Going to keep this one short.  I just rented the following lenses:I was looking at getting the 2040/2.8 Tammy lens as it is the perfect walk around and one of these three lenses should compliment it perfectly.  My bet was on the 50-400 as I was hoping it's weight was some where between the the other two lenses. Long story short, and this should be no surprise, the best lens is the 35-150, then the 28-200, and brining up the rear 50-400. I like my lens to be no more than 600g and I had no idea how much that would play into enjoying the lenses.  But in the end, with the exception of the 35-150, these are kit lenses.  There is nothing special or exceptional about the rendering of the other two lenses, but the 35-150 is the one I want to keep shooting with even though it is heavier. I also compared these lenses to my  Sony 70350 apsc, and if you can take tiny bit of vignetting can be shot full frame up to about 150mm or so.  It compares favorably to the 28200 and 50400.I will wanted to get this place holder up I have the lenses for a few more days so will do some additional tests and will see if things change.

I'm very happy with the 28-200.

Golly, I would be very busy for a week after renting those lenses!!I hope you get a chance to shoot the 35-150 indoors for portraits in the 100-150mm range wide open.  I quit lusting after the 135GM (which I had rented for a week) after a week with the Tamron.   Well, almost.

Joe Lynch wrote:Golly, I would be very busy for a week after renting those lenses!!I hope you get a chance to shoot the 35-150 indoors for portraits in the 100-150mm range wide open. I quit lusting after the 135GM (which I had rented for a week) after a week with the Tamron. Well, almost.I will.The immediate impression it makes is that it is a very good lens.  Best Tamron I have used.  I really don't like the weight, but it is the lens I would love to use for all my sports shooting, in side and outside but the weight is an issue. What is great is it is the PERFECT pairing for the 2040/2.8 which in my mind I have all but purchased.  Going to put my grip on my a7c and see if I can make a go of it with these larger lenses...

jhunna wrote:Going to keep this one short. I just rented the following lenses:I was looking at getting the 2040/2.8 Tammy lens as it is the perfect walk around and one of these three lenses should compliment it perfectly. My bet was on the 50-400 as I was hoping it's weight was some where between the the other two lenses. Long story short, and this should be no surprise, the best lens is the 35-150, then the 28-200, and brining up the rear 50-400. I like my lens to be no more than 600g and I had no idea how much that would play into enjoying the lenses. But in the end, with the exception of the 35-150, these are kit lenses. There is nothing special or exceptional about the rendering of the other two lenses, but the 35-150 is the one I want to keep shooting with even though it is heavier. I also compared these lenses to my Sony 70350 apsc, and if you can take tiny bit of vignetting can be shot full frame up to about 150mm or so. It compares favorably to the 28200 and 50400.I will wanted to get this place holder up I have the lenses for a few more days so will do some additional tests and will see if things change.Weight is a significant factor for me!I only have two lenses above 600 g, the 24-105/4 (663 g) and the Tamron 70-180/2.8 (810 g), because they are so versatile for what I need.The 28-200mm Tamron was a wonderful discovery for me. It's light enough to carry around and it has the best IQ I've ever seen for a super zoom. It pairs very well with the 20-40/2.8 Tamron that I use a lot.

wonder how the 50-400 compares to the 70-300 i am thinking of replacing with..

Desh Wasi wrote:wonder how the 50-400 compares to the 70-300 i am thinking of replacing with..I should have ordered that one instead of the 28-200, but my guess is that it is lighter...  and Mark Galer noted the 70-300 is pretty sharp.

I agree the 28-200 doesn’t have stellar character, but it’s pretty fast and sharp for the price and size.The 50-400 is not as impressive as initial reviews suggested, not a great choice for people looking to use it at the long end imo.agree, the 35-150 is a beauty, but at 2kg and 2k$, the 20-700 gives it a good run for the money.

SafariBob wrote:I agree the 28-200 doesn’t have stellar character, but it’s pretty fast and sharp for the price and size.The 50-400 is not as impressive as initial reviews suggested, not a great choice for people looking to use it at the long end imo.agree, the 35-150 is a beauty, but at 2kg and 2k$, the 20-700 gives it a good run for the money.This is dead on right.  I am not understanding why people are so high on the 50-400.  I bit lighter/smaller and it would be the perfect compliment to the 2040/2.8 which is what I am looking for.35-150  I just don't want to carry it...The 28-200 is nice just not long enoughGoing to do some real tests over the weekend, and then respond, none of these are the "wow" lenses I was hoping they would be.Thinking Sony 2070/4 and 70-200gm/2+2x tcl is the way to go...

jhunna wrote:35-150 I just don't want to carry it...I feel your pain.  That was exactly my response after getting the A1 and 35-150.  So I bought 24/45/85 primes, and a 28-75 G2 zoom.  But, after a year of almost daily shooting, I couldn't ever leave the 35-150 home.  So, for me, "I just don't want to carry it" morphed in to "I just can't leave it at home".And 2/3 of my use is on a tripod close to a vehicle, so the 35-150 weight and size are OK for me most of the time.  But, as an avid m43 Olympus owner, I do sympathize over the consideration of weight and size of this lens.  Best of luck to you in your decisions.

