29/03/2026 5:05 pm
Topic starter
Notifications
Clear all
Tamron Forum
3
Posts
4
Users
0
Reactions
30
Views
0
Which Tamron all-in-one is actually worth the money for a Nikon Z mount setup right now? I've been a Nikon shooter for like 15 years, mostly did weddings on the D850 with the holy trinity but honestly my back is killing me and I finally made the jump to a Z7II last month. I'm trying to simplify things for an upcoming hiking trip to the Dolomites next month and I really dont want to be swapping glass in the wind and dust. I used to swear by the Tamron 28-300 back in the DSLR days even though it was a bit soft at the long end but now the landscape for Z mount feels kinda weird. I know Tamron has the 28-75mm f2.8 G2 which is great but the range is a bit short for an all-in-one for landscape and wildlife. Then there is that monster 35-150mm f2-2.8 which looks amazing but it's huge and expensive, like way over the $1100 I was hoping to spend and its not really a walkaround lens in my book. I saw that Tamron finally released the 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 for the Z mount natively but I'm seeing mixed reviews compared to the Nikon 24-200mm. Is the Nikon version just a rebranded Tamron anyway? Some people say yes, some say no, and I'm confused because the focal ranges are slightly different. I just need something that covers the wide end for the peaks but can still reach out to a random marmot if I see one without the image looking like total mush. I'm looking for that sweet spot of weight vs image quality without having to carry an FTZ adapter because that thing just adds bulk where I dont want it. Anyone actually tested these side-by-side on a high megapixel body like the Z7II? I'm worried about the corners being soft if I go with the 28-200 over something more specialized but I really want to stick to one lens for this trip...
3 Answers
12
29/03/2026 5:30 pm
Hey, caught this thread and wanted to chime in as someone who also swapped the D850 for a Z7II to save my spine. For the Dolomites, that range is tricky because you want wide for the peaks but reach for the wildlife. If you're sticking to Tamron, the Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD is really the only one that fits your all-in-one criteria and budget. It's a solid lens, but you gotta be aware of a few things:
- Tamron 28-200mm: The f/2.8 at the wide end is actually pretty unique for a superzoom. It's great if you're shooting in low light without a tripod. But, it lacks Vibration Reduction, so at 200mm you're relying entirely on the camera's IBIS. It's light though, which your back will love.
- Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR: This one starts at 24mm, which tbh is much better for landscapes. That extra 4mm sounds small but it's huge when you're standing in front of those massive peaks. Weather sealing feels a bit more robust on this one too. One thing to consider... since you have 45 megapixels to play with, the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S is actually the secret best hiking lens. It's right at $1,100 and way sharper than both the 200mm options. You can just crop the 120mm shot down to look like 200mm and it'll probably still look better than the 28-200mm does at the long end. Just keep that in mind if you want to avoid the mush you mentioned. Safe travels!
10
29/03/2026 5:40 pm
Ive spent a lot of time pixel peeping on the Z7II and honestly, those rumors about the Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR being a Tamron rebrand are just flat out wrong. I actually dug into the patent filings and optical groups a while back and they are totally different designs. The Nikon is built more specifically for the Z mount flange distance, and that 24mm wide end is a massive deal when youre shooting big landscapes like the Dolomites. 4mm doesnt sound like much but it really changes the perspective compared to 28mm. I tested the Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD on a similar body last year. While that f/2.8 start is nice for thin depth of field, it really struggles at the edges on a 45MP sensor until you stop down to f/8 anyway, which kinda defeats the purpose. Also, that Tamron lens doesnt have internal stabilization (VC). The Z7II has IBIS, sure, but at 200mm you really want the lens and body working together. The Nikon VR is noticeably steadier for handheld shots when the wind picks up on a ridge. If youre really worried about mushy corners, the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is the gold standard for travel, even if it loses that extra 80mm of reach. Its an S-line lens for a reason. But if you must have the range, the Nikon 24-200 is technically more consistent across the frame. The Tamron is a great value lens but its really showing its limits on the high-res sensors...
3
29/03/2026 5:06 pm
> I saw that Tamron finally released the 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 for the Z mount natively but I'm seeing mixed reviews compared to the Nikon 24-200mm. Honestly, I was pretty let down by the Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD on my Z7. The corners are definitely mushy at 28mm compared to the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR. It sucks because the Tamron is cheaper and faster, but for landscape peaks, youll regret those soft edges. Maybe try to find a used Nikon one to stay under your $1100 budget?
