Im taking my A7IV to Iceland soon and need one solid zoom lens. I saw the Tamron 28-200 is great for range but some say the Sigma 24-70 Art is way sharper for landscapes. Budget is around $900 so the GM lenses are too pricey. Is the extra reach really worth giving up that f2.8 constant aperture?...
Look, I've been shooting Sony for a decade and Iceland is an absolute beast of a location! Tbh, if you're hiking through those insane winds and horizontal rain, the last thing you want is to be swapping lenses while your Sony A7IV sensor gets blasted by arctic mist. I took that exact body to the Faroe Islands last year and I basically glued the Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD to the mount. It was fantastic! The range is just incredible for those massive waterfalls where you want to zoom in on the texture of the water from a distance. While the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art is definitely sharper in the corners, are you really gonna notice that when you're viewing it on a screen or even a large print? Probably not. The 28-200 is shockingly good for a superzoom, honestly it blew my mind how sharp it stays. Here is why I love it for your trip:
- No lens swapping in the rain
- Lightweight for long hikes up volcanoes
- Insane reach for puffins or mountain compression I once missed a gorgeous shot of a fox because I was fumbling with a 24-70 and couldn't get the reach in time. Never again! The extra 200mm lets you compress those mountain ranges in a way a shorter lens just can't touch. It's an amazing experience having that much power in one lens. Plus, you're usually shooting landscapes at f/8 or f/11 anyway, so that constant f/2.8 aperture isn't as vital as people think for your specific trip. TL;DR: Grab the Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD. It is the absolute king of travel lenses because of the insane versatility and light weight when you're battling the elements!
Late to the party but i had the same budget struggle. I used the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 for a week in the Faroe Islands and was really satisfied with the results.
- Saved a bunch by buying used, which left more cash for the actual trip.
- The f2.8 works well when the weather gets dark and moody.
- No complaints about carrying it all day... it didnt feel heavy at all.
> Is the extra reach really worth giving up that f2.8 constant aperture? Just caught this thread. Unfortunately, the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art build quality disappointed me; the dust ingress was a real headache. Id suggest the Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS instead. You lose a stop, but the 24mm width and 105mm reach are essential for Iceland. Its much more robust than that Tamron 28-200 for harsh weather.
