Reading mode: Light Dark

Tamron 25-200 2.8-5.6, a lens for the masses!

Go to last post
Maxmolly7 said:
Let's see when it finally arrives and how it compares to the new Sigma 20-200 mm. A first sample appeared already during a German trade show, but it wasn't to be tested. Display, only model. 25mm are nice but still far away from 20mm.
Click to expand...
 
Maxmolly7 said:
Yannis1976 said:
Maxmolly7 said:
RaysJ said:
Maxmolly7 said:
Let's see when it finally arrives and how it compares to the new Sigma 20-200 mm. A first sample appeared already during a German trade show, but it wasn't to be tested. Display, only model. 25mm are nice but still far away from 20mm.
Click to expand...
The Sigma 20-200 is out and getting some quite good reviews, but as l expected there some issues at the wide end, will be interesting to see if the Tamron is better.
Click to expand...
I agree and am very curious about the new Tamron, too. In the overlapping range the Sigma is said to have better IQ than the old Tamron.
Click to expand...
I thought the opposite is happening as the old 28-200 has a very good IQ across its range.
Click to expand...
Check this review:

https://sonyalpha.blog/2025/10/10/sigma-20-200mm-f4-5-6-3-dg-contemporary/
Click to expand...
Seems to be quite a bit of curvature on the buildings at 20mm, on the images in that link.
 
Maxmolly7 said:
Yannis1976 said:
Maxmolly7 said:
RaysJ said:
Maxmolly7 said:
Let's see when it finally arrives and how it compares to the new Sigma 20-200 mm. A first sample appeared already during a German trade show, but it wasn't to be tested. Display, only model. 25mm are nice but still far away from 20mm.
Click to expand...
The Sigma 20-200 is out and getting some quite good reviews, but as l expected there some issues at the wide end, will be interesting to see if the Tamron is better.
Click to expand...
I agree and am very curious about the new Tamron, too. In the overlapping range the Sigma is said to have better IQ than the old Tamron.
Click to expand...
I thought the opposite is happening as the old 28-200 has a very good IQ across its range.
Click to expand...
Check this review:

https://sonyalpha.blog/2025/10/10/sigma-20-200mm-f4-5-6-3-dg-contemporary/

--
May THE LIGHT be with you!

Maxmolly7 wrote:
Yannis1976 said:
Maxmolly7 said:
RaysJ said:
Maxmolly7 said:
Let's see when it finally arrives and how it compares to the new Sigma 20-200 mm. A first sample appeared already during a German trade show, but it wasn't to be tested. Display, only model. 25mm are nice but still far away from 20mm.
Click to expand...
The Sigma 20-200 is out and getting some quite good reviews, but as l expected there some issues at the wide end, will be interesting to see if the Tamron is better.
Click to expand...
I agree and am very curious about the new Tamron, too. In the overlapping range the Sigma is said to have better IQ than the old Tamron.
Click to expand...
I thought the opposite is happening as the old 28-200 has a very good IQ across its range.
Click to expand...
Check this review:

https://sonyalpha.blog/2025/10/10/sigma-20-200mm-f4-5-6-3-dg-contemporary/

--
May THE LIGHT be with you!
Click to expand...
The granular results chart seems broadly comparable, with the Sigma doing very well at 50mm. Oddly the 28-200mm supposedly degrades across the board stopping down from F5.6 to F8, which has not beeny experience. Center sharpness seems quite similar, and I'm more likely to center a subject or crop in at 100mm+ than rely on center sharpness.

1f6fb81a2ebb41d9ae3abe938fe073d1.jpg.png

It's also fair to assume that these types of lenses are prone to sample variation. I've always felt that my retail 28-200mm was a touch worse than the one I rented from lensrentals to try out.

Hopefully we get more data over time on both Tamrons and the Sigma, though I would always go for more light and subject separation unless there was a vast difference in IQ.
 
Impulses said:
TBH I think that could largely come down to hair splitting as well as sample variance... eg Judy's 25-200 might be better at 50 than Jackie's 25-200, but Jackie's might be better at 25, and Janice's might be worse throughout. I wouldn't expect super precise tolerances across the full range from any of them...

In actual use, I think the practical speed vs range difference is still the more relevant question anyone should ask themselves... Will the 25-200 retain that noticeable advantage that the 28-200 still has? And what are you pairing it with?

I'm not a superzoom guy, but if I was I'd never be heading out with just that lens, I'd pair it with something... For me something like a Viltrox 14/4 Air or Sony 16/1.8 G seems like a logical choice without going up to the size/bulk of an UWA zoom with an overlapping range. Either of those can be cropped easily to 21-24mm (and f6 or f2.7 equivalent).

