Tamron 28-200 at 200 mm vs Sony 70-300 at 300 mm

[DrJohn]

These were unprocessed from RAW files. Then, converted to jpg and reduced in size.

Some Specs:

Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD Lens for Sony E
MFR #A071
Filter 67mm
Angle of View (diagonal) 75°23'-12°21'
Dimensions (W x L) 2.91 x 4.6"
5.2” long, 5.8” with hood
Not Image Stabilized
$729
Weight 20.3 oz (1.3 pounds)

Sony FE 70-300 mm F/4.5-5.6 G OSS Lens
34 - 8 degrees
Filter 72 mm
Minimum Focus Distance 2.96 ft
Image Stabilized
ALC-SH144 Lens Hood
Front Lens Cap for 72 mm Lens, Model: ALC-F72S
3 3/8 x 5 3/4"
$1,200
s/n 1838902
30.2 oz (1.89 pounds)

 

[Jeff A]

I'm not sure what you are trying to do with these shots DrJohn??

 

[DrJohn]

If you look closely you can see that the images from the Tamron are sharper. I purchased the Tamron because it had more wide angle than the 70-300 and is lighter in weight. Great for hiking miles and miles. I do wildlife and landscape photography.

John

 

[Ralph]

Looking at the shots you have got there to me they look quite grainy especially on the lower left corner of both.
but overall I do think the Tamron has come out on top with this test.
Though is is really quite close in the final wash.

 

[DrJohn]

I should have mentioned that they were enlarged 8x.

John

 

[AlphaWorld]

It might have a better comparison to compare them at the same focal length - both at 200mm, for example.

With this comparison you either stood in the same place, and had to crop one of the images (the shorter lens) more that the other, or you had to be further away (for the longer lens) to get the images the same size.

 

[DrJohn]

I did both at 200 mm. Look at the photo again.

John