Tamron 28-200mm vs Sony 24-240: Ultimate Zoom Duel

Hey there, friends! Today, I’m excited to share my experiences with two fantastic all-in-one zoom lenses: the Tamron 28-200mm and the Sony 24-240mm. As a photographer who’s always chasing the next great shot—whether it’s a vibrant cityscape or a distant mountain peak—I know the value of a lens that can do it all without lugging around extra gear. These lenses cover wide-angle to telephoto ranges, making them perfect for travel, landscapes, or candid moments. But which one’s right for you? Let’s dive into their strengths and quirks to find out.

Over the years, I’ve used both lenses in various scenarios, from bustling urban streets to serene nature trails. In this in-depth comparison, I’ll break down their design, image quality, autofocus, stabilization, versatility, and overall value. By the end, you’ll have a clear picture of which lens suits your photography style best. Grab a coffee, and let’s get started!

Tamron 28-200mm vs Sony 24-240 Comparison

Key Specifications

Let’s kick things off with a quick look at the specs. This table sums up the core differences between these two lenses.

Aspect	Tamron 28-200mm	Sony 24-240mm
Focal Length	28-200mm	24-240mm
Max Aperture	f/2.8-5.6	f/3.5-6.3
Min Aperture	f/22-32	f/22-40
Weight	575g	780g
Stabilization	VC (Vibration Compensation)	OSS (Optical SteadyShot)
Weather Sealing	Yes (6 internal seals)	Yes (dust and moisture-resistant)
Autofocus Motor	RXD (Rapid eXtra-silent stepping Drive)	Linear Motor
Filter Size	77mm	77mm

The Tamron is lighter and boasts a brighter f/2.8 aperture at the wide end, ideal for low-light shots. The Sony offers a wider 24mm start and a longer 240mm reach, plus robust weather sealing. Both have stabilization, but their designs cater to different needs.

Design and Build Quality

When you’re out shooting all day, the feel of a lens matters. The Tamron 28-200mm is a lightweight gem at 575g, making it a breeze to carry on long hikes or city strolls. Its compact size—74mm in diameter and 117mm long when zoomed—fits easily in my bag. The lens sports a fluorine coating on the front element to repel water and grime, and it’s weather-sealed with six internal seals and a metallic mount for durability. I love the zoom lock feature, which keeps the lens from extending accidentally when I’m on the move.

The Sony 24-240mm, at 780g, feels more substantial, measuring 80.5mm in diameter and 118.5mm long. Its dust and moisture resistance makes it a trusty companion in rain or dusty trails. The metal lens bayonet ensures a secure fit, but the lack of a zoom lock means I’m extra careful when packing it. The extra weight can tire my arms after hours of shooting, especially on rugged adventures.

Both lenses have smooth zoom and focus rings, but the Tamron’s are silkier, which I find great for precise video work. The Sony’s stiffer zoom ring offers more resistance, which some might prefer to avoid accidental shifts. Both use high-quality plastics with metal accents, giving them a professional look. If portability is your priority, the Tamron wins hands-down. But for harsh conditions, the Sony’s robust build is hard to beat.

Optical Performance

When comparing the Tamron 28-200mm vs Sony 24-240mm, image quality is where the rubber meets the road. The Tamron impresses me with its sharpness, especially in the center from 28mm to 135mm, even wide open. At 200mm, sharpness dips slightly but stays impressive, and stopping down to f/8 sharpens the corners. I’ve shot crisp landscapes and portraits with it on my Sony A7RIV, and the results hold up beautifully (Dustin Abbott).

The Sony 24-240mm delivers decent center sharpness at 24mm and 50mm, but it softens noticeably at 100mm and 240mm. To get acceptable sharpness at the long end, I often stop down to f/11, which isn’t ideal in low light. Corners are softer, especially wide open, making it less suited for high-resolution sensors. If you’re pixel-peeping, the Tamron has a clear edge.

