[toni-a]

It should be  a super zoom that's the obvious 24-200 maybe? Or maybe a 28-200f4?

https://www.tamron-usa.com/product/e-mount/index.html

[Rover]

28-300/3.5-6.3, that's more like it. Come on, f/4 at 200mm? A snowball's chance in hell at that size.

[Klaus]

24-70mm f/2.8

[toni-a]

24-70mm f/2.8

very unlikely, they already have a 28-70f2.8 
most likely it's a superzoom or maybe a 28-135f4 lens

[Rover]

Remember the Tamron 24-135/3.5-5.6 of yore?

https://opticallimits.com/canon-eos/295-tamron-af-24-135mm-f35-56-ad-aspherical-if-sp-lab-test-report--review

Well, maybe something along these lines.

[toni-a]

Remember the Tamron 24-135/3.5-5.6 of yore?

https://opticallimits.com/canon-eos/295-tamron-af-24-135mm-f35-56-ad-aspherical-if-sp-lab-test-report--review

A review without sample pictures ???
Klaus you must get this lens again, get 350D and take sample pictures for us.
Also test charts were shot in Germany so you mustgo back to Germany to take them for the sake of precision

[Rover]

Yeah and we all need to become 15 years younger too.

[Klaus]

28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD

Interesting aperture at 28mm ... but otherwise ... yawn. 28mm is yesteryear.

[toni-a]

Not bad actually as a range, and probably will do well in reviews, however reviews are made on brand new lenses in mint condition
the old Tamron 28-200 was very prone to failures, I have one that I got for free with a film body, it failed very rapidly. The newer 28-300 seems also prone to failures, two of my friends bought one, both lenses rapidly failed.
Also keep in mind Tamron "Lies" about focal length, I expect it to be a 30-180mm (but most makers do the same)

[Rover]

So yeah... It's here. They say it's f/3.5 at 50mm, f/4.5 at 100mm and f/5.6 out from 150mm onwards. Pretty nice if true though they seem to miss the f/4 and f/5.

I did appreciate the fact that their 70-300 VC was f/4.5 up to about 153mm, thus usefully far into the range, for example.