SafariBob wrote:I agree the 28-200 doesn’t have stellar character, but it’s pretty fast and sharp for the price and size.The 50-400 is not as impressive as initial reviews suggested, not a great choice for people looking to use it at the long end imo.I am watching the 50-400 Tamron and where is it you are reading not as good as original reviews— I would be wanting to use  through its whole range including 400 on the A7IV.

WhistlerNorth wrote:SafariBob wrote:I agree the 28-200 doesn’t have stellar character, but it’s pretty fast and sharp for the price and size.The 50-400 is not as impressive as initial reviews suggested, not a great choice for people looking to use it at the long end imo.I am watching the 50-400 Tamron and where is it you are reading not as good as original reviews— I would be wanting to use through its whole range including 400 on the A7IV.Recommend doing the lens comparison tool at the digital picture. It’s my go to for all lens inquiries

Desh Wasi wrote:wonder how the 50-400 compares to the 70-300 i am thinking of replacing with..Which 70-300? If the Sony G or the Tamron, The 50-400 seems likely to perform as well as that. I’m not sure it will perform better - which begs the question of weight vs benefits.

SafariBob wrote:WhistlerNorth wrote:SafariBob wrote:I agree the 28-200 doesn’t have stellar character, but it’s pretty fast and sharp for the price and size.The 50-400 is not as impressive as initial reviews suggested, not a great choice for people looking to use it at the long end imo.I am watching the 50-400 Tamron and where is it you are reading not as good as original reviews— I would be wanting to use through its whole range including 400 on the A7IV.Recommend doing the lens comparison tool at the digital picture. It’s my go to for all lens inquiriesI had read reviews from this site before and my interpretation is that the Tamron  50-400 is rated well and certainly no one expects it to out perform the Sony 100-400 GM at 400 mm. Advantage is size, weight, cost  and 67mm lens.  So for the price it does  shine. I have the Sigma 100-400DN and what I am trying to decide is,  whether the Tamron is worth upgrading to as have ruled out the Sony due to its size and weight more than the Sony’s cost. Though one does appreciate getting quality at a good price.  I am still looking for feedback from the people that are buyers of the new Tamron lenses as it definitely is selling well as noted in article.

WhistlerNorth wrote:SafariBob wrote:WhistlerNorth wrote:SafariBob wrote:I agree the 28-200 doesn’t have stellar character, but it’s pretty fast and sharp for the price and size.The 50-400 is not as impressive as initial reviews suggested, not a great choice for people looking to use it at the long end imo.I am watching the 50-400 Tamron and where is it you are reading not as good as original reviews— I would be wanting to use through its whole range including 400 on the A7IV.Recommend doing the lens comparison tool at the digital picture. It’s my go to for all lens inquiriesI had read reviews from this site before and my interpretation is that the Tamron 50-400 is rated well and certainly no one expects it to out perform the Sony 100-400 GM at 400 mm. Advantage is size, weight, cost and 67mm lens. So for the price it does shine. I have the Sigma 100-400DN and what I am trying to decide is, whether the Tamron is worth upgrading to as have ruled out the Sony due to its size and weight more than the Sony’s cost. Though one does appreciate getting quality at a good price. I am still looking for feedback from the people that are buyers of the new Tamron lenses as it definitely is selling well as noted in article.https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1632&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=1536&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0the sigma is much better at 400mm imo. I got the impression from initial reviews and samples that  the tamron was comparable or better.

SafariBob wrote:WhistlerNorth wrote:SafariBob wrote:WhistlerNorth wrote:SafariBob wrote:I agree the 28-200 doesn’t have stellar character, but it’s pretty fast and sharp for the price and size.The 50-400 is not as impressive as initial reviews suggested, not a great choice for people looking to use it at the long end imo.I am watching the 50-400 Tamron and where is it you are reading not as good as original reviews— I would be wanting to use through its whole range including 400 on the A7IV.Recommend doing the lens comparison tool at the digital picture. It’s my go to for all lens inquiriesI had read reviews from this site before and my interpretation is that the Tamron 50-400 is rated well and certainly no one expects it to out perform the Sony 100-400 GM at 400 mm. Advantage is size, weight, cost and 67mm lens. So for the price it does shine. I have the Sigma 100-400DN and what I am trying to decide is, whether the Tamron is worth upgrading to as have ruled out the Sony due to its size and weight more than the Sony’s cost. Though one does appreciate getting quality at a good price. I am still looking for feedback from the people that are buyers of the new Tamron lenses as it definitely is selling well as noted in article.https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1632&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=1536&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0the sigma is much better at 400mm imo. I got the impression from initial reviews and samples that the tamron was comparable or better.Well Safari Bob, with that comparison I should stay with my Sigma or buck up and buy the Sony. My luck I would get the current Sony 100-400GM and Sony will bring out a newer compact version. Had that when I bought the Sony a6500, waited and waited but needed for a Galapagos trip and 4 months later the a6600 arrives.  I now have the Sony A7IV and pretty happy with 33MP as the larger files of the A7RV are really too large for me. I do shoot in raw and like the results. First world problem.

