I'm buying this lens over the originally decided Sigma 14-24 or Tamron 15-30 G2. Suits me very well. 1. During winters, that is about July and August in Australia, I go on night trips for astrolandscapes. While I would love to have the 14/1.8 from Sigma, I can't justify owning it for something I do about 10-15 times a year however. For everything else, the 14-24 and 15-30 is better for coverage. 2. Close focus ability. I like this type of "landscape macro" photos. The close focus and nice defocus elements is great. This is also why I kept the slightly soft 24/3.5 tilt-shift from Nikon. 3. Filters. Sick of big bulky glass filter systems 4. Price. For twice, I can get the premium zooms or the 14/1.8, but I am not able to get images that are two times better. I'm simply not that good when it comes to landscapes. 5. Image quality is really good. Especially for the price. 6. I don't really care about VR/VC. Distortion can be fixed, I would only shoot wide open for astrolandscapes, so vignetting wide open isn't too much of a downside. 7. Nikon offerings are pretty junk. That 17-35mm f/2.8? Yuck. Hope this helps other potential buyers with their decisions. Perfect UWA zoom for me!
Yep, absolutely… I finally freed up time to place an order, found a bargain locally for $442 with local warranty. I also bought a 77mm light pollution filter, it's gonna be a fun little lens to play with, both day and night.
My pleasure. I sincerely hope that Tamron develops a dedicated wide angle for Sony, as I think they could do a great job with it (if the 28-75 is anything to go by).
@@DustinAbbottTWI Agree. I have the 28-75 and love it. I had just ordered the Sony 16-35 f4 when I became aware of this lens. I'm thinking about ordering this one too and comparing them side by side (along with the Canon16-35 f4), since I can return either one and sell the Canon.
It is a fullframe lens but 17-35 can also act as a midrange zoom on a crop sensor. So you get 25.5-52.5mm FF equivalent if you use it on a Nikon crop sensor. Maybe a bit short on the long end but IQ is stunning.
I have watched many reviews you have done and all are excellent and very thorough and very professional and this one no different excellent review thank you.
Mini testimonial, this lens works super with the Canon R5 but it requires a firmware update via Tamron TAP-IN console, I borrowed one and now IBIS works fine with the R5/R6!
Thank you for this series of reviews Dustin. Amazing job you did there! I just wanted to mention that in astro stacking images is a must no matter the lens. So despite the noise that could be generated due to vignette lifting, with stacking it can easily be resolved. So actually no problem there. I would rather buy such a lens compared to the other wide angle beasts since it is as sharp and it takes filters
Not everyone is willing/able to employ advanced techniques like that (and no, I don't consider it a must anyway - I rarely employ that technique for my astro work). I need to report on what lenses do, not what processors can do to offset those limitations.
@@DustinAbbottTWI yes, I agree and personally I rarely see reviews so comprehensive and spherical like yours. One more question; compared to its bigger brother (the 15-30) how does it perform in terms of sharpness? Is it comparable? Thank you once again!
@@howardkahn717 I think that ship has saled, I even think the E-mount is now limited too after seeing the Canon RF mount and how easy it seems for them to get great image quality so soon after releasing
Thanks again Mr Abbott. Another awesome straight to the point review. I just got the lens and it performs awesome in my Canon 80d! Best thing, weather sealed!!! For those beautiful foggy mornings. Thanks again Dustin..! Keep doing what you knows best.., keeping us updated when it comes to photography!
Sounds like the perfect lens if you’re using a star tracker for both Sony or canon. Bump the aperture until the vignette is gone and open the shutter while you track the stars.
Wow, snow? I thought I'm living in cold country, but your background make this thought shame. Yet it feels cozy somehow. Anyway Tamron is developing my kinds of lens nowadays. They are light, compact, a bit behind the best but generally good and useful optics. I bought 28-75 f2.8 for my Sony A7m3. And I've heard 100-400 F5-6.3 FE will come soon and I really hope to see that lens performance. Thanks for the good review and take care!
Thanks for the detailed review. Why Tamron decided to discontinue this lens, it is hard to understand. Between this one, ef 16-35 F4 and sigma 20mm 1.4. What is your thought?
Dustin, Thanks again for your comprehensive reviews. With this lens without VC, how is the performance as walk around, meaning no tripod, shooting handheld?
Hi Dustin, Is this lens good for wedding videography? How fast is the af and how good is it's focus tracking. Does it have focus hunting for moving shots?
