I have this lens. Perfect for travel with an A7CR. With apsc mode, I basically get 17-75mm field of view. The corners are soft but not useless. Good enough for what I am using it for.
I first thought why one would need another 17-50 type apsc lens with a smaller aperture. Then i realised that this was an ff lens. WOW! Nice competition to Sonys 20-70mm lens. This is not a lens someone should buy for apsc, there are f2.8 options available, but it would be incredible to have on a trip where you dont know what lens to pack. The wide angle is horrendous, but after the sony 20-70 it is what i would expect. I love that Tamron takes the risk with these weird focal ranges (see the 35-150mm or 50-400mm lenses)!
You are right but only partly: even if the optical quality is not the best, this optic is really versatile (there is no other lens on FF that can go from ultra wide angle to medium telephoto almost)... for those who travel and want to keep only one optic attached to their camera at all times (and especially if they use a Sony A7III or similar with 24mpx) it could be a very smart choice!!!
Amazing, been waiting for this review! As someone who only does landscape photography, this lens is looking really good! I need to replace my Sony FE 16-35 F4 and will do it with this lens. The extra reach to 50mm will make this lens great for using as primary lens. I already have the Tamron 28-200, but 28 is just not wide enough to have as a single lens. But the combination of those two lenses will be great, the overlap of 28-50 is really comfortable as it means less switching lenses. I took a look at my information in Lightroom and the majority of my photos are under 70mm, while my photos taken with my Sony 16-35 has a distribution of 1/3rd at 16mm, 1/3rd at 35mm and the rest in between. So the Tamron 17-50 would cover the vast majority of the ranges I shoot in. Which is nice if I want to go extra light for a long hike!
I do a lot of serious backcountry mountaineering. The Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 is one the reasons that keeps me glued to full frame despite being aware of outstanding APS-C alternatives and having a spinal compression. Bringing a Sony a5100 with a Samyang 12mm f/2.0 (eq to full frame 18mm f/2.8) has treated me well weighing just slightly more than the Tamron 17-50 f/4. The whole kit that is (APS-C body + lens). I know it sounds crazy, but carrying one "semi big camera" and one small one has been game changing without the need to swap lenses.
I received this lens last week. I don't usually put on a UV filter, but the mechanism on the front of the lens made me do so. My copy also has very poor sharpness in the corners. I originally intended to use this in conjunction with my 50-400mm. However, I am neither satisfied with the sharpness of this lens nor am I confident with the autofocus of the 50-400mm. I would not recommend other people to get this combo.
Oh really? I had this combo on my head. You speak about the accuracy of the 50-400. I heard bad comments about the sigma 100-400 about af accuracy and tought the 50-400 would be better option. Could you precise youe experience about the af in the 50-400? Thank you!!
@@oscarcrendeful if the subject is stationary, AF is very accurate. If the subject is moving, the accuracy drops. What's worse, when you zoom in or out, the focus distance also shift greatly, making it even more difficult for the camera to track the subject.
@@frankfeng2701 I got 35-150 f2-2.8 so... well, 10-20 f2.8 would still be good. But rumored 150-400 lens feel n9t so good, its either f4 or f2.8-5.6 I think - its far away from 600mm and too slow at about 250mm, as in both. Transition F2.8 for up to 250mm, then f4 to 400mm, f5.6 to 500mm would be ideal.
@frankfeng2701 it's impossible to cover everything, even that 35-150 goes beyond what you would normally get. There are 24-240mm or for apsc 18-300mm, but every lens got some downsides. Even classic slow 16-50 apsc lens are nothing special, but it got ois, power zoom, it's wide to tele for almost nothing and you can get it in your pocket. Depends on usage and price. Found recently 20€ lens too, nothing special but even those can make nice pictures. Important is to have a choice, there is a lot of lens we would wish to have, but what we can have is another matter. I got 35-150 2-2.8 and it covers 90% of what I need, of course at the cost of price and weight. I hope you will find yours too. 😁
Thanks for your video. I bought this lens and i will probably sent it back. The corners are too soft even at F 8 and the edges are not perfect. I hope the Pz 16 35 will get better results.
I want this lens. Could you considere to show vignette with filters in this type of lenses plese? It would be very useful. Thank you for the video, I love your tests.
Really wanted this focal range to pair with a longer zoom for travel - not sharp and not fast… this is a pass for me. I do really appreciate Tamron giving it a try, keeping the filter threads the same size, and keeping these cheap. But i don’t want a crappy FF lens, i have mft for that
Only reason staying with Sony is LENS SELECTION. Its HUUGEE. Tamron Lenses produce little warm colors in my usage of last 2 years. I mostly shoot in good light/day light as a hobbyst and landscape shooter, i mostly use f7-f10
I don’t really understand this lens considering Tamron’s 20-40 f/2.8… 17mm is pretty significantly wider, but is that width worth the the stop of light and worse ability to shoot wide open? For a couple hundred extra, Sony’s 16-35 f4 would be better for a couple hundred extra (cheaper used) and if you want the more normal focal range, Sony’s 20-70 f4 offers a better value with a very similar cost proposition to the 16-35 f4. I don’t think the lens is bad, necessarily, just that you could spend your money a bit better
I've seen some comparison videos between these 3 lenses, and it seems like the sharpness is similar enough that what really matters is the zoom range, and for me personally I need that wide angle, so this Tamron lens is the clear winner 👍
I had the Tramron 20-40, took it on holiday to Reunion island with my 28-200 and found 20 mm was definitely not wide enough. Sold it and will get this lens instead.
I'll never fault a manufacturer for taking big swings in product development, but this one feels a bit like a swing and a miss. Although it has it's high points, the negatives seem to outweigh the positives. It certainly would have been a game changing lens if it performed well across it's zoom and aperture range, but instead it feels more like a kit lens that's a jack of (almost) all trades but a master of none.
For landscape work autofocusing is pretty much not required. You can get a bunch of fix focal length manual focus lens at a dirt cheap price with a great image quality. Better spend the money on a good tripod, cpl filter, and a high quality ND filter.
Much bigger than 17-40 F4 L, much more expensive, marginally better in most real-world use cases Considering the cost difference, I personally won't sit waiting for it to come to Canon RF mount Doesn't make sense on a crop either, since there's cropped 17-50 with optical stabilization from Sigma and Tamron.
🤔 not impressed. Maybe we’re just spoiled as we gotten other great lenses. Maybe our expectations have gotten very high. Sony 20-70 seems better but I wouldn’t get that lens either
How can dou take price out of the equation? That‘s like saying „no point in buying a VW if you could get a Mercedes“, oh really? This lens is half price and street prices will go even lower
Sure. Any zoom lens whose optical edge rendering peaks at f11 at one end and looks quite weak overall at the other should be relegated straight to the dustbin of lens history these days.
@@maggnet4829 Exactly, I feel travel landscape photographers are minority and thus don’t get much attention. All travel photographers want is a lens that is sharp corner to corner, light ( it can start at 5.6 to make so) and zoom ranges covering useful focal lengths