Distortion is another key factor. The Tamron shows mild barrel distortion at 28mm (+7 correction) and pincushion at 70mm (-8) and 200mm (-5), all easily corrected in post. The Sony’s distortion is more pronounced, especially at 24mm, where barrel distortion requires significant correction, potentially impacting image quality. Chromatic aberration is well-controlled in the Tamron, with minor longitudinal CA at 28mm and minimal lateral CA. The Sony shows more fringing in high-contrast scenes, requiring extra post-processing.

Bokeh is subjective, but neither lens is perfect. The Tamron can produce “onion bokeh” with bright highlights, though it’s smooth for portraits with distant backgrounds. The Sony’s bokeh is less pleasing, with a cat’s eye effect in corners. For sharpness and clarity, the Tamron is my go-to, but the Sony’s wider range offers more compositional flexibility.

Autofocus and Stabilization

Autofocus speed is critical for capturing fleeting moments. The Tamron 28-200mm’s RXD motor is fast, quiet, and accurate, locking onto subjects even in dim light. I’ve used it for street photography and video, and the silent operation is a game-changer. It slows slightly at 200mm due to the smaller f/5.6 aperture, but it’s still reliable.

The Sony 24-240mm’s linear motor is quick but lags a bit in low light compared to the Tamron. It’s competent for most scenarios, but the Tamron’s snappier autofocus gives it an edge for fast-moving subjects or video. Both lenses support Sony’s Eye AF, which I’ve found works well for portraits.

Stabilization is another key feature. The Tamron relies on in-body image stabilization (IBIS), which, on cameras like the Sony A7RIV, offers about 5 stops of shake reduction. At 200mm, it’s closer to 2.5 stops, still good for handheld shots. The Sony’s built-in Optical SteadyShot (OSS) provides up to 4 stops, which is handy on cameras without IBIS or for video. Both systems let me shoot at slower shutter speeds, but the Sony’s OSS gives it a slight advantage for non-IBIS bodies.

Versatility and Practicality

Superzoom lenses are all about versatility, and both shine here. The Tamron 28-200mm covers a wide range, perfect for landscapes, portraits, and street photography. Its f/2.8 aperture at 28mm is great for low-light shots or creating a shallow depth of field. At 575g, it’s my go-to for travel—I’ve carried it through Tokyo’s crowded streets and Iceland’s rugged trails without fatigue.

The Sony 24-240mm takes versatility further with a 24mm wide end for expansive landscapes and a 240mm reach for distant subjects like wildlife. Its weather sealing makes it reliable in rain or dust, but at 780g, it feels heavier after long shoots. The slower f/6.3 aperture at 240mm limits low-light performance compared to the Tamron’s f/5.6.

Both lenses eliminate the need to swap gear, making them ideal for travel or spontaneous shooting. If you need maximum focal range, the Sony’s 24-240mm range is unbeatable. But for portability and image quality, the Tamron is hard to top.

Real-World Scenarios

In the field, these lenses show their true colors. On a recent trip to Mont Tremblant, I used the Tamron 28-200mm almost exclusively (Dustin Abbott). Its light weight let me hike all day, capturing everything from wide lake views to distant wildlife. The f/2.8 aperture was perfect for moody forest shots at dusk, and the sharpness impressed me even on high-resolution sensors.

The Sony 24-240mm shone during a rainy shoot in the Pacific Northwest. Its weather sealing gave me confidence in wet conditions, and the 24mm wide end captured sweeping coastal vistas. At 240mm, I zoomed in on distant seabirds, though I had to stop down to f/11 for sharpness. The extra weight was noticeable after hours of shooting, but the versatility was worth it.

For street photography, the Tamron’s fast autofocus and lighter build make it my preference. For rugged adventures or when I need that extra 4mm at the wide end, the Sony steps up. Both lenses’ stabilization is a lifesaver for handheld video or low-light shots.