That obviously means lens swapping, but 20mm still wouldn't be wide enough for me indoors, or in cities/forests. For those for whom it is and who are trying to avoid lens swapping as much as possible, the Sigma seems worth any compromise. As a single general use lens I'd also value the Tamron's speed more, but that's cause I'd end up using it to shoot friends/family.

So yeah, I think use case and what you'll pair it more will matter more than which one is a somewhat sharper at any given FL or which one is a tiny bit better corrected, if you're chasing that there's better zooms than both, and better primes than any zoom (which is not shade, the point is both are likely good enough for many use cases).
Click to expand...
I typically pair my 28-200mm with Tamron's' cheap and cheerful 20mm F2.8. They share 67mm filter threads, and the Tamron prime is incredibly light as an add-on. Might look at the Tamron UWA zoom someday.
 
BrentSchumer said:
Maxmolly7 said:
Yannis1976 said:
Maxmolly7 said:
RaysJ said:
Maxmolly7 said:
Let's see when it finally arrives and how it compares to the new Sigma 20-200 mm. A first sample appeared already during a German trade show, but it wasn't to be tested. Display, only model. 25mm are nice but still far away from 20mm.
Click to expand...
The Sigma 20-200 is out and getting some quite good reviews, but as l expected there some issues at the wide end, will be interesting to see if the Tamron is better.
Click to expand...
I agree and am very curious about the new Tamron, too. In the overlapping range the Sigma is said to have better IQ than the old Tamron.
Click to expand...
I thought the opposite is happening as the old 28-200 has a very good IQ across its range.
Click to expand...
Check this review:

https://sonyalpha.blog/2025/10/10/sigma-20-200mm-f4-5-6-3-dg-contemporary/
Click to expand...
The granular results chart seems broadly comparable, with the Sigma doing very well at 50mm. Oddly the 28-200mm supposedly degrades across the board stopping down from F5.6 to F8, which has not beeny experience. Center sharpness seems quite similar, and I'm more likely to center a subject or crop in at 100mm+ than rely on center sharpness.

1f6fb81a2ebb41d9ae3abe938fe073d1.jpg.png

It's also fair to assume that these types of lenses are prone to sample variation. I've always felt that my retail 28-200mm was a touch worse than the one I rented from lensrentals to try out.

Hopefully we get more data over time on both Tamrons and the Sigma, though I would always go for more light and subject separation unless there was a vast difference in IQ.
Click to expand...
Interesting, in other tests the Sony 20-70, the corners don't improve when stopped down, this is a feature on several other Sony wide angles.

Probably a bit unfair comparing a 20-200 at 20mm against a 28-200 at 28mm. I can see why there not many zooms starting at 20mm.
 
Last edited:
Impulses said:
Yannis1976 said:
Maxmolly7 said:
RaysJ said:
Maxmolly7 said:
Let's see when it finally arrives and how it compares to the new Sigma 20-200 mm. A first sample appeared already during a German trade show, but it wasn't to be tested. Display, only model. 25mm are nice but still far away from 20mm.
Click to expand...
The Sigma 20-200 is out and getting some quite good reviews, but as l expected there some issues at the wide end, will be interesting to see if the Tamron is better.
Click to expand...
I agree and am very curious about the new Tamron, too. In the overlapping range the Sigma is said to have better IQ than the old Tamron.
Click to expand...
I thought the opposite is happening as the old 28-200 has a very good IQ across its range.
Click to expand...
TBH I think that could largely come down to hair splitting as well as sample variance... eg Judy's 25-200 might be better at 50 than Jackie's 25-200, but Jackie's might be better at 25, and Janice's might be worse throughout. I wouldn't expect super precise tolerances across the full range from any of them...

In actual use, I think the practical speed vs range difference is still the more relevant question anyone should ask themselves... Will the 25-200 retain that noticeable advantage that the 28-200 still has? And what are you pairing it with?

I'm not a superzoom guy, but if I was I'd never be heading out with just that lens, I'd pair it with something... For me something like a Viltrox 14/4 Air or Sony 16/1.8 G seems like a logical choice without going up to the size/bulk of an UWA zoom with an overlapping range. Either of those can be cropped easily to 21-24mm (and f6 or f2.7 equivalent).

That obviously means lens swapping, but 20mm still wouldn't be wide enough for me indoors, or in cities/forests. For those for whom it is and who are trying to avoid lens swapping as much as possible, the Sigma seems worth any compromise. As a single general use lens I'd also value the Tamron's speed more, but that's cause I'd end up using it to shoot friends/family.

So yeah, I think use case and what you'll pair it more will matter more than which one is a somewhat sharper at any given FL or which one is a tiny bit better corrected, if you're chasing that there's better zooms than both, and better primes than any zoom (which is not shade, the point is both are likely good enough for many use cases).
Click to expand...
GOOD points! Agreed
 
I used to be adamant about standard zooms going to 24mm, but once I switched from UWA primes to UWA zooms I softened on that. 28mm is fine.

