As a photography enthusiast who’s been shooting with Sony mirrorless cameras for years, I’ve always been fascinated by the convenience of superzoom lenses. There’s something incredibly liberating about having a wide-to-telephoto range in a single package, especially when traveling or shooting events where changing lenses isn’t practical. Today, I’m putting two popular superzoom options head-to-head: the Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 and the Sony 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3.
I’ve spent countless hours shooting with both lenses in various conditions, from bustling city streets to serene landscapes. I’ve tested them in bright sunlight, challenging low-light situations, and everything in between. In this comprehensive comparison, I’ll share my hands-on experience to help you decide which lens deserves a spot in your camera bag.
Quick Overview: The Contenders
Before diving deep into the nitty-gritty details, let me give you a quick snapshot of what each lens brings to the table.
Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD
The Tamron 28-200mm is a relatively newer entrant in the Sony E-mount ecosystem, designed specifically for full-frame mirrorless cameras. It’s part of Tamron’s renewed focus on compact, high-performance optics for mirrorless systems. What immediately caught my attention when I first picked it up was its relatively compact size and light weight compared to other superzooms.
Sony 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS
The Sony 24-240mm has been around longer and was initially designed for Sony’s full-frame E-mount cameras. It’s built to cover an extremely versatile focal range, from true wide-angle to substantial telephoto. When I first used this lens several years ago, I was impressed by its versatility but noticed it was considerably larger and heavier than many other zooms.
Detailed Specifications Comparison
Let’s break down the technical specifications of both lenses to see how they stack up on paper.
| Specification | Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 | Sony 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Focal Length | 28-200mm | 24-240mm |
| Maximum Aperture | f/2.8-5.6 | f/3.5-6.3 |
| Minimum Aperture | f/16-22 | f/22-40 |
| Lens Construction | 18 elements in 14 groups | 17 elements in 13 groups |
| Special Elements | Aspherical, LD, Hybrid Aspherical | Aspherical, ED |
| Coating | BBAR | Sony’s Nano AR Coating |
| Optical Stabilization | No | Yes (OSS) |
| Autofocus | RXD (Rapid eXtra-silent stepping Drive) | Linear motor |
| Minimum Focus Distance | 0.19m (wide) – 0.8m (tele) | 0.5m (wide) – 0.8m (tele) |
| Maximum Magnification | 1:3.1 (at 200mm) | 1:3 (at 240mm) |
| Filter Size | 67mm | 72mm |
| Dimensions | 74mm x 117mm | 80.5mm x 126mm |
| Weight | 575g | 780g |
| Weather Sealing | Moisture-resistant construction | Dust and moisture resistant |
Looking at these specs, I notice several key differences right away. The Tamron offers a wider maximum aperture throughout the zoom range, which I found particularly useful in low-light situations. The Sony, on the other hand, provides a broader focal range, especially on the wide end, and includes optical stabilization.
Build Quality and Handling
When it comes to build quality, both lenses feel well-constructed, but with different design philosophies.
Tamron 28-200mm Build Quality
The first time I held the Tamron 28-200mm, I was impressed by how compact and lightweight it felt. At 575g, it’s significantly lighter than the Sony, making it a joy to carry around all day. The lens barrel is made of high-quality plastic with a metal mount, and it features a simple, clean design with minimal switches.
I discovered that the zoom ring is nicely damped, offering just the right amount of resistance. The focus ring is well-positioned and smooth, though I rarely use it manually since the autofocus is so reliable. One thing I particularly appreciate is that the lens doesn’t extend when zooming, maintaining its compact profile throughout the range.
Sony 24-240mm Build Quality
The Sony 24-240mm feels more substantial in the hand, with a weight of 780g that you definitely notice when attached to your camera. The build quality is excellent, with a mix of high-quality plastics and metal components. It features two switches on the side: one for autofocus/manual focus and another for optical stabilization.
When I first used this lens, I noticed that it extends significantly when zooming to the telephoto end, which affects balance and makes the camera feel front-heavy. The zoom ring has a nice feel to it, but I found the focus ring a bit too narrow for comfortable manual focusing.
Handling in Real-World Use
In my experience shooting with both lenses, the Tamron’s lighter weight and more compact size make it the better choice for extended shooting sessions. I recently spent a full day exploring a new city with the Tamron mounted on my Sony A7 III, and I barely noticed the weight, even after 8 hours of shooting.
