Tamron 25-200mm F2.8-5.6 VXD Review: The Superzoom to Buy!

0:11
Hi, I'm Dustin Abbott and I'm here today
0:12
to give you my review of the new Tamron
0:15
25 to 200 millimeter. This is an f2.8 to
0:19
5.6
0:21
DI3 which means it's designed for
0:23
mirrorless VXD which is the voice coil
0:27
autofocus motor that's in it. And this
0:29
is a G2 or a second generation lens.
0:32
That's a lot of uh different initials in
0:35
the name there. But what we have here is
0:37
an evolution of Tamron's very popular 28
0:40
to 200 millimeter RXD lens that was
0:43
released back in 2020. I have found that
0:46
lens to be a very valuable one. And so I
0:49
was intrigued when Tamron announced not
0:51
only a G2 version but also and they that
0:54
they have increased the zoom range to
0:57
what is now an eight time zoom zoom
0:59
ratio. Now of course that doesn't quite
1:01
match Sigma's 20 to 200 millimeter
1:04
contemporary lens that was released a
1:07
about a month and a half ago. However,
1:10
that lens did have some severe
1:11
compromises to reach 20 millimeters. And
1:14
so I was very intrigued to see if Tamron
1:17
was able to mitigate some of those
1:19
compromises to produce a lens that had
1:22
some improvements relative to their
1:24
first generation lens while also pushing
1:26
the boundary on the wide end a little
1:28
bit as they have done here. And so in
1:31
today's review, we're going to explore
1:33
whether or not Tamron has been
1:34
successful in pulling that off and
1:36
whether or not this new 25 to 200
1:38
millimeter VXD is the lens in the class
1:42
to buy. Now, I'm going to be filming all
1:45
of these outdoor segments on the lens
1:47
itself to give you a sense of how it
1:48
renders, how it tracks me in these
1:50
situations. And so, we'll dive in and
1:52
take a look. I do want to say thank you
1:54
to Tamron for sending me a loaner of
1:57
this lens as always. However, they have
1:59
had no input in my review, and in fact,
2:02
they will not see it before you do. This
2:04
is completely independent. My findings
2:06
are my own. Today's episode is sponsored
2:08
by the all-new Phantom Tracker 2.0.
2:11
Phantom has not only seriously upgraded
2:13
the visual look of the card, but now we
2:15
have a superior build quality. Made with
2:17
tempered glass and metal alloys, this
2:19
credit card size tracker can be locally
2:22
tracked via a 90de beeping noise, but
2:24
also on a global level via Apple's Find
2:26
My Network and its map. The addition of
2:29
NFC means that you can also use the card
2:31
to trigger an automation. Just tap it.
2:34
The tracker fits perfectly in any wallet
2:36
or bag and assures you won't lose your
2:38
valuables. It has a built-in
2:39
rechargeable battery that can be easily
2:41
charged via any wireless charger, and a
2:44
single charge can last up to 6 months.
2:46
The Phantom Tracker 2.0 makes for a
2:48
seriously cool gift. So, visit
2:50
store.fanomwallet.com
2:52
and use code dustin20 at checkout for
2:55
20% off. That's store.fanomwallet.com
2:58
and use code dustin20 for 20% off. All
3:02
right, let's jump in and take a look at
3:03
some of the build and design features
3:05
here. And so obviously we do have a
3:08
wider focal length which now scales us
3:10
up to an eight times zoom range because
3:12
we are going all the way to the 25 mm.
3:15
And so you can see how that compares
3:17
relative to the 28 to 200 millimeter. If
3:20
I put them both on a tripod and I
3:22
compare it's a you know a very
3:24
noticeable difference between the amount
3:26
of extra framing that you can get at 25
3:28
millimeters. Now, to give you while I
3:31
don't have the Sigma side by side here,
3:33
I did do a similar comparison with the
3:35
Sigma 20 to 200 millimeter and the
3:37
Tamron. You can see it's an even more
3:39
radical difference. 20 mm is
3:41
considerably wider than what 25 mm is.
3:44
However, as I pointed out in that Sigma
3:47
review, there was a pretty severe
3:49
penalty that came, compromises that had
3:52
to be made to get all the way to 20 mm.
3:55
You can see I'm putting it up here. I've
3:56
got a chart that I've made up that takes
3:58
a look at the light gathering potential
4:00
of all three of these lenses. Now, I
4:02
will say the best remains the 28 to 200
4:05
millimeter. Tamron was a little bit more
4:07
conservative in their design at that
4:08
point, but the trade-off was is that
4:10
this lens is remarkable at how long it
4:14
holds the various uh apertures. And it's
4:17
not until you hit 147 mm that you
4:20
actually achieve the smallest minimum a
4:22
or smallest maximum aperture of the 28
4:25
to 200 mm. Things aren't nearly as rosy
4:28
on the 25 to 200 mm where you hit f5.6
4:32
at 96 mm instead. So you've got pretty
4:36
much 50 mm less before you're hitting