I am not a big Tamron fan but I think I will give this lens a try. MTF charts look stunning and price is now 499 Euro. My first and only Tamron was the 28-75 f2.8 XR Di (the old version) but IQ was terrible. So never bought a Tamron since but as I said I will try to conquer my fear😬
@@DustinAbbottTWI Purchased the lens today and the IQ is indeed very good. Very sharp indeed. Had to adjust the AF with +5 on all my camera's but now it is spot on. Actually amazing that for this money you can get a FF wide angle zoom with such great IQ. The camerastore guy had to blink twice when the price showed up on the pay terminal: " Only 499?? This can not be right!!" 😆😆😆
I'm a Nikon shooter but your 15-30/2.8 for Canon review was helpful in my buying decision for that lens. Thank you. My use case for this 17-35/2.8-4 is street use with filters including into the late afternoon and night in places with reasonably high artificial light sources like Tokyo, Osaka, Taipei, Hong Kong, KL, Singapore and so on. Build quality and no VC aside, and ignoring vignette issues, if I rate the 15-30/2.8 a 10/10 optically, how do you think this 17-35/2.8-4 would rate? Many thanks in advance..!
Superb review as always! One question: I’m in the desperate need of a wide angle zoom for my Sony A7RII, on a budget. Already own the mc-11 adapter. Cannot quite find any competitor in this price range tbh. Would you recommend to go for it? I was also considering the Tamron FE mount 17-28mm but don’t know if the price difference would be justified. The only wide angle zoom I own right now is a manual Minolta 28mm f2.8, which I love, but is not wide enough. I don’t do any video work. Thanks.
Hi Dustin. Merry Christmas! Still trying to decide between this and the Canon 16-35 f4 as my main video lens for my youtube channel. I like the faster aperture, sharpness, lower weight and cheaper price of the Tamron, but is the autofocus good enough?
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes I think that’s the question. At the moment I’m static, but not having the IS will be limiting if I need to do handheld in the future. Decisions decisions.... Thanks Dustin!
Ended up getting the Tamron. Lovely optics, really sharp. Love how fast it is, relative to the Canon f4, and it's a good weight on the EOS R with the adapter. The autofocus is quick and accurate, and when face tracking is much quieter than my Canon 35mm F2 IS USM. But when it does need to make a big change it does sound pretty horrible. I think it will work well as a RU-vid lens, it's just a shame it doesn't have the VC and build quality of my SP 45mm. Thanks again for your help.
Dear Dustin, thank you for this review! Initially I wasn't really interested, as I'm a Sony user, but now I realized that this lens actually checks all the boxes for affordable UWA zoom, except for a bit large length with adapter. How do you personally think, is it a viable idea to buy this lens for Sony, or it may worth waiting for a long-rumored Tamron UWA zoom for FE mount? Though it'll get released nobody knows when, at unknown price, specs and IQ... I'm wondering. *** By the way, you were totally right with your Metabones vs. MC-11 vs. CM EF-E HS advises. Eventually I purchased all of them, and it appears that the MC-11 works best for me.
That's a tough question. If I were to guess, I would say a 70-200ish zoom is the next Sony FE project for Tamron, but who knows? I have no real information to give you on this. What I can tell is that this lens does work well via the MC-11, so if you need this kind of lens, go for it.
Putting the sensor size aside-----how would you compare the images on the sigma 18-35mm f1.8 vs tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 on a Nikon aps-c camera, example nikon d3400 ?
I was just thinking the same thing. Since they both don't have stabilization and having used the sigma in the past, I'd be more inclined to go for the sigma, faster wider aperture and a constant aperture. It is quite a bit bigger though. The Sigma is hugely popular in the area of video production so it's a well proven lens.
Hi Mr Abbot, thanks again for another great review! I am deciding between the EF 16-35 f4 IS and this Tamron. I shoot on the 6D and I often don't carry a tripod with me, yet I like light trail shots and sometimes HDR (so I think IS might be an advantage). I will mainly shoot "scapes" including landscape and urban / city scapes. But I plan to also use the ultra wide zoom for street photography (where I think the f2.8 on the Tamron might be more advantageous). Can I ask, with your experience, is the extra f stop worth all the headache of deciding between the two if money is of no object? If I'm right in thinking, the EF 16-35 IS is a better image quality lens at the end of the day? Thanks a mil!