Also 16-25 is kind of crazy and somewhat useless. That's basically a 1.5x zoom. We need UWAs that cover more FL ground, not less. Im still hoping and praying for something like the RF 14-35/L for Sony. Overlap with zooms is also desirable as that means less lens changes.
 
sportyaccordy said:
I used to be adamant about standard zooms going to 24mm, but once I switched from UWA primes to UWA zooms I softened on that. 28mm is fine.

Also 16-25 is kind of crazy and somewhat useless. That's basically a 1.5x zoom. We need UWAs that cover more FL ground, not less. Im still hoping and praying for something like the RF 14-35/L for Sony. Overlap with zooms is also desirable as that means less lens changes.
Click to expand...
16-25 is an unusual range. I agree about overlaps, but not just because of less changes, they can remove the weakest part of the other zoom, most zooms are weakest, at their extremes, often the widest FL.
 
sportyaccordy said:
I used to be adamant about standard zooms going to 24mm, but once I switched from UWA primes to UWA zooms I softened on that. 28mm is fine.
Click to expand...
It's nice to have 24mm because it's basically where true wideness begins.
sportyaccordy said:
Also 16-25 is kind of crazy and somewhat useless.
Click to expand...
agree. not too different from an 18mm prime.
sportyaccordy said:
That's basically a 1.5x zoom. We need UWAs that cover more FL ground, not less. Im still hoping and praying for something like the RF 14-35/L for Sony. Overlap with zooms is also desirable as that means less lens changes.
Click to expand...
In my experience UWA zooms typically aren't so good towards the long end of the range.
 
RaysJ said:
sportyaccordy said:
I used to be adamant about standard zooms going to 24mm, but once I switched from UWA primes to UWA zooms I softened on that. 28mm is fine.

Also 16-25 is kind of crazy and somewhat useless. That's basically a 1.5x zoom. We need UWAs that cover more FL ground, not less. Im still hoping and praying for something like the RF 14-35/L for Sony. Overlap with zooms is also desirable as that means less lens changes.
Click to expand...
16-25 is an unusual range. I agree about overlaps, but not just because of less changes, they can remove the weakest part of the other zoom, most zooms are weakest, at their extremes, often the widest FL.
Click to expand...
Good mirrorless UWA zooms tend to be weaker at their long end, if at all, though I guess you were talking about the wide end of 20/24/28-xx zooms...
 
Last edited:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/1410004798/tamron-25-200mm-f2p8-5p6-di-iii-vxd-g2-all-in-one

And one very early preview


I will wait all reviews and owners' experience in next few months. I will only need it before my booked Svalbard cruise in next May/June so have plenty of time :-)

I will pickup one between this lens and Sigma 20-200. I believe Tamron optical quality will be better, 8x vs 10x and a bit faster aperture in entire FL range that is also important.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
Quite interesting that there are so many preview videos of this from Asia but almost nothing in from Western reviewers or influencers; I don't think I've seen that before. If you look up Tamron 25-200 videos on youtube from the last 24 hours quite a number come up.

--
All the best,
TBri
https://www.flickr.com/people/130803098@N05/
 
Last edited:
Sadly the release date is Nov 20, putting this lens out of reach for my next trip.

I can't watch the video right now - does it define the aperture tapering? A test shot on the website has an F4.5 shot at 64mm, which has me worried. As does the lack of an aperture breakdown, which was published for the original lens.
 
BrentSchumer said:
Sadly the release date is Nov 20, putting this lens out of reach for my next trip.

I can't watch the video right now - does it define the aperture tapering? A test shot on the website has an F4.5 shot at 64mm, which has me worried. As does the lack of an aperture breakdown, which was published for the original lens.
Click to expand...
On the Fred and Miranda 25-200 thread they have it published.
 
Comparison of 20-200 vs 25-200; I quite like this guy
 
(From Reddit)

25-200mm

25mm - f/2.8
27mm - f/3.2
34mm - f/3.5
53mm - f/4.5
96mm - f/5.6

28-200mm

28mm- f/2.8
31mm - f/3.2
43mm - f/3.5
54mm - f/4.0
78mm - f/4.5
113mm - f/5.0
147mm - f/5.6

As expected, there is no free lunch. A shame, but I'm guessing that the aggregate of improvements will beat out the loss of light unless you spend quite a bit of time in the 50-150mm range.

Edit: I really hope that the new design is measurably sharper, or I'll stick with the old lens for light. I don't need lightning focus often while traveling.
 