4:39
that smallest maximum aperture. The
4:41
Sigma, however, of course, is far worse.
4:44
And the Sigma actually hits f5.6. 6 at
4:47
51 mm and uh and then by by 85 mm it's
4:52
at f6.3 which is a smaller maximum
4:54
aperture than what either of these
4:55
lenses reaches at all. And there is of
4:58
course no f2.8 as all. And so as you
5:00
look at that chart you can see that the
5:02
sigma is just an incredibly uh dark lens
5:06
in terms of light gathering potential
5:08
particularly rel relative to the 28 to
5:10
200 but even relative to the 25 to 200
5:13
millimeter lens. And so I was afraid
5:16
that things that this would happen with
5:18
the Tamron when it moved to 25
5:20
millimeters. And while it is somewhat
5:22
disappointing, Frank, at least it's not
5:24
nearly as bad as what we saw on the
5:25
Sigma. So that is going to be your
5:28
primary negative trade-off if you're
5:30
looking at upgrading from this lens to
5:32
the new Tamron is you do lose some light
5:34
gathering potential. However, you do
5:36
gain in pretty much every other area.
5:40
Now, none of these lenses have
5:41
lens-based stabilization, and so you're
5:43
going to have to rely on in camera
5:45
corrections stabilization if your camera
5:48
is so equipped, but there really isn't
5:50
an option that's going to give you that
5:52
stabilization at the moment. We have an
5:55
expanded feature set here with the new
5:58
G2 lens. And so, it the one feature that
6:01
was shared is that both lenses had a
6:03
zoom lock on the side. And that only
6:05
locks at the wide end. But what we do
6:07
have the addition of is that we have a
6:09
customf function button and we have a
6:11
USBC port. It's weather sealed on the
6:14
outside. Now there's a little bit more
6:16
than what meets the eye. A lot of times
6:18
you see that and you think well that's
6:20
just for firmware updates. In this case
6:21
you actually have access to Tamron's
6:23
lens utility software and it allows you
6:25
to do quite a lot with this and then the
6:28
button itself. You can set that button
6:30
to a variety of different functions than
6:33
what you can within camera. And the
6:35
thing is you can assign a lens specific.
6:37
So for example, there's no AFMF switch
6:39
here, but you can make the function
6:40
button an AFMF switch if you want
6:42
something like that. What's more, you
6:44
have the ability to control the behavior
6:47
of the focus ring and a variety of ways,
6:50
whether it's going to be linear,
6:51
nonlinear, how far the focus throw is.
6:53
So you do have some customization that
6:56
you can do to this lens that you can't
6:57
do to any of the other lenses. So that
7:00
is appreciated. Now the lens has grown
7:03
very slightly relative to the 28 to 200
7:05
but not much as you can see here. Uh the
7:08
new lens is 76.2 millimeters in diameter
7:11
and so slimmer than what the Sigma lens
7:13
is. Um that's 3 in in diameter and it's
7:17
121.5 mm or 4.8 in in length and so that
7:21
is a little bit longer than the Sigma
7:23
which is 115 and change millime.
7:26
However, the Sigma does inner barrel
7:29
does extend further. it. This extends
7:31
out 70 millimeters, whereas the Sigma
7:34
extends out 75 millimeters. And so when
7:37
they're extended, it is the shorter of
7:39
the two lenses, but just be aware that
7:40
it is a little bit longer. It is the
7:42
longest of these three by a small margin
7:46
there. It weighs in at 573 g or 1.3 lbs.
7:50
And so again, a moderate, very
7:52
manageable weight. Tamron has been very
7:56
very intentional about retaining a 67
7:59
millimeter front filter thread on all
8:01
lenses possible and that is the vast
8:04
vast majority of the lenses they
8:05
produced for mirrorless at this point.
8:07
So the fact that you can share filters
8:09
with a wide variety of other Tamron
8:10
lenses is certainly an advantage. The
8:12
Sigma has a 72mm uh filter thread which
8:15
is obviously is going to be shared with
8:17
fewer lenses.
8:19
This lens also has a really thorough
8:21
degree of weather sealing for this type
8:23
of lens. There's 12 different seal
8:25
points as you can see in this diagram.
8:27
So that's five more seal points than
8:29
what you're going to find on the Sigma
8:31
and and so it's just a little bit more
8:32
robust of a weather sealing there.
8:35
Inside we have nine rounded aperture
8:38
blades. No aperture ring here. However,
8:41
um you are going to find that the zoom
8:44
ring, the two rings that are here, the
8:46
zoom ring actually works a lot smoother,
8:48
at least on the copies that I tested, I
8:50
found that the Sigma zoom ring was kind
8:52
of tight and it didn't move with
8:55
consistent pressure and so there was
8:57
just sticky points, whereas this moves
8:59
in a much smoother fashion. The manual