Thanks for making this video. How would you compare this to the Sony 16-35 F/4 lens? Better to stick to the Sony lens for a Sony body or this adapts quite well?
@@DustinAbbottTWI It would be great if you could make that compare :) I recently discovered your channel and I must say that your a doing a great reviewer job! Congrats!
Hey! Do your reckon if you use an external mic (rode video micro on the camera) you won't hear any focus motor noise? Planning on using this lens as a self-vlog lens. Thanks for your review!
Hello again Rev. Abbott. I perused your pic gallery and like the color saturation in the landscape pics. I noticed that portrait type pics are missing and am wondering why.? BTW, what is that white stuff on the ground.? LOL!
I didn't really use the lens for portrait type work as I have so many other cameras and lenses on hand to review at the moment that are better suited for that purpose. I had to prioritize.
Hi Dustin I tried finding the astro photos you shared in the video but didn't see them at your link. Are you saying this lens really wouldn't work for astro? I'm loving the size for travel with my EOS R (the 16-35 2.8 iii is HUGE with the adapter and costs $1000 more) but I'm looking for something that would be good for astro too.
This lens is the reason why I keep the Canon R6. Even with the adapter the performance is great and with the camera ibis the lack of estabilization is not that important.
@@widiartoproboprasetyo9330 i updated it after reading that it was needed for the IBIS to work properly. I never tested it with the old firmware though
I've never seen decent video AF with any adapted lenses save Sigma lenses with the MC-11, which are okay. We all need to keep pushing Tamron to make something like the MC-11 for their lenses.
I think the answer is no. Now, with wide angle lenses, it isn't hard to set focus where everything will always be in focus, but that's not quite the same.
Hi Dustin, wich one you will suggest between this lens or the Canon 16-35mm f4? For general landscape photography and some astrophotography? Considering that this lens doesn't have the focus window to set the focus distance to infinite. Thanks, greetings from Ecuador
This lens is the better choice for astro, though it is hard to argue against the Canon for general landscape. If astro is genuinely important to you, this lens is probably the better choice for you.
I bought this lens for F mount. And I want to use it on my Sony a7r III. Can you please suggest me an electronic adapter? I just tried vello v5 and Comlitte. But none of these work. Any suggestion will be highly appreciated. Thanks
Would you recommend this lens to be used with Z7? If not, what alternate would you recommend? I don't want to buy the native 14-30 f4 S, as I don't use UWA often and it is a quite expensive lens.
Hello Dustin. Excellent as always. I am off to make a purchase this Friday, I like the price and weight of this one but I like the VC on canon 16-35 f4. I shoot on the eos R, no ibis there but I use tripod a lot no not really an issue. Basically, which one would you say has the less flare? This is what will make me lean one way or the other
Hi Alex, which one did you get and how are you liking it? I'm also deciding if I should get this Tamron or the 16-35 f4 IS... Idk if the extra f stop is worth it.
bowieknife - I bought both and returned the tamron. It is a close call but I am glad I kept the canon: 1- No jpeg at 2.8 with the tamron, I mean that vignette and distortion does not correct in camera and you end up spending too much time in lightroom. Vignette is huge at 2.8 2- Distortion is more prononced that canon, I ended up cropping a lot of shots making me loose the benefit of the 17mm focal lenght so what is the point? Maybe it is a lightroom issue or poor editing on my end but the lens correction profile on this one is just not OK 3-In real world use, inside museums or churches, where I need that light gathering capabilities, I can shoot 1/8 to 1/4 (depending on how much coffee I had) handheld on canon with IS, resulting in cleaner image than tamron at 2.8. This has been for me the real deciding factor 4- Build quality is awful, I baby my gear but this one is really plastiky. I had scratches all over it and the lens hood is flimsy. I also own the 70-200 g2, they look the same but the build is nowhere this poor 5-This one is speculative but the canon f4 is still high on the used market, I feel I will be loosing less money than the tamron when I upgrade to the RF mount later on (I shoot on the EOS R now) Tamron is lighter, cheaper and honestly good optically, on a tripod I loved how sharp it gets. Flare resitance is as good as canon. The tamron is a good lense by all means but what made the call for me was low light and distortion and I have no regret
@@alex-michelngningha6903 thank you so much for your insightful answer. I am also leaning much towards the Canon tbh. Hope you continue to enjoy the 16-35!
