Reading mode: Light Dark

Tamron 25-200mm F2.8-F5.6 G2 Part II (Release Date Nov 20th)

Go to last post
BrentSchumer

BrentSchumer

Senior Member
Messages
4,795
Solutions
2
Reaction score
4,393
Tamron product page (Tamron Website)

It looks like the prior thread is full, so I'm starting a new thread as more information about this lens comes out.

As a recap, this is the successor to the unique Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6, a lens that bucked conventional superzoom properties by dropping some of the wide end to deliver a suprisingly sharp and bright lens that stopped down gradually, hitting F4.5 ~113mm. The G2 gives us faster focusing motors, closer macro capability, 25mm instead of 28mm on the wide end, and some IQ improvements. It also offers a customizable button and a USB-C port to configure lens options and update the firmware. But it is also slower than the previous version:

25-200mm G2

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

28-200mm G1

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

One of the better review videos with comparison to the G1 and the Sigma 20-200mm is this German video that can be viewed with an automated English translation: Click here (Youtube)

It looks like this lens is making it to western reviewers including the American Northrups (YouTube) though that review is more of an advertisement than anything quantitative.

Some outstanding questions:
  • What is the typical IQ difference between this lens, the previous lens, and the Sigma option in different shooting conditions?
  • How does the autofocus compare to the Sigma and Tamron options?
  • How sealed is that USB-C port?
  • Will there be sufficient quantity available across regions at launch?
Personally, I have a mixed response to this lens. the 28-200mm is an amazing travel lens due to how much light you get from it, and I was primarily hoping for lens stabilization, faster AF, and a bit better IQ as possible (particularly contrast at 200mm) at the previous range and apertures. Instead we got a wider lens design with less light and better macro magnification. Overall I'm leaning towards the upgrade if the G2 gives us better center crops, but a 28-200mm G2 with VR would have been the stronger lens. The biggest problems with the G1 model were slow focusing and high ISO when shooting at higher focal lengths, and one of these issues actually got worse with the V2.
 
I’m keeping an eye on the international YouTube reviews as they arrive. So far it does seem like there is an improvement in IQ. Fingers crossed.



Like you I was happy with 28mm but sooo many people on forums complain it’s not wide enough that I suspect that compelled them to prioritise a wider FL.



Plus there is the general trend to wider FLs now we have such high resolution bodies (for cropping) and effective corrections.
 
BrentSchumer said:
Tamron product page (Tamron Website)

It looks like the prior thread is full, so I'm starting a new thread as more information about this lens comes out.

As a recap, this is the successor to the unique Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6, a lens that bucked conventional superzoom properties by dropping some of the wide end to deliver a suprisingly sharp and bright lens that stopped down gradually, hitting F4.5 ~113mm. The G2 gives us faster focusing motors, closer macro capability, 25mm instead of 28mm on the wide end, and some IQ improvements. It also offers a customizable button and a USB-C port to configure lens options and update the firmware. But it is also slower than the previous version:

25-200mm G2

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

28-200mm G1

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

One of the better review videos with comparison to the G1 and the Sigma 20-200mm is this German video that can be viewed with an automated English translation: Click here (Youtube)

It looks like this lens is making it to western reviewers including the American Northrups (YouTube) though that review is more of an advertisement than anything quantitative.

Some outstanding questions:
  • What is the typical IQ difference between this lens, the previous lens, and the Sigma option in different shooting conditions?
  • How does the autofocus compare to the Sigma and Tamron options?
  • How sealed is that USB-C port?
  • Will there be sufficient quantity available across regions at launch?
Personally, I have a mixed response to this lens. the 28-200mm is an amazing travel lens due to how much light you get from it, and I was primarily hoping for lens stabilization, faster AF, and a bit better IQ as possible (particularly contrast at 200mm) at the previous range and apertures. Instead we got a wider lens design with less light and better macro magnification. Overall I'm leaning towards the upgrade if the G2 gives us better center crops, but a 28-200mm G2 with VR would have been the stronger lens. The biggest problems with the G1 model were slow focusing and high ISO when shooting at higher focal lengths, and one of these issues actually got worse with the V2.
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm going with the 20-200 initially, I can then carry 1 or 2 Viltrox/Sigma primes eg 14f4, 35f2(Sig) or 50f2 or 85f2 and cover most stuff. Ultimately I wanted a lighter/smaller 24-200 set-up with better close-up and AF than the Canon 24-240 on the R5ii, the Tamron is probably slightly better iq overall but the slower f stops and 25mm just makes the 20mm option more appealing as an all in one and provides more options without needing to swap. Samyang 14-24 2.8 and Sigma 20-200 also makes a very interesting landscape lens duo too.
 
suzuka94 said:
I’m keeping an eye on the international YouTube reviews as they arrive. So far it does seem like there is an improvement in IQ. Fingers crossed.