9:02
focus ring, it does move smoothly.
9:04
However, it doesn't have a lot of weight
9:06
to it. So, I don't find it to be the
9:08
best manual focus simulation, but it's
9:10
pretty comparable to everything else
9:12
that I've seen on this class. Now, the
9:14
new lens design, it feels more upscale
9:16
than the generation one lens, which is a
9:18
pretty bland looking lens. This one is a
9:20
little bit glossier. It's got some
9:22
sculpts to it. Um, the actual rings,
9:25
they stick out a little bit more.
9:26
They're more deeply ribbed. The whole
9:28
thing just feels more premium, which is
9:30
obviously the point. Now, interestingly
9:33
here, the included lens hood is just a
9:35
little bit more shallow, as you can see,
9:37
than what was on the original lens. Uh,
9:39
for whatever reason, they've determined
9:41
that it it doesn't need to be quite as
9:43
deep there. Unfortunately, as we're
9:44
going to see later on, flare resistance
9:46
is great. Now, it has become a trend
9:49
with a lot of zoom lenses, but certainly
9:51
with these type lenses that there are
9:53
there's a variable minimum focus
9:56
distance. Now, both the Tamron and the
9:59
Sigma claim a maximum magnification of
10:02
0.50 times. The Sigma's magnification
10:06
can be accessed anywhere between 28 and
10:08
85 millimeters. So, it's actually quite
10:11
versatile and easy to get that
10:12
magnification. Not so with the Tamron.
10:15
The Tamron here has a minimum focus
10:17
distance on the wide end of 16 cmters.
10:21
One problem. When I measured from the
10:22
sensor to the end of the lens with the
10:24
lens hood off, it was 14 cm, which means
10:27
there's no way for even the lens hood to
10:29
fit there. And as you can see here, I'm
10:31
basically right on top of my test chart
10:34
to test for that, making it almost
10:36
impossible to get proper light in there.
10:39
The end result is is garbage, frankly.
10:41
Whereas with the Sigma, I had a lot more
10:42
versatility in getting that. I found
10:44
that with the Tamron that somewhere
10:46
between 45 and 50 mm was a better way to
10:50
work with. I didn't quit quite as high
10:51
of magnification, but I got a nice even
10:54
performance, a nice flat plane of focus,
10:56
and so that's far more usable. And so,
10:58
yes, it it can achieve a maximum
11:01
magnification of 0.50 times, but that is
11:04
basically just marketing. There's not
11:06
really a lot of practical ways to
11:07
achieve that. So, that's one area where
11:09
I do like the Sigma better. Price here
11:12
is $899.
11:14
So that makes it 100 more than the 28 to
11:16
200, but 100 less than the Sigma 20 to
11:19
200 millimeter. Feels like pretty fair
11:21
value for what you're getting here.
11:23
Overall, it's a nice package. Not a
11:25
perfect package, but well executed and
11:27
does a lot of things really quite well.
11:29
So let's talk autofocus. One of the key
11:31
upgrades here is we have moved from the
11:33
RXD, which is a stepping motor from the
11:35
first generation to a VXD, which is a
11:39
voice coil style motor in this new
11:41
generation of lens. VXD stands for voice
11:43
coil extreme torque drive. And what
11:46
you've got is a more sophisticated
11:48
autofocus motor that is smoother. It's
11:51
quieter and also faster in operation.
11:53
Where that's particularly needed is on
11:55
the telephoto end. With lenses like
11:57
this, it needs far less thrust on the
11:59
wide end than what it does on the
12:01
telephoto end. And getting a higher
12:03
powered motor like this does enable it
12:05
to have a more equal performance
12:08
throughout the zoom range. What I found
12:10
in my formal test is that it's
12:11
essentially instant on the wide end, but
12:14
as you go towards the telephoto and in
12:16
indoor conditions, I found autofocus did
12:18
slow a little bit. You can see that
12:20
outdoors, it's sped back up and it's
12:23
pretty close to instantaneous back and
12:25
forth. Lens like this with variable
12:27
aperture, it's going to prefer better
12:29
light for obvious reasons. It's only
12:31
f5.6 on the telephoto.
12:34
I was really pleasantly surprised,
12:36
however, to see that when I went out, I
12:38
could not only easily acquire birds in
12:40
flight, but I could track them very
12:42
successfully. In fact, one of these
12:44
burst, uh, it was 105 frames in the
12:46
shot. And it seemed like basically every
12:48
frame was perfectly focused along the
12:51
way. Now, some people will mistake a
12:53
lens like this for because it goes to
12:55
200 millimeters that it's a dedicated
12:56
telephoto lens. It's not really. This is
12:58
a do-it-all type lens, so it's not going
13:01
to be as good as, for example, their 70
13:03
to 180 mm f/2.8 VXD lens. That is a
13:07