Price and Value

The Tamron 28-200mm offers excellent value, delivering top-notch sharpness, portability, and a fast aperture at a more accessible price point. It’s a fantastic choice for photographers who want high performance without a hefty investment. The Sony 24-240mm, as a first-party lens, comes at a premium but justifies it with its wider focal range and built-in stabilization. If budget is a concern, the Tamron is a no-brainer; if you need extra range and durability, the Sony’s worth considering.

Additional Considerations

Let’s talk compatibility. Both lenses are designed for Sony E-mount cameras, working seamlessly on full-frame models like the A7 series or APS-C bodies like the A6600. On APS-C, the Tamron’s range becomes 42-300mm, and the Sony’s is 36-360mm, offering even more telephoto reach. I’ve used both on my A7RIII and A6600, and they perform well, though the Tamron’s sharpness stands out on high-resolution sensors.

For video shooters, both lenses are solid, but the Tamron’s quieter autofocus gives it an edge for smooth, silent operation. The Sony’s OSS is a plus for handheld video on non-IBIS cameras. If you’re into macro, the Tamron’s minimum focus distance of 19cm at 28mm (0.32x magnification) is better than the Sony’s, which isn’t as close-focusing.

Filter compatibility is a win for both, as they share a 77mm filter thread, letting you use the same filters or polarizers. Neither lens has an AF/MF switch or focus hold button, keeping the design simple but functional.

Decision-Making Section

To wrap up the Tamron 28-200mm vs Sony 24-240 debate, let’s weigh the pros and cons.

Tamron 28-200mm Pros:

• Lightweight and compact (575g)
• Sharper images across the zoom range
• Faster f/2.8 aperture at 28mm
• Zoom lock for travel
• Better value for performance

Tamron 28-200mm Cons:

• No built-in stabilization (relies on IBIS)
• Slightly narrower focal range
• Bokeh can be harsh with bright highlights

Sony 24-240mm Pros:

• Wider 24mm and longer 240mm range
• Built-in OSS for non-IBIS cameras
• Robust weather sealing
• Versatile for landscapes and telephoto

Sony 24-240mm Cons:

• Heavier (780g)
• Softer images, especially at extremes
• Slower f/6.3 aperture at 240mm
• No zoom lock

If you prioritize portability, sharpness, and low-light performance, the Tamron 28-200mm is your best bet. It’s perfect for travel, street photography, or everyday shooting, especially on a budget. If you need the widest angle for landscapes or the longest reach for distant subjects, and don’t mind the weight, the Sony 24-240mm is ideal, with weather sealing for rugged conditions. Consider your camera, shooting style, and environment. Both are fantastic, so pick what aligns with your needs.

FAQ Section

1. Which lens is sharper?
   The Tamron 28-200mm offers better center sharpness, especially wide open. The Sony 24-240mm softens at longer focal lengths but improves when stopped down.
2. Can I use these on APS-C cameras?
   Yes, both work on Sony E-mount APS-C cameras, with a cropped field of view (Tamron: 42-300mm; Sony: 36-360mm).
3. Do they have image stabilization?
   The Tamron relies on IBIS; the Sony has built-in OSS, offering up to 4 stops.
4. Are they good for video?
   Both are suitable, with quiet autofocus and stabilization. The Tamron’s faster autofocus is better for dynamic video.
5. Which is better for portraits?
   The Tamron’s f/2.8 at 28-35mm offers a shallower depth of field, but both produce great portraits when zoomed in.
6. Do I need a lens hood?
   Yes, a lens hood is recommended for both to reduce flare and protect the front element.
7. How do they perform in low light?
   The Tamron’s f/2.8 at the wide end outperforms the Sony’s f/3.5, but both narrow at telephoto (f/5.6 vs. f/6.3).
8. What about build quality differences?
   The Sony’s weather sealing makes it more durable in harsh conditions; the Tamron has a zoom lock for travel.
9. Can they handle macro photography?
   The Tamron’s 19cm minimum focus distance at 28mm (0.32x magnification) is better for close-ups than the Sony.
10. Are they compatible with filters?
    Yes, both use 77mm filters, allowing you to share accessories like polarizers.