With the Sony 24-240mm, I found myself needing to take more frequent breaks due to the weight, especially when shooting for extended periods with the lens extended to the telephoto end. That said, the Sony feels more robust and durable, which might be important if you’re tough on your gear.
Image Quality Comparison
Image quality is where the rubber meets the road, and both lenses have their strengths and weaknesses.
Sharpness
I’ve tested both lenses extensively, shooting everything from detailed cityscapes to portraits, and I can confidently say that the Tamron 28-200mm delivers superior sharpness throughout most of the zoom range.
At the wide end (28mm for Tamron, 24mm for Sony), the Tamron is impressively sharp even wide open at f/2.8, with only slight softening in the extreme corners. The Sony 24-240mm is reasonably sharp at 24mm when stopped down to f/8, but wide open at f/3.5, it’s noticeably softer, especially in the corners.
In the middle of the range (around 50-100mm), both lenses perform well, but the Tamron maintains its sharpness advantage, particularly when shooting wide open. I was particularly impressed with the Tamron’s performance at 135mm, where it remains remarkably sharp even at f/5.6.
At the telephoto end, the Sony 240mm focal length gives it more reach, but the Tamron’s 200mm is noticeably sharper. I found myself consistently getting more detailed shots with the Tamron at its maximum focal length compared to the Sony.
Chromatic Aberration
Chromatic aberration (CA) is a common issue with superzoom lenses, and both these lenses show some degree of it, but to different extents.
The Tamron 28-200mm handles CA surprisingly well for a superzoom. I noticed some purple fringing in high-contrast situations, particularly at the longer end of the zoom range, but it’s generally well-controlled and easily correctable in post-processing.
The Sony 24-240mm shows more pronounced CA, especially at the wide end and in high-contrast scenes. I found myself having to correct it more frequently in post-processing when using the Sony lens.
Distortion
Wide-angle zooms typically exhibit some distortion, and these lenses are no exception.
The Tamron 28-200mm shows moderate barrel distortion at 28mm, which gradually transitions to pincushion distortion as you zoom toward 200mm. The distortion is predictable and easily corrected in post-processing or automatically in-camera if you have lens correction enabled.
The Sony 24-240mm exhibits more pronounced barrel distortion at 24mm, which is expected given the wider field of view. Like the Tamron, it transitions to pincushion distortion at the telephoto end, but the distortion is more severe throughout the range.
Vignetting
Both lenses show some vignetting, particularly when shooting wide open.
The Tamron 28-200mm exhibits noticeable vignetting at f/2.8 at 28mm, but it improves significantly when stopped down by just one stop. By f/5.6, vignetting is minimal across the zoom range.
The Sony 24-240mm shows more pronounced vignetting, especially at the wide end when shooting at f/3.5. It improves when stopped down but remains more visible than with the Tamron at equivalent apertures.
Bokeh
Bokeh quality is important for portrait and close-up photography, and both lenses deliver decent results, though with different characteristics.
The Tamron 28-200mm produces pleasing bokeh, particularly in the 85-135mm range when shooting at wider apertures. The out-of-focus areas are rendered smoothly, with no harsh edges or nervousness. I’ve taken some beautiful portraits with this lens that have a lovely subject separation.
The Sony 24-240mm produces decent bokeh but with a slightly busier quality, especially at the telephoto end. When shooting at 240mm, the bokeh can be a bit nervous in high-contrast situations, though it’s still acceptable for most casual portrait work.
Autofocus Performance
Autofocus performance is crucial for capturing decisive moments, and both lenses perform well, but with some differences.
Tamron 28-200mm Autofocus
The Tamron features their RXD (Rapid eXtra-silent stepping Drive) autofocus motor, which I found to be impressively fast and nearly silent in operation. When shooting portraits or events, the autofocus locks onto subjects quickly and accurately.
I recently shot a dance performance with the Tamron, and I was impressed by how well it tracked moving subjects, even in challenging lighting conditions. The autofocus is so quiet that it’s virtually unnoticeable when shooting video, which is a significant advantage for content creators.
Sony 24-240mm Autofocus
The Sony 24-240mm uses a linear motor for autofocus, which is reasonably fast but noticeably noisier than the Tamron. In good lighting conditions, it performs well, locking onto subjects quickly and accurately.
However, I found that in low-light situations, the Sony’s autofocus can hunt more than the Tamron, occasionally struggling to find focus. When shooting video, the autofocus noise is audible in quiet environments, which might be a concern for some users.