constant f/2.8 maximum aperture. And of
13:10
course, it has a more constrained zoom
13:12
range. And so, it's going to do better
13:14
when it comes to actual sports or
13:16
wildlife type conditions. But if you're
13:19
in decent lighting conditions, this lens
13:21
has enough thrust to get the job done.
13:23
And I think that most people are going
13:24
to be pretty pleasantly surprised with
13:26
what you get. In all of the different
13:28
situations that I used this lens, I
13:30
found that autofocus was perfectly
13:32
sufficient to the task. I have zero
13:34
reservations about it. Great job on this
13:36
Tamron. This is a nice area of
13:38
improvement. So, how about autofocus for
13:41
video work? Once again, the VXD motor
13:44
proves its worth here because you can
13:46
see in doing focus pools that they are
13:49
nicely damped. They're quick. They're
13:50
confident. no visible steps along the
13:52
way. Another thing that really stands
13:54
out to me is how low the focus breathing
13:57
is. And that allows you to really
13:59
achieve nice results because it's
14:02
there's not some obvious difference
14:04
between close and focus subjects in
14:06
terms of their size on frame. And so it
14:08
just allows those focus transitions to
14:10
be smoother and more cinematic. When I
14:12
did my hand test, I felt like it went
14:15
reasonably well, though focused uh did
14:17
on some occasions want to just kind of
14:19
predictively stay locked on my face and
14:21
not be distracted by my hand. It's more
14:23
of a camera related thing than a lens
14:25
related thing necessarily. What I also
14:27
found is that when I approached the
14:29
camera that I had no problems with the
14:32
lens quickly reacquiring if I ducked or
14:34
stepped out of frame. And so you can see
14:37
that it's doing a great job on that
14:39
front as well. One other area that I
14:41
will point out before I move on from
14:42
this subject is that I did prefer this
14:45
lens relative to the Sigma 20 to 200
14:47
when it came to the zoom action. I found
14:49
that the zoom action was a little bit
14:50
tight on the Sigma and I wasn't able to
14:53
get smooth zooms while videoing. I also
14:56
felt like the Tamron was maybe a little
14:57
bit better. It's not like a par focal
14:59
lens, but it fel felt like there wasn't
15:01
any kind of focus readjusting that was
15:03
necessarily taking place along the way.
15:06
And so I was able to zoom in and out in
15:08
a variety of situations. And I didn't
15:09
really notice like a lag with autofocus
15:12
where it kind of arriving there and then
15:13
focus arrives just a little bit later.
15:16
And so in general, I would say that I
15:18
was pleased with autofocus. And as
15:20
you've seen in these outdoor settings,
15:22
lighting is really kind of harsh today.
15:24
But um at the same time, you can see
15:26
it's having no problem in tracking me
15:28
and staying focused on me in these
15:30
various settings. All right, let's talk
15:32
image quality. Optical design is 18
15:34
elements in 14 groups, which by the way,
15:36
that's the exact same number of elements
15:38
and groups that we find on the Sigma,
15:40
but obviously a very different optical
15:42
design. Here, this design includes some
15:44
GM or glass molded aspherical elements,
15:47
LD, low dispersion, and XLD or extra low
15:50
dispersion elements as a part of it. We
15:52
can see looking at the MTF charts that
15:54
on both the wide and on the telephoto
15:56
end, it's really really strong for this
15:58
type of lens. carrying on the tradition
16:00
that we saw with the 28 to 200
16:02
millimeter. There is some astigmatism.
16:04
The in this this case it's the sagittal
16:07
axis that is really really strong at
16:09
both 25 and uh 200 mm and the meridian
16:13
axis is just a little bit weaker trails
16:14
off a little bit more. But what we see
16:17
and when I compare to the Sigma is that
16:20
you can see that at both the wide and
16:22
the telephoto end the MTFs favor the
16:25
Tamron lens. In my real world test on my
16:28
test chart, I found that the Tamron was
16:31
definitely sharper at the wide end. Not
16:34
by a huge margin, but particularly in
16:36
the corners, it is sharper there. And
16:40
then on the telephoto end, it's a little
16:42
bit of give and take. The Tamron is ever
16:44
so slightly sharper, but not really in a
16:47
meaningful kind of way. Likewise, I
16:49
found about the same thing with the 28
16:52
to 200 millimeter that on at 28 versus
16:55
25 millimeters, the 25 millimeter on the
16:58
new lens is sharper on the wide end. On
17:00
the telephoto end, pretty much a wash
17:02
there. Now, one area where the Tamron is
17:06
still has a serious advantage over the
17:08
Sigma is that the Sigma exhibits on the
17:10
