eventually. I was eyeing the Sony 24-105 because of its oss but it seems a bit overpriced. So freedom of composition…but not at the expense of quality? Surprisingly, most of my shots were in the 35 to 50mm range. I shoot a lot from a moving vehicle like a tour bus.

Bijo Sam said:

Impulses said:

I've yet to see a zoom that's actually like a bag of primes but maybe I'm just more picky in what I look for out of my primes (with regards to things like flare resistance, rendering, field of focus, bokeh, etc.; sharpness is just a small piece of it)... Since I'd probably never let go of my primes, the 28-200 would be the more obvious complement to them, not considering either right now tho. I tend to bounce between my UWA and teles and find I don't need a 24-xx or 28-xx as my main/walkabout option, but the tele end of the 28-200 would make it more appealing if I did go that direction.

If you never wanna bother with primes at all or with lens swapping then the 28-75 makes sense, and if you favor zooms in general I'd even say having both it and the 28-200 isn't all that redundant... Tho you might prefer pairing the 28-75 with a 70-300, 100-400, etc. You didn't talk about your use case at all in the first post or subsequent comments so all our suggestions will be pretty aimless IMO. I think the fact that the 28-200 is f2.8 at 28 & f4.5 at 100mm does make it pretty versatile tho. So, whatcha gonna use it for and what are you using right now?

Click to expand...

My use case for this lens will primarily be street and travel. I currently have a tam 17-28 f2.8, FE 35mm 1.8, several 50mm, sigma 45mm 2.8, Sony 85mm 1.8, Sam yang 135mm f2 and a Nikon 180mm f2.8d. A few months back I bought a canon 24-105L and it was my most used lens for travel because of the fact that it gave me the freedom to compose any shot I wanted. I have since sold it to buy a native lens eventually. I was eyeing the Sony 24-105 because of its oss but it seems a bit overpriced. So freedom of composition…but not at the expense of quality? Surprisingly, most of my shots were in the 35 to 50mm range. I shoot a lot from a moving vehicle like a tour bus.

Click to expand...

The 24-105 G goes on sale fairly often and it does have some key advantages over either Tamron zoom, the most obvious being OIS and the fact that it goes to 24mm. Given what you're doing and what you already own I would think it or the 28-200 would better complement the rest of your stuff and serve your purposes (vs the 28-75), but YMMV.

If the majority of what you shoot is right at 35-50 and you would prefer to leave the primes behind then that might swing things in favor of the f2.8 zoom, I see zooms as a convenience compromise, so pick whichever is more convenient for ya... The range of the slower ones or the speed of the faster one.

Bijo Sam said:

There have been a few threads about rhe old tanron 28-75mm vs the 28-200mm with a lot of people showing a preference towards the 28-200. Now that the g2 of rhe former is available, what are people's thoughts.

The g2 is like a bag of primes between 28-75 but wirh a short range whereas the 28-200 is like a Swiss army knife.

Which would you get in 2022 if you had to get one kne and why?

Click to expand...

The 28-200 is a great lens, so versatile with decent IQ as well, in a pretty good form factor with nice build quality. If you don't need the range, then the 28-75 would be an obvious choice with better IQ.

For street photography where size, weight and conspicuousness matter, have a look at the Sigma 28-70 which is the smallest regular zoom, and also the underrated 28-60 'kit' lens. The 28-60 is cheap, tiny and super sharp, as long as you can live with the slow speed.

Currently I use the 28-200 for concert pictures, typically in 28-80 range, with A7C camera. The higher ISO isn't an issue, DxO DeepPRIME does a good job. My concern is the AF-C/Tracking speed. Is there really a significant difference between those two lenses (RXD vs VXD) regarding the low-light AF speed up to F4.5 aperture?

Think a lot has been said already. If you need the range and shoot a lot above 75mm buy the 28-200mm. If not. Get the 28-75mm or another standard zoom that fits your bill.

Thanks to lots of reactions on this forum I got a 28-200 for around $500 I believe for my travel purposes and have been extremely happy with this lens while travelling. What I like about it:

• Family doesn't have to wait for me while I'm swapping lenses
• I don't have to swap lenses in dusty environments
• Don't need to bring a camera bag but just my A7C and this lens attached
• Image quality is great!
• Shooting at 90mm and above is amazing for compression
• If I do need the f2.8 I can get that between 28mm and 35mm

Puppy2007 said:

Currently I use the 28-200 for concert pictures, typically in 28-80 range, with A7C camera. The higher ISO isn't an issue, DxO DeepPRIME does a good job. My concern is the AF-C/Tracking speed. Is there really a significant difference between those two lenses (RXD vs VXD) regarding the low-light AF speed up to F4.5 aperture?