Like you I was happy with 28mm but sooo many people on forums complain it’s not wide enough that I suspect that compelled them to prioritise a wider FL.

Plus there is the general trend to wider FLs now we have such high resolution bodies (for cropping) and effective corrections.
Click to expand...
I've just thrown the Tamron 20mm in my bag with the 28-200mm, as it's almost a "free" lens with it's size.

I've also stitched shots at 28mm, occasionally.

Blowing up the apertures for 3mm seems nuts.
 
BrentSchumer said:
suzuka94 said:
I’m keeping an eye on the international YouTube reviews as they arrive. So far it does seem like there is an improvement in IQ. Fingers crossed.

Like you I was happy with 28mm but sooo many people on forums complain it’s not wide enough that I suspect that compelled them to prioritise a wider FL.

Plus there is the general trend to wider FLs now we have such high resolution bodies (for cropping) and effective corrections.
Click to expand...
I've just thrown the Tamron 20mm in my bag with the 28-200mm, as it's almost a "free" lens with it's size.

I've also stitched shots at 28mm, occasionally.

Blowing up the apertures for 3mm seems nuts.
Click to expand...
And that's exactly why I think Sigma is the best option (for me anyway), having 20-200mm on tap with 50/60mp resolution just means I can just go with one lens if I want on a1ii or a7cr and/or take a prime that really does offer something different or even already fitted to the a7cr if the a1ii has the 20-200, eg the the viltrox 85f2 or 14mm f4 or even the 16 1.8 and not worry about any lens swaps but have another option ready to go at will.

I think Tamron messed up, either just make the 28-200 better or just don't bother at all!
 
BrentSchumer said:
suzuka94 said:
I’m keeping an eye on the international YouTube reviews as they arrive. So far it does seem like there is an improvement in IQ. Fingers crossed.

Like you I was happy with 28mm but sooo many people on forums complain it’s not wide enough that I suspect that compelled them to prioritise a wider FL.

Plus there is the general trend to wider FLs now we have such high resolution bodies (for cropping) and effective corrections.
Click to expand...
I've just thrown the Tamron 20mm in my bag with the 28-200mm, as it's almost a "free" lens with it's size.

I've also stitched shots at 28mm, occasionally.

Blowing up the apertures for 3mm seems nuts.
Click to expand...
It's a third of a stop for the most part. I'd hardly call that 'blowing up'. And you get better bokeh so I really doubt you'll notice much difference at all. But you do get more range at the end where it matters most, better macro, better af and more sharpness. All in all it's a pretty good trade off for a lot of people, me included.
 
Last edited:
BrentSchumer said:
suzuka94 said:
I’m keeping an eye on the international YouTube reviews as they arrive. So far it does seem like there is an improvement in IQ. Fingers crossed.

Like you I was happy with 28mm but sooo many people on forums complain it’s not wide enough that I suspect that compelled them to prioritise a wider FL.

Plus there is the general trend to wider FLs now we have such high resolution bodies (for cropping) and effective corrections.
Click to expand...
I've just thrown the Tamron 20mm in my bag with the 28-200mm, as it's almost a "free" lens with it's size.

I've also stitched shots at 28mm, occasionally.

Blowing up the apertures for 3mm seems nuts.
Click to expand...
In such scenarios such as in zodiac boats, stitching or keep swapping lenses simply are impractical :-)

That's the reason I will get one between Tamron 25-200 and Sigma 20-200 for my booked Svalbard cruise trip in next June, after selling 100-400 GM and 200-600 G (replaced with 300 GM /w TCs). As otherwise I'd need 3 sets, 20-70 G on A7r V, 70-200 G II on A7 IV and 300 GM /w TCs on A1, bulky and difficult in handling in zodiac boats. 600mm is much needed at least for polar bears if having opportunities, while 300GM+1.4x TC will be great for compressed landscape or closer wildlife as did last time with 100-400 GM. Keep swapping lenses in bump zodict is risky and would miss many opportunities.

But we all have different priorities in different usages so choose whatever best respectively. I have not owned a superzoom over decade. My last copy was Canon EF 24-105L IS, then further ago Nikon DX 18-200 on D50.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
I bought a brand new 28-200 a couple months ago (bit of bad timing), to replace my 20-70mm. And the reasons why I replaced it were:
  1. For my shooting style, I was using 28mm and up more than anything wider.
  2. 70mm was really restricting forcing me to change lenses to the 50-300 then having to go back shortly after. Hated that. Especially when windy or rainy.
  3. For wider, I shot at 20mm and often it wasn't wide enough.
  4. I prefer a 3-4 frame vertical pano rather than super wide to avoid distortion
So my thought process was that the 28-200mm made more sense to me than the 20-70mm, and for wider shots I can grab either a Tamron 16-30mm, a Tamron 17-28mm or a Viltrox 14mm depending on my budget.