Last edited:
BrentSchumer said:
(From Reddit)

25-200mm

25mm - f/2.8
27mm - f/3.2
34mm - f/3.5
53mm - f/4.5
96mm - f/5.6

28-200mm

28mm- f/2.8
31mm - f/3.2
43mm - f/3.5
54mm - f/4.0
78mm - f/4.5
113mm - f/5.0
147mm - f/5.6

As expected, there is no free lunch. A shame, but I'm guessing that the aggregate of improvements will beat out the loss of light unless you spend quite a bit of time in the 50-150mm range.
Click to expand...
Still faster than Sigma 20-200 as I only will pickup one between two. Never own previous Tamron 28-200 anyway. In my planned limit usages, I will use it in bright light such as in Svalbard cruise in next June when it's in summer long daylight time. I likely will still carry FE 20-70 G in the trip that also will include Norwegian coast and few famous landscape spots before boarding the ship at Tromso, and to shoot from the ship along with 14 GM for interior. Since I no longer have a tele zoom and only can effectively handle 2 sets in zodiac boat, I could imagine this 25-200 on A7r V (set 1) and 300 GM /w 1.4x TC on A1 (set 2 and quickly switch /w 2.0x TC if a polar bear showing up). In my last Antarctica cruise, I had Tamron 28-75 G2 on A7r IV (set 1) and 100-400 GM on A1 (set 2). Really don't want to buy back another tele zoom. I know 100-400 GM II is coming (I used to wish should be 100-500 GM) but I am no longer interested ;-)
BrentSchumer said:
Edit: I really hope that the new design is measurably sharper, or I'll stick with the old lens for light. I don't need lightning focus often while traveling.
Click to expand...
Hope so. I will check all reviews and owners' experiences carefully especially side by side with Sigma 20-200 and original Tamron 28-200. Wait to see, luckily I have plenty of time by next May when I will departure for another Norway trip after March this year one .

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
BrentSchumer said:
(From Reddit)

25-200mm

25mm - f/2.8
27mm - f/3.2
34mm - f/3.5
53mm - f/4.5
96mm - f/5.6

28-200mm

28mm- f/2.8
31mm - f/3.2
43mm - f/3.5
54mm - f/4.0
78mm - f/4.5
113mm - f/5.0
147mm - f/5.6

As expected, there is no free lunch. A shame, but I'm guessing that the aggregate of improvements will beat out the loss of light unless you spend quite a bit of time in the 50-150mm range.

Edit: I really hope that the new design is measurably sharper, or I'll stick with the old lens for light. I don't need lightning focus often while traveling.
Click to expand...
This table is missing the transition to f4 and to f5. I have a feeling it will turn out to follow the old lens transition points more closely with a 1/3 stop lag in aperture. Which for me would be just fine to get the other benefits.
 
Picked up this image from a photography discord, probably a grab from a Japanese review.

The highlights are:

f4.5 from 53mm instead of 80mm

f5.6 from 96mm instead of 158mm

I will wait to see pricing and specially AF performance (for pet photography), but so far I'm a bit disappointed that the "G2" is darker through the entire range compared to the G1.

I have to be honest, I'd probably rather have a Sigma 20-200 if I have to have a slow lens.

They are both 1:2 magnification but 20mm seems way more useful now that they're closer in aperture, not sure I could justify it.

The 20-200 would go nicely with a 12-24 f4 or anything crazy wide, prime or otherwise.

81ddc6b9175a46eab1a44c68fbb87b97.jpg.png



20-200 aperture from jared polin's review
20-200 aperture from jared polin's review
 
PWPhotography said:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/1410004798/tamron-25-200mm-f2p8-5p6-di-iii-vxd-g2-all-in-one

And one very early preview


I will wait all reviews and owners' experience in next few months. I will only need it before my booked Svalbard cruise in next May/June so have plenty of time :-)

I will pickup one between this lens and Sigma 20-200. I believe Tamron optical quality will be better, 8x vs 10x and a bit faster aperture in entire FL range that is also important.
Click to expand...
Wow, I did not know about the 20-200. THAT'S an interesting lens. I don't know if it could replace my 16-35/4, but Id def replace my 28-200 with it. Obv not the sharpest lens in the bag but who cares.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BrentSchumer
Tamron 25-200mm F2.8-F5.6 G2 Part II (Release Date Nov 20th)
2
Replies
33
Views
18K
thunder storm
T
G
A7RV 2nd Travel Lens Suggestions
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
524
GinAZ
G
P
Sony A7R V + Tamron 50-400mm - Match made in heaven
Replies
11
Views
624
PWPhotography
P
J
So what exactly is a Tamron G2 lens.
Replies
10
Views
441
Impulses
I
Z
16+28-200 -> sony/canon + UWA (tamron 16-30, 17-50, sony 16-35, canon 14-35, 16-28)
Replies
10
Views
259
zalmanium
Z

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top