Real-World Autofocus Experience
In my experience, the Tamron’s autofocus is superior in most situations. It’s faster, quieter, and more reliable in challenging lighting conditions. I’ve shot everything from fast-moving sports to intimate portraits with the Tamron, and it rarely disappoints.
The Sony’s autofocus is capable but shows its age compared to newer designs. It’s perfectly adequate for general photography but may frustrate users who need fast, reliable autofocus in challenging conditions.
Optical Stabilization
One significant difference between these two lenses is that the Sony includes optical stabilization (OSS), while the Tamron does not.
Sony 24-240mm OSS
The Sony’s optical stabilization system is effective, providing approximately 4.5 stops of stabilization according to Sony’s specifications. In my experience shooting with this lens, I was able to get sharp handheld shots at shutter speeds as low as 1/30s at the telephoto end, which is impressive given the lens’s focal length.
The stabilization is particularly useful when shooting video, where it helps smooth out camera movements and reduce jitter. I found it especially valuable when shooting handheld travel videos, where changing lenses frequently isn’t practical.
Tamron 28-200mm and In-Body Stabilization
The Tamron lacks optical stabilization, relying instead on the in-body stabilization (IBIS) of Sony cameras. Modern Sony cameras have excellent IBIS systems, providing 5-5.5 stops of stabilization with compatible lenses.
In my testing with a Sony A7 III and A7R IV, I found that the combination of the Tamron and the camera’s IBIS performed as well as or better than the Sony’s OSS system. I was able to get sharp handheld shots at 1/30s at 200mm, which matches my experience with the Sony lens.
The advantage of relying on IBIS is that the stabilization is synchronized with the sensor, which can provide more effective stabilization for both stills and video. However, this does mean that the Tamron won’t provide any stabilization when used on Sony cameras without IBIS, such as the original A7 models.
Low-Light Performance
Low-light performance is where the Tamron’s wider maximum aperture gives it a significant advantage.
Tamron 28-200mm in Low Light
With a maximum aperture of f/2.8 at the wide end and f/5.6 at the telephoto end, the Tamron gathers significantly more light than the Sony. I’ve shot indoor events and evening cityscapes with this lens, and I’ve been consistently impressed with its performance.
During a recent trip to a dimly lit museum, I was able to shoot handheld at ISO 1600-3200 and get clean, detailed images. The wider aperture not only allows for lower ISO settings but also provides a brighter viewfinder, making it easier to compose shots in dark environments.
Also Read: Pentax 645Z vs Fujifilm GFX 100
Sony 24-240mm in Low Light
The Sony’s narrower maximum aperture (f/3.5-6.3) means it gathers less light, requiring higher ISO settings or slower shutter speeds in low-light conditions. I found myself frequently needing to use ISO 3200-6400 when shooting indoors with this lens, resulting in more noise in my images.
That said, the Sony’s optical stabilization does help in low-light situations by allowing slower shutter speeds without introducing camera shake. However, this is only effective for static subjects, as moving subjects will still show motion blur at slower shutter speeds.
Real-World Shooting Experience
After months of shooting with both lenses in various conditions, I’ve developed a good sense of their strengths and weaknesses in real-world use.
Travel Photography
For travel photography, both lenses offer the convenience of a single-lens solution, but they excel in different ways.
The Tamron 28-200mm has become my go-to travel lens due to its compact size, light weight, and excellent image quality. On a recent trip to Europe, I carried it on my camera all day without fatigue, and I was able to capture everything from wide street scenes to compressed architectural details.
The Sony 24-240mm offers more versatility with its wider angle and longer reach, but I found its size and weight cumbersome during long days of sightseeing. That said, if you need the absolute widest angle or longest telephoto reach in a single lens, the Sony might be worth the extra weight.
Portrait Photography
For portrait photography, the Tamron is clearly the winner in my experience. Its wider maximum aperture allows for better subject separation and lower ISO settings, resulting in cleaner images with more pleasing bokeh.
I’ve shot numerous portraits with the Tamron in the 85-135mm range, and I’ve been consistently impressed with the rendering and sharpness. The autofocus is fast and accurate, making it easy to capture fleeting expressions.
The Sony 24-240mm can produce decent portraits, especially at the telephoto end, but the narrower aperture limits subject separation and requires higher ISO settings in indoor lighting.