Good review of the lens. I'm wondering if I could obtain the Milky Way raw photos you took so I can compare them to my MW photos I've take with my Rokinon 14mm?
I'm sorry, Dan, but I don't pass on my RAW files other than on rare occasions to my Patrons. If I responded to every request for personal assistance like this (with hundreds of thousands of viewers and readers each month), I wouldn't get anything done.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I understand, thanks for letting me know. Any general opinion on the Rokinon 14mm versus the Tamron 17-35 for astrophotography/Milky Way?
Hi DA, As suggested from your review of the newest emount tamron 17-28/2.8 I decided to have a look at ypur reviews of this DSLR 17-35/2.8-4. As usual great content quality. Now as I imagined we can definitely say that this new version of tamron 17-35/2.8-4 is clearly a revamp of the oldest existing on A-mount. The best clues are the strong vignetting and the clutch AF motor that doesn't equals the smooth of tamron USD. Not being able to override on the fly the AF is pretty old school now even for tamron as they have usd since years. Now considering the size and weight of this thing it can be interesting but 600 dollars for this seems to me to be a bit too much. I think we can find tamron 15-30/2.8 G1 for around 700 dollars by now...
That's true about a used 15-30, though I do think the two lenses are targeted at two different audiences. They are radically different sizes and with different strengths.
Since I just got a Canon RP and also have a A7Riii I was thinking to sell the Tamron 17-28 for Sony and getting this to use with MC-11 wouldn't it work?
Your autofocus performance wouldn't be as good, but that might not matter as much on a wide angle lens. The 17-28 is a bit better a lens, but I understand wanting to have one lens to use on both systems.
how does it compare to the irix 15mm? this would be really interesting as it is in the same sort of price range and also kind of a similar focal range...
On DSLRs this is only true in the limited sense of if you are shooting JPEGs. The camera can correct some of the shortcomings, from distortion to vignette to CA. On RAW files that isn't the case. On Sony mirrorless there is sometimes some correction of RAW files as well, though often to a more limited degree.
I am considering this lens you reviewed against Nikon’s older, but still highly regarded by some, Nikkor 18-35 f3.5-4.5. Have you or anyone who reads this considered this comparison?
@@nevvanclarke9225 I've just switched from D7200 and that 10-24 (which was my favourite lens) so a Z6 and have just purchased this lens today. Excited to use it! If it's as good or better than the 10-24, I'll be happy as!
In my country Nikon D750 is as low as $1050 now. This lens is under $600. Just 2 or 3 years ago it was unthinkable to get such quality in full frame format for $1650 brand new. I mean, 17mm at 2.8, sharp across the frame with no CA... must be a joke, right :)
Any full frame lens will work on APS-C, but, like with every lens that you mount on an APS-C camera (of any kind), you have to multiply the focal length by the crop factor of your camera (either 1.5x or 1.6x if it is Canon).
I bought the lens for my Z6 and it works fine, with fast, accurate focus. As a bonus, it uses Z6's IBIS...But you have to buy Tamron Tap-In to upgrade firmware in order to work with FTZ. Unless it is a new bunch and has the new firmware installed from factory.
Its quite close to famous 16-35mm f2.8 canon or sony lens. But in same way its far away from it, because 15-30mm f2.8 is king of tamron ultra wide angle lens line. I own this lens for couple of years and i have mixed feelings about it. Because of the size and 77mm filter tread, weather sealing, good quality glass, f2.8, i chose this one as my go landscape, astro lens. There are few downs of it like focus shifting, ugly lens flair, and lack of focus scale i think this lens still wins.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I tried this code from Amplis foto but it just says code is not valid. I used your code previously to purchase TAP in console and it worked fine but when I tried to purchase Tamron 90mm Macro, it did not work. I tried with other products as well but same error.
A great review albeit disappointing in terms of the lens performance. What most bothers me about the lens is the undistinguished mf. Without VC and being a wide angle lens, I would want to put this on a tripod and manually focus a good part of the time. Kind of a downer that the new focusing system is really a throwback to less able ones. The lens I used on dx, the Tokina 12-24 had a really nice feel to its manual focus. Though a clutch, not an override, system. Because I could shoot stopped down, the vignette is of less concern.
@@DustinAbbottTWI But you can't fault the build quality. Huge ca's but sharp and limited distortion. I don't think I want to take a step down from the really nice 35 1.8 or Sigma 24 1.4 I have been enjoying recently.