WhistlerNorth wrote:SafariBob wrote:WhistlerNorth wrote:SafariBob wrote:WhistlerNorth wrote:SafariBob wrote:I agree the 28-200 doesn’t have stellar character, but it’s pretty fast and sharp for the price and size.The 50-400 is not as impressive as initial reviews suggested, not a great choice for people looking to use it at the long end imo.I am watching the 50-400 Tamron and where is it you are reading not as good as original reviews— I would be wanting to use through its whole range including 400 on the A7IV.Recommend doing the lens comparison tool at the digital picture. It’s my go to for all lens inquiriesI had read reviews from this site before and my interpretation is that the Tamron 50-400 is rated well and certainly no one expects it to out perform the Sony 100-400 GM at 400 mm. Advantage is size, weight, cost and 67mm lens. So for the price it does shine. I have the Sigma 100-400DN and what I am trying to decide is, whether the Tamron is worth upgrading to as have ruled out the Sony due to its size and weight more than the Sony’s cost. Though one does appreciate getting quality at a good price. I am still looking for feedback from the people that are buyers of the new Tamron lenses as it definitely is selling well as noted in article.https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1632&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=1536&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0the sigma is much better at 400mm imo. I got the impression from initial reviews and samples that the tamron was comparable or better.Well Safari Bob, with that comparison I should stay with my Sigma or buck up and buy the Sony. My luck I would get the current Sony 100-400GM and Sony will bring out a newer compact version. Had that when I bought the Sony a6500, waited and waited but needed for a Galapagos trip and 4 months later the a6600 arrives. I now have the Sony A7IV and pretty happy with 33MP as the larger files of the A7RV are really too large for me. I do shoot in raw and like the results. First world problem.Wouldn’t upgrade

These lenses are heavy on my A7C so I had to add my small rig grip. Once I did that, the balance was fine, and the weight wasn't an issue.Thoughts:35-150 yeah. Its a really nice lens. The 2.8 comes in handy, and to be honest if I had one of the regular Sony bodies this would be on my camera a lot. I can literally shoot anything with this lens. Inside flash, outside sunlight, portrait, video. It is just a good all around lens. I need to check my focus speed as it was a bit slow, but I probably had it set that way for some other lens. If I was going to pair any of these lenses with the 2040/2.8 this would be it. Believe the hype.50-400 Outside, it is a pretty good lens. It isn't what I wanted inside with flash which is where I thought this would be a good lens. When I photograph layers with flash I could never get the scene exposed like I wanted. Ie my subject would be right and the background dark, or vide versa. This was the case with direct, spread, soft and bounce flash. I am sure given some more time I could work it out, but I have other lenses that are better at this. I don't do a lot of telephoto/birding and my 70350 is more than enough even in apsc mode shooting 4k photos. The 70350 is sharper and lighter, and the difference is noticeable.28200 Good solid lens. Really is the perfect kit lens as you can get all sorts of good shots with it. It works well with my flash indoors, good lens outside. Portrait/indoor/outside telephoto/video... really is a work horse lens and deserves its reputation.I did this comparison because I really want to upgrade my 1655/2.8 and 20/1.8 lenses to 14GM and either 2070/4 that's coming out or the Tammy 2040/2.8 (which I really loved). But I have to get that 2070/4 in to see how I like it, but that 70350 apsc for video and 4k photos is a wonderful lens on the A7C, but the Tammy's are solid.

I was pretty sure you would like the results from the 35-150, just not the weight or size.Good to read how much you liked the 28-200!  But I'm done with buying lenses for the one and only Sony FF body I have.  I'll live with the 20-40, 35-150, and (sometimes) 150-500 Tamrons and just use primes or my m43 gear for long and/or light.  They are all good.

Joe Lynch wrote:I was pretty sure you would like the results from the 35-150, just not the weight or size.Good to read how much you liked the 28-200! But I'm done with buying lenses for the one and only Sony FF body I have. I'll live with the 20-40, 35-150, and (sometimes) 150-500 Tamrons and just use primes or my m43 gear for long and/or light. They are all good.Yeah that's a good setup right there. I would use the 2040 90% of the time.  Because of size and speed.