wide end a pretty terrible amount of
17:14
complex distortion. And so I needed a
17:16
plus 39 to try to correct for it. But
17:19
you can see that even after correction,
17:20
it's a mess. It's just a a very complex
17:23
distortion pattern. The Tamron has far
17:26
less distortion. I only needed a plus 19
17:29
to correct. But it's also a very linear
17:31
correction. And so it just corrects in a
17:33
much cleaner fashion. And and so it
17:35
means even with the profile corrections,
17:37
it's going to look cleaner. Uh even with
17:40
that attached to it, it still has a lot
17:42
of vignette on the wide end. I needed a
17:44
plus 96 to correct, but I was able to
17:46
perfectly correct at 96. Whereas with
17:48
the Sigma, I maxed out the slider at 100
17:51
and I still could have gone further
17:52
because there was still more vignette to
17:54
correct. And so, uh, definitely an
17:56
advantage there. As you begin to zoom
17:58
in, you will find that the barrel
18:00
distortion inverts to a pin cushion
18:02
distortion. It stays throughout a lot of
18:03
the range in the place where I tested at
18:05
about a minus 7, a mild amount to
18:08
correct. It corrects in a nice linear
18:09
fashion. No problem there. and vignette
18:12
drops way down. I only needed a plus 42
18:15
to correct either at 100 millimeter or
18:18
200 millimeter. So good there. When I
18:21
tested for fringing, I got really well
18:24
controlled fringing results both on my
18:25
test chart and out in real world
18:27
situations. No issues there. I also saw
18:30
no lateral style chromatic aberrations.
18:32
When I tested for sharpness, I found
18:35
that that I got an excellent center,
18:38
really, really sharp for this kind of
18:40
lens on the wide end. I got a very
18:42
strong mid-frame, and I got good
18:44
corners. And what's more, one of my
18:46
chief complaints about the Sigma is that
18:48
even as I stopped the lens down, the
18:49
corners never really sharpened up much.
18:51
And so, I never could get great
18:53
landscape results because the corners
18:55
never really got sharp. That's not true
18:57
here with the Tamron. You can see that
18:59
it holds an advantage relative to the
19:01
Sigma. both of them at f8. And what's
19:03
more, in real world results, I liked the
19:05
corner performance a lot better. Better
19:08
detail, better contrast there in those
19:09
corners. Now, you're going to hit
19:12
defraction starting at f11. This is a
19:14
variable aperture lens, and so that
19:16
means also the minimum aperture is
19:18
variable. On the wide end, it's only
19:20
f16. By the time you get to the
19:22
telephoto end, it's f-32. So, particular
19:25
on the telephoto end, when you get all
19:26
the way to f-32, there's a vast
19:28
difference between f11 and f32. And so,
19:32
I typically say in most situations, f11
19:35
is kind of my upper limit that I
19:36
personally use for photography because
19:38
you pay a price, particularly on high
19:40
resolution bodies like I'm using um
19:42
after f11 when it comes to defraction.
19:46
Moving on through the zoom range, 50
19:47
millimeters is awesome. It looks great
19:50
all across the frame. very strong
19:52
results, very great con contrast. Uh
19:54
that's probably the area where this lens
19:56
has the biggest advantage over the
19:58
Sigma. Uh the Sigma was not great at 50
20:00
millimeters. This lens is fantastic at
20:02
50 mm. And so really, really good
20:05
results there. By the time I get to 100
20:07
millimeters, I'm less impressed. Um it's
20:10
a little less contrasty. It doesn't
20:11
sharpen up as much. And then at 200
20:15
millimeters, it's slightly better than
20:16
what it is at 100 millimeters. Kind of
20:18
the same pattern as what I saw on the
20:19
Sigma. They obviously engineered for the
20:21
you know the telephoto end and that
20:24
beginning of the telephoto range gets a
20:26
little less love in the optical design
20:28
but in this case um I found real world
20:31
200 millimeter results actually I that's
20:33
where I saw a bigger difference relative
20:35
to the Sigma my real world results were
20:37
pretty punchy really all things
20:39
considered and not as sharp in the
20:41
corners but in the rule of third zone
20:44
you know the middle two/3s looks really
20:46
really fantastic there what's more I
20:49
found that the bokeh quality was better
20:52
relative to the Sigma. In most
20:54
situations, these are variable. You
20:56
know, they're allin-one zoom with a
20:58
variable aperture. They're not going to
21:00
replace a nice prime for the overall
21:02
rendering, but I did find that I got
21:04
plenty of shots where I felt like the
21:05
bokeh looked good. And if I'm looking at
21:08
bright specular highlights, yes, there
21:10
is a little bit of busyiness inside of