Landscape Photography
For landscape photography, both lenses have their advantages.
The Sony’s 24mm wide end gives it an edge for capturing expansive vistas, while the Tamron’s superior sharpness and corner-to-corner performance result in more detailed images. I found myself reaching for the Sony when I needed that extra width, but choosing the Tamron when image quality was the priority.
Interestingly, I discovered that the Tamron’s 28mm starting point is often sufficient for most landscape situations, and the superior image quality more than makes up for the slightly narrower field of view.
Event Photography
Event photography is where the Tamron really shines in my experience. Its combination of wide aperture, excellent autofocus, and compact size makes it ideal for capturing both candid moments and planned shots.
I recently shot a friend’s wedding reception with the Tamron (as a second shooter), and I was impressed by how well it performed in the challenging indoor lighting. The fast autofocus allowed me to capture decisive moments, while the wide aperture kept ISO settings manageable.
The Sony 24-240mm can handle event photography, but I found myself limited by its narrower aperture and slower autofocus in low-light conditions.
Price and Value
Price is always an important consideration when choosing lenses, and there’s a significant difference between these two options.
Tamron 28-200mm Pricing
The Tamron 28-200mm typically retails for around $700-$750, making it a mid-range option in terms of price. Given its excellent image quality, compact size, and versatile focal range, I consider it to offer exceptional value for money.
Sony 24-240mm Pricing
The Sony 24-240mm is generally priced higher, typically around $900-$950. While it offers a broader focal range and includes optical stabilization, I find it harder to justify the price premium given its inferior image quality and larger size.
Value Proposition
In my opinion, the Tamron offers significantly better value for most photographers. It delivers superior image quality in a more compact package at a lower price point. The only reason to choose the Sony would be if you absolutely need the 24mm wide angle or 240mm telephoto reach, or if you’re using an older Sony camera without in-body stabilization.
Sample Image Comparisons
While I can’t show actual images in this text-based comparison, I can describe some of the differences I’ve observed when shooting similar scenes with both lenses.
Wide-Angle Comparison
When shooting cityscapes at around 28mm, the Tamron produces noticeably sharper images with better corner-to-corner detail. The colors are vibrant but natural, and distortion is minimal and easily corrected.
The Sony at 24mm captures a wider field of view, but with more pronounced distortion and softer corners. The colors are slightly warmer but still pleasing.
Mid-Range Comparison
At around 100mm, both lenses perform well, but the Tamron maintains its sharpness advantage, particularly when shooting wide open. I’ve found that portraits shot at this focal length with the Tamron have a three-dimensional quality that’s harder to achieve with the Sony.
Telephoto Comparison
At their maximum focal lengths, the difference is quite pronounced. The Tamron at 200mm delivers impressively sharp images with excellent detail and contrast. The Sony at 240mm provides more reach but with noticeably softer results, especially when shooting wide open.
Pros and Cons
To summarize my findings, here are the pros and cons of each lens based on my extensive testing.
Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD
Pros:
- Compact and lightweight design
- Wider maximum aperture throughout the zoom range
- Superior sharpness across most of the zoom range
- Fast, quiet, and accurate autofocus
- Excellent value for money
- Minimal distortion and chromatic aberration
- Doesn’t extend when zooming
Cons:
- No optical stabilization (relies on camera IBIS)
- Narrower focal range (28-200mm vs 24-240mm)
- Not as weather-sealed as some premium lenses
Sony 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS
Pros:
- Broader focal range (24-240mm)
- Built-in optical stabilization
- Weather-sealed construction
- Good color rendering
- Compatible with all Sony E-mount cameras, including those without IBIS
Cons:
- Larger and heavier
- Narrower maximum aperture
- Softer image quality, especially at the edges
- More pronounced distortion and chromatic aberration
- Higher price point
- Extends significantly when zooming
Who Should Choose Which Lens?
Based on my experience with both lenses, here’s my recommendation for who should choose each lens.