Click to expand...

I used to have the 28-75 G1 and just got the 28-200. I assume you are doing out door concerts where it would be great and I will use it next summer for a couple outdoor shows. In a dark bar 28mm not wide enough and beyond 2.8 will be too dark.

I found the AF in low light was worse than I hoped even at 28mm and f2.8. I had some hunting and when zoomed in hunting was worse even if turned ISO up even just as a test knowing picture would be too noisy just to see if would find focus . It may be as using AF-C. I need to try AF-S. I plan to look into this more but not until after winter.

I do not have the 28-75 anymore but used it in lower light and was ok, not as good as Sony lenses but more than acceptable esp when consider 80-90% perf in most cases for 50% price. If I had the lens I might be able to compare with Apples to Apples. Also the G2 might have better AF as well.

I was using v03 of firmware on the 28-200 and expect the RXD motor the limiting factor compared to my G and GM lenses.

Overall a great lens but not sure how AF compares to 28-75 G1 or G2, but my limited use of 28-200 in good daylight saw no issues across 28-200 and seemed comparable to 28-75. In lower light near dusk and when sun setting my thought was step down, but still usable, once got to know limitations. Also hoping Tamron working on improving it and new firmware will come in 2023.

Are you hybrid or just photo, or video?

MrMillett9 said:

I used to have the 28-75 G1 and just got the 28-200. I assume you are doing out door concerts where it would be great and I will use it next summer for a couple outdoor

Click to expand...

No, indoor. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66706830

I also use Sony 20/F1.8 and Samyang 85/F1.4. The Tamron 28-200 (latest firmware) is still sufficient let's say up to F4.5 in low light with A7C and AF tracking. I use the DxO DeepPRIME denoising so I can go up to ISO 20000.

I plan to rent the Tamron 28-75 G2 to compare how much better the VXD is.

MrMillett9 said:

I found the AF in low light was worse than I hoped even at 28mm and f2.8. I had some hunting and when zoomed in hunting was worse even if turned ISO up even just as a test knowing picture would be too noisy just to see if would find focus .

Click to expand...

Just got my 28-200 today. Definitely the AF is noticeably slower than my GM lenses in low light. Knowing it will be a compromise having this focal range my expectations was set low. Performed okay and good enough for casual traveling.

Impulses said:

Bijo Sam said:

Impulses said:

I've yet to see a zoom that's actually like a bag of primes but maybe I'm just more picky in what I look for out of my primes (with regards to things like flare resistance, rendering, field of focus, bokeh, etc.; sharpness is just a small piece of it)... Since I'd probably never let go of my primes, the 28-200 would be the more obvious complement to them, not considering either right now tho. I tend to bounce between my UWA and teles and find I don't need a 24-xx or 28-xx as my main/walkabout option, but the tele end of the 28-200 would make it more appealing if I did go that direction.

If you never wanna bother with primes at all or with lens swapping then the 28-75 makes sense, and if you favor zooms in general I'd even say having both it and the 28-200 isn't all that redundant... Tho you might prefer pairing the 28-75 with a 70-300, 100-400, etc. You didn't talk about your use case at all in the first post or subsequent comments so all our suggestions will be pretty aimless IMO. I think the fact that the 28-200 is f2.8 at 28 & f4.5 at 100mm does make it pretty versatile tho. So, whatcha gonna use it for and what are you using right now?

Click to expand...

My use case for this lens will primarily be street and travel. I currently have a tam 17-28 f2.8, FE 35mm 1.8, several 50mm, sigma 45mm 2.8, Sony 85mm 1.8, Sam yang 135mm f2 and a Nikon 180mm f2.8d. A few months back I bought a canon 24-105L and it was my most used lens for travel because of the fact that it gave me the freedom to compose any shot I wanted. I have since sold it to buy a native lens eventually. I was eyeing the Sony 24-105 because of its oss but it seems a bit overpriced. So freedom of composition…but not at the expense of quality? Surprisingly, most of my shots were in the 35 to 50mm range. I shoot a lot from a moving vehicle like a tour bus.

Click to expand...

The 24-105 G goes on sale fairly often and it does have some key advantages over either Tamron zoom, the most obvious being OIS and the fact that it goes to 24mm. Given what you're doing and what you already own I would think it or the 28-200 would better complement the rest of your stuff and serve your purposes (vs the 28-75), but YMMV.

If the majority of what you shoot is right at 35-50 and you would prefer to leave the primes behind then that might swing things in favor of the f2.8 zoom, I see zooms as a convenience compromise, so pick whichever is more convenient for ya... The range of the slower ones or the speed of the faster one.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I agree with your conclusion.

Check the Tamron's firmware version, I think there was an update with AF improvements 4thQ 23.