So I don't feel that upgrading from the 28-200mm makes too much sense for me right now.
 
My current travel kit is the 28-200 and the 16-30 f2.8 (with A7CR). I started using this combination quite recently and I’m very satisfied with it. I can’t really see a reason to switch to the new lens. 25 still isn’t wide enough for everything, and the fact that it’s slower across the zoom range is a disadvantage. No stabilization so no advantage there over the old lens. The only thing that might make me consider it would be significantly better IQ, but I haven’t seen evidence of that so far.
 
alphaZ said:
BrentSchumer said:
suzuka94 said:
I’m keeping an eye on the international YouTube reviews as they arrive. So far it does seem like there is an improvement in IQ. Fingers crossed.

Like you I was happy with 28mm but sooo many people on forums complain it’s not wide enough that I suspect that compelled them to prioritise a wider FL.

Plus there is the general trend to wider FLs now we have such high resolution bodies (for cropping) and effective corrections.
Click to expand...
I've just thrown the Tamron 20mm in my bag with the 28-200mm, as it's almost a "free" lens with it's size.

I've also stitched shots at 28mm, occasionally.

Blowing up the apertures for 3mm seems nuts.
Click to expand...
And that's exactly why I think Sigma is the best option (for me anyway), having 20-200mm on tap with 50/60mp resolution just means I can just go with one lens if I want on a1ii or a7cr and/or take a prime that really does offer something different or even already fitted to the a7cr if the a1ii has the 20-200, eg the the viltrox 85f2 or 14mm f4 or even the 16 1.8 and not worry about any lens swaps but have another option ready to go at will.

I think Tamron messed up, either just make the 28-200 better or just don't bother at all!
Click to expand...
I might rent the 20-200mm on my November trip instead of the 25-200mm (given that the latter won't be available). My partner hates lens swaps, and I can see what the weak apertures are like in practice.

Still a damn shame that neither lens is stabilized.
 
As noted by others, this amounts to a 1/3 of a stop for most of the range 28-147, excepting 73-78mm and 96-113mm, where it is 2/3's of a stop difference. For me and the things I shoot (mostly outdoors in daylight), that is an acceptable cost for linear focus motors, a wider focal range, and better magnification. But that's just me.


Here's a quick plot using ChatGPT, for the 28-200mm range.

e04ba95ded504544885bc84fdb514ed0.jpg.png
 
Last edited:
Morgenstond said:
BrentSchumer said:
suzuka94 said:
I’m keeping an eye on the international YouTube reviews as they arrive. So far it does seem like there is an improvement in IQ. Fingers crossed.

Like you I was happy with 28mm but sooo many people on forums complain it’s not wide enough that I suspect that compelled them to prioritise a wider FL.

Plus there is the general trend to wider FLs now we have such high resolution bodies (for cropping) and effective corrections.
Click to expand...
I've just thrown the Tamron 20mm in my bag with the 28-200mm, as it's almost a "free" lens with it's size.

I've also stitched shots at 28mm, occasionally.

Blowing up the apertures for 3mm seems nuts.
Click to expand...
It's a third of a stop for the most part. I'd hardly call that 'blowing up'. And you get better bokeh so I really doubt you'll notice much difference at all. But you do get more range at the end where it matters most, better macro, better af and more sharpness. All in all it's a pretty good trade off for a lot of people, me included.
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to agree, pair it with a 14/4 and you've got 14 & 21 covered there... I think the newer Tamron still makes sense as an overall solution that can remain reasonably fast in lower light or for some environmental portraits. OTOH the Sigma can mean less lens swaps and that's worth everything for many. Pick your compromise IMO, no amount of sweating over IQ will matter more than that.
 
Last edited:
I was warming towards the Sigma 20-200 but this review by Mads Peter Iversen made me think otherwise.

I think the Tamron 25-200 would have to show a lot of improvements over the 28-200 to make me upgrade. Not so worried about the slight changes in aperture vs focal length.



The other thought with the 25-200 is regarding the max magnificatio ratio I would love to know what that is in the middle of the range at the moment I believe 1:1.9 is acheivable at 25mm resulting in extremely short focusing distance from the front element.
 
Last edited:
Nusratty said:
I was warming towards the Sigma 20-200 but this review by Mads Peter Iversen made me think otherwise.
Click to expand...
What part of that review changed your mind?
 
Nusratty said:
I was warming towards the Sigma 20-200 but this review by Mads Peter Iversen made me think otherwise.