Choose the Tamron 28-200mm if:
- You prioritize image quality above all else
- You value a compact, lightweight system for travel and everyday use
- You shoot frequently in low-light conditions
- Your Sony camera has in-body stabilization
- You’re looking for the best value for money
- You shoot a lot of portraits and want better subject separation
Choose the Sony 24-240mm if:
- You absolutely need the 24mm wide angle
- You require the maximum 240mm telephoto reach
- You’re using an older Sony camera without in-body stabilization
- You frequently shoot in adverse weather conditions
- You prioritize focal range versatility over absolute image quality
- You already own the lens and are satisfied with its performance
Also Read: Nikon D850 vs Canon 5D Mark IV
Pro Photography Tips for Superzoom Lenses
Regardless of which lens you choose, here are some tips I’ve learned from years of shooting with superzoom lenses:
- Stop down for optimal sharpness: Both lenses perform best when stopped down by 1-2 stops from maximum aperture. I typically shoot at f/5.6-f/8 for the best balance of sharpness and depth of field.
- Use lens corrections: Enable in-camera lens corrections or apply them in post-processing to minimize distortion and vignetting. I’ve found that this significantly improves the final image quality.
- Be mindful of diffraction: Avoid stopping down beyond f/11 unless absolutely necessary, as diffraction will reduce overall sharpness. I rarely go beyond f/11 with either lens.
- Leverage your camera’s stabilization: If you’re using the Tamron with a camera that has IBIS, make sure it’s enabled and properly configured. I’ve found that this makes a significant difference in handheld sharpness.
- Shoot in RAW: Always shoot in RAW format to maximize your ability to correct lens aberrations and extract the best possible image quality in post-processing.
- Mind your shutter speed: As a general rule, use a shutter speed of at least 1/focal length to minimize camera shake. With practice and good technique, you can often go slower, especially with stabilization.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Tamron 28-200mm weather-sealed?
The Tamron 28-200mm features moisture-resistant construction, which provides some protection against light rain and humidity. However, it’s not as comprehensively weather-sealed as some premium Sony G Master lenses. I’ve used it in light rain without issues, but I wouldn’t trust it in heavy downpours or extreme conditions.
Does the Sony 24-240mm work well with teleconverters?
No, the Sony 24-240mm is not compatible with Sony’s teleconverters. This is common for superzoom lenses, as the additional glass elements would likely degrade image quality significantly. If you need more reach, you would need to consider a different lens option.
Which lens is better for video?
Both lenses can be used for video, but they have different strengths. The Tamron’s silent autofocus motor makes it better for situations where autofocus noise might be picked up by the camera’s microphone. The Sony’s optical stabilization provides smoother handheld footage. For my video work, I generally prefer the Tamron when shooting with a gimbal or tripod, and the Sony when shooting handheld.
Can I use these lenses on APS-C Sony cameras?
Yes, both lenses are fully compatible with APS-C Sony E-mount cameras, though they’re designed for full-frame sensors. When used on APS-C cameras, the effective focal range will be multiplied by 1.5x, resulting in approximately 42-300mm for the Tamron and 36-360mm for the Sony. I’ve used both on APS-C bodies, and they perform well, though the size and weight are more noticeable on smaller cameras.
How do these lenses compare to carrying multiple prime lenses?
While superzooms offer convenience, they can’t match the absolute image quality of high-quality prime lenses. I’ve found that the Tamron 28-200mm comes surprisingly close to prime quality in the middle of its range, but primes still have the advantage in low-light performance and background separation. The choice ultimately depends on your priorities: convenience versus ultimate image quality.
Do these lenses have focus breathing?
Both lenses exhibit some degree of focus breathing, which is common in zoom lenses. The Tamron shows minimal focus breathing in the middle of its range but becomes more noticeable at the extremes. The Sony exhibits more pronounced focus breathing throughout its range. For most still photography, this isn’t a significant issue, but it can be noticeable when shooting video.
Final Verdict
After extensively testing both the Tamron 28-200mm and Sony 24-240mm, my clear recommendation for most photographers is the Tamron 28-200mm. It delivers superior image quality in a more compact package at a lower price point. The wider maximum aperture, better sharpness, and excellent autofocus make it a more versatile lens for a wide range of photographic situations.
That said, the Sony 24-240mm still has its place. If you absolutely need the 24mm wide angle or 240mm telephoto reach, or if you’re using an older Sony camera without in-body stabilization, the Sony might be the better choice for you.
Ultimately, both lenses offer the convenience of a single-lens solution with impressive versatility. They allow you to capture a wide range of subjects without changing lenses, which can be invaluable for travel, events, and situations where speed and convenience are paramount.
I hope this detailed comparison has helped you make an informed decision about which superzoom lens is right for your photography needs. If you have any questions or would like to share your own experiences with these lenses, please leave a comment below!