21:11
them, but there's not the really hard
21:13
outlining that I saw with the Sigma. And
21:16
so, it's a nicer result. And I felt like
21:18
real world results were nicer generally.
21:21
There's some occasions where you can get
21:23
busier results because it's a smaller
21:24
maximum aperture, but in general they
21:27
looked pretty good and so I'm not
21:28
concerned about that. Colors look
21:30
excellent. Tamron has good optical glass
21:33
as does Sigma and you know these major
21:35
lens brands. So all of that looks fine.
21:37
No problems there. Flare resistance is
21:39
really strong. Impressively strong
21:42
actually. uh Tamron's BB bar two uh two
21:45
two coatings seem to be doing a great
21:46
job. The lens is very flare resistant
21:49
particularly on the wide end where it
21:50
matters the most and so in general I was
21:53
pleased with what I saw on that.
21:55
Optically my you know biggest negatives
21:57
is the fact that we've lost some light
21:59
gathering potential relative to the
22:00
older lens but outside of that it's
22:02
basically better in almost every metric
22:05
and so great job Tamron there. So my
22:09
conclusion is that I think that Tamron
22:11
has done a good job of mitigating some
22:13
of the compromises that come with
22:15
building a lens like this. The thing
22:17
that really made endeared the 28 to 200
22:20
millimeter to me back in 2020, I
22:23
actually ended up subsequently buying
22:24
one and I've used it extensively while
22:26
traveling over the last 5 years. But
22:29
what endeared it uh it to me is the fact
22:31
that it was surprisingly strong
22:33
optically for a lens like that.
22:36
typically, well, always, you're going to
22:38
be having to endure some compromises to
22:41
get that broad zoom range because it
22:43
means that the engineers, they can't
22:45
really design for a wide angle or a
22:47
telephoto or a standard lens. They've
22:49
got to engineer for all of those things.
22:51
So, there are corners that are going to
22:52
be cut. And while I love the fact on
22:55
paper that the Sigma goes all the way to
22:58
20 mm and all the extra composition
23:02
options that that brings, there is a lot
23:04
of compromises that went into that lens.
23:06
And so the more that I used it, the less
23:08
enthusiastic I became about it for that
23:11
reason. Now I recognize your mileage may
23:13
vary and maybe some of the priorities
23:14
for me are not necessarily priorities
23:16
for you. And if you're have bought that
23:18
lens or are planning to buy that lens,
23:20
absolutely go for it and enjoy it. To
23:22
me, this Tamron lens, while it isn't
23:24
nearly as dramatically wide, it also
23:27
preserves some of the integrity of what
23:29
I loved about the 28 to 200 millimeter.
23:32
Namely, that this is still a very, very
23:33
good lens optically. I felt like not
23:36
only was the sharpness better on the 25
23:38
to 200, but also the bokeh and the
23:40
general rendering is nicer. There's less
23:43
compromises when it comes to distortion
23:45
and even vignette to some degree. And
23:48
so, all of those things add up to a lens
23:49
that to me is a little bit more usable.
23:52
Now, my conclusion for those of you that
23:54
already own the 28 to 200 millimeter if
23:57
you're looking for just pure optical
23:58
improvements, I'm not sure that it's
23:59
worth buying the 25 to 200 millimeter.
24:02
It is very slightly better in some
24:04
situations, but as we've seen, it also
24:06
comes with the loss of some light
24:08
gathering uh due to just expanding the
24:11
formula from 28 to 25 mm. At the same
24:14
time, if you're more interested in
24:17
getting that wider zoom range, getting
24:20
better autofocus, getting some more
24:22
features, I certainly think that there
24:24
are compelling reasons to upgrade. I
24:26
just don't think that they solely
24:28
include an optical performance. If you
24:30
are new in the market and you're looking
24:32
for an all-in-one/travelt
24:35
type zoom, this is my pick at this
24:38
point. I feel like the 25 to 200
24:39
millimeter, it just does a lot of things
24:41
right. It gives you so much versatility.
24:44
And while you can't really access that
24:47
050 times magnification as well as you
24:51
can on the Sigma, it still has a high
24:53
degree of magnification and you can do a
24:55
lot with this lens. It really does
24:57
provide a lot of versatility. It's got
24:59
good weather sealing, great autofocus,
25:01
and so if you're thinking about a lens
25:02
and you just want to travel with one
25:04
lens, this lens is pretty sweet for
25:06
everything that it does and doing it in
25:08
a pretty compelling package. As always,
25:10
thanks for watching. Have a great day
25:12
and let the light in.