I think the Tamron 25-200 would have to show a lot of improvements over the 28-200 to make me upgrade. Not so worried about the slight changes in aperture vs focal length.
The other thought with the 25-200 is regarding the max magnificatio ratio I would love to know what that is in the middle of the range at the moment I believe 1:1.9 is acheivable at 25mm resulting in extremely short focusing distance from the front element.
Click to expand...
Such superzoom is hard if possible to be quite sharp from end to end even stopped down. It depends on which end is more important to you. I will patiently wait creditable reviews and owners experiences in next few months till Spring next year when I'd decide which one to purchase. I will use a such lens in bright daylight such as in Svalbard cruise trip from zodiac boats when the daylight will be very long so even F8/9 will not be an issue. I will still carry 20-70 G (likely 70-200 G II as well) in the trip that will be used from the ship and in the week prior abording cruise ship in Norwegian fjords and some other most famous landscape areas.
 
Last edited:
BrentSchumer said:
Nusratty said:
I was warming towards the Sigma 20-200 but this review by Mads Peter Iversen made me think otherwise.
Click to expand...
What part of that review changed your mind?
Click to expand...
There is some distinct and very ugly artefacts on some of the samples he shows. I dont think I've ever seen anything like it on my Tamron 28-200. In particular some real nasty fringing and also some semi hard edge vignetting. The corners on a few images at the wide end don't just look soft but almost like seeing double.
 
BrentSchumer said:
Tamron product page (Tamron Website)

It looks like the prior thread is full, so I'm starting a new thread as more information about this lens comes out.

As a recap, this is the successor to the unique Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6, a lens that bucked conventional superzoom properties by dropping some of the wide end to deliver a suprisingly sharp and bright lens that stopped down gradually, hitting F4.5 ~113mm. The G2 gives us faster focusing motors, closer macro capability, 25mm instead of 28mm on the wide end, and some IQ improvements. It also offers a customizable button and a USB-C port to configure lens options and update the firmware. But it is also slower than the previous version:

25-200mm G2

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

28-200mm G1

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

One of the better review videos with comparison to the G1 and the Sigma 20-200mm is this German video that can be viewed with an automated English translation: Click here (Youtube)

It looks like this lens is making it to western reviewers including the American Northrups (YouTube) though that review is more of an advertisement than anything quantitative.

Some outstanding questions:
  • What is the typical IQ difference between this lens, the previous lens, and the Sigma option in different shooting conditions?
  • How does the autofocus compare to the Sigma and Tamron options?
  • How sealed is that USB-C port?
  • Will there be sufficient quantity available across regions at launch?
Personally, I have a mixed response to this lens. the 28-200mm is an amazing travel lens due to how much light you get from it, and I was primarily hoping for lens stabilization, faster AF, and a bit better IQ as possible (particularly contrast at 200mm) at the previous range and apertures. Instead we got a wider lens design with less light and better macro magnification. Overall I'm leaning towards the upgrade if the G2 gives us better center crops, but a 28-200mm G2 with VR would have been the stronger lens. The biggest problems with the G1 model were slow focusing and high ISO when shooting at higher focal lengths, and one of these issues actually got worse with the V2.
Click to expand...
I was really intrigued by the announcement of the new 25-200. The 28-200 was interesting for its bright aperture but put me off with the rather slow AF and the lack of a true wide angle. But 5.6 from 96mm on is a dealbreaker for me. I'll keep my 24-105 F4 for landscapes and nice portraits (105mm F4).
 
A bit brighter lens is nice of course. The difference isn't that huge though, and for me this is a lens calling for a prime or two next to it anyway.

A lens going a bit wider is nice as well, however, I can do a lot of stuff with 28mm as my widest focal length.

I like a faster AF, however, a brighter aperture zoom (or prime) is the best option for freezing action anyway.

All in all, the price difference might be the biggest differentiator for me. I can get the 28-200mm grey market for 480 euro, whereas a new 25-200mm with European warranty costs me 849 euro. I think I will wait to see what the 25-200mm will cost when it becomes available at the grey market, but for now it's pretty significant.

On stabilization: the most portable lenses have no stabilization, and the most compact bodies have the weakest stabilization. In a way, not bringing the most compact body allows for a less heavy lens, as the better IBIS of the body makes up somewhat for the lack of stabilization of the less heavy lens.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Tamron 28-200mm vs Sony 28-60mm
2 3
Replies
54
Views
9K
thunder storm
T
Satyaa
Opinions on 400mm zooms for Z7ii ??
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
olyflyer
olyflyer
G
Rocky Mountain National Park my Cameras/Lens Best Choice for Hikes
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
rashid7
rashid7
shidan
  • User review User review
Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 Di III RXD compared to Sony zoom lenses
Replies
10
Views
3K
ihasa
ihasa
Samuel Dilworth
Tamron 70–180 mm f/2.8 G2 versus ‘G1’ and other questions
Replies
7
Views
2K
Meh007
M

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