Tamron 25-200mm F2.8-5.6 VXD Review: The Superzoom to Buy!

Dustin Abbott

Sigma 50-120mm F2.8 DC OS Review | It Just Makes Sense!

SongRaw vs Viltrox Pro | 85mm Z-Mount Showdown

Laowa AF 35mm F2.8 APO Macro - A Flawed Macro Gem

7Artisans AF 18mm F2 | An APS C Pancake for $169!

The Best (Affordable) Way to Reach 600mm and 800mm on Sony

SongRaw 85mm F1.2 MS Review | Huge Lens, Huge Performance

Sony FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS Review | 600mm in Under a Kilo!

Sony FE 400mm F4.5 GM OSS Review | Lightweight Perfection!

Bluetti Elite 100 Mini Review | 1000Wh in a Small Package

Peak Design Roller Pro | A Perfect Bag at an Imperfect Price

Sigma 20-60mm F2.8-4 C Review | Your New Favorite Tiny Zoom Has Arrived

Sigma 85mm F1.2 ART Review | My New Favorite 85mm F1.2

7Artisans AF 10mm F25 MAX Fisheye Review - A Better Fisheye?

Phenyx Pro PTU-7000 Wireless Microphone System Review

Samsung 990 M.2 SSD Review | A "Budget" Alternative

Up next in 10

Tamron 25-200mm F2.8-5.6 VXD Review: The Superzoom to Buy!

Dustin Abbott