Hi Dustin. I enjoyed the review as always. I have this lens. I do photo, not video. IMO it is on a par with the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 in terms of Image quality, a/f etc. Costs less, weighs less. Virtually no C/A. It gives the extra 15 mm. (I have owned the 16-55). Yes the lens renders images a bit differently to the Fuji. I haven't found anything to dislike about it. I shoot it on an X-T5. This lens and the 70-300 with the X-T5 make a really good simple solution for most general photography needs. As an aside I also have the Viltrox 75mm and there the sharpness is taken to a different level. It is a prime. Comparing oranges and apples me thinks. Thanks one again and go well. K
I own this lens and think this is a great lens and the tradeoffs are worth it. It's very versatile -- great zoom range, max aperture, close focusing distance and built in IS. I think it's necessary to compare its performance with other zooms of a similar range to really get a sense of where it excels and where it sacrifices performance. Good review and insight, thanks.
I purchased both the Tamron 17-70 2.8 and the new Sigma 18-55 2.8 lenses for my Fuji XT-5 (I use my Nikon mirrorless for my professional work, and my XT-5 for travel and a walk around lens). You are correct about the Tamron 17-70 2.8. It is a solid "good", but not a great lens for this camera. The 40 megapixel sensor is very demanding! I was very surprised with the Sigma 18-55mm 2.8! It is a "very good" category lens. It is sharper than the Tamron. The Tamron lens reproduces the Fuji's colors and rendition better though. The Fuji has a cool color rendition. I will purchase the Fuji 70-300 lens and I will have a complete travel kit. I purchased the Sigma 18-55mm on your review and I am very happy with it! I will use both of these lenses for different purposes. I find that I have to use Topaz AI in post for both noise reduction and sharpening for these lenses on the massive 40 megapixel (for DX) sensor. I love your thorough reviews!
This is a fantastic stills lens, but Tamron markets this also as a video-centric lens. While very close, it still has the classic pitfalls seen in every X-Mount zoom that keep the system from being a great hybrid system: exposure changes/flickering throughout the zoom range, and horrible focus loss when performing any sort of zoom in or out. Every other mirrorless system avoids these issues; it's time for Fuji to catch up. Even the E-mount version of this exact lens does not have these severe issues, pointing to the problem with X-Mount design.
I don't have this kind of problems with my 50-140f2.8. This is my main lens for video projects. I'm looking for a wider zoom range lens now. Do you have any experience with the 16-55f2.8?
I love my Tamron 17-17 for sony. It is SOOOO SHARP! I also have a sigma 30mm f14, but i just prefer the results of my tamron lens. I use it on my ZVE10 and just can’t imagine images getting much better than this. I’m also not a pro and just take pictures for fun.
Your reviews are always excellent Dustin. It's possible I'll be doing weddings/events soon and I love landscape photography. Therefore, I've decided to go for the 17-70 as my next lens before the Fuji 33 because i think it'll pair up perfectly with my Fuji 70-300. The fact they both have a 67mm filter thread is also a plus. Other reviews indicate the Tamron is excellent for the 26mp sensor, hence why I'm going to get it next for my X-T4. Even though you tested the 17-70 for a 24mp for Sony, i would love to know if you tested it with the 26mp Fuji sensor along with the 40mp? If so, how would you compare? Thanks mate 👍
Bit late to this party, but enjoying your reviews - thanks for your efforts! One question if you see this though: how does the Tamron compare to the XF16-55mm on this sensor? That comparison would be really interesting as I've not seen much about the Fuji lens on 40MP. I think your own review was on the X-T3, so hard to compare the two. I have an X-T5 with a couple of the new f1.4 primes and the XF50-140mm. Trying to decide if I want to trade something for (or add...) a standard zoom for simplicity when trekking about in the hills etc.
I'd imagine it would fair better on the 24mp bodies. Still impressive for a lens that wasn't designed for a 40mp sensor. Probably a firmware update will solve the focus issues. I could shoot 90% with this one lens. Just add an uw and done.
Great review! Thank you. I wonder what are the results will be in real world specially at 70mm on human portraits. Planning to buy this for the longer reach and VC. But seeing that it's soft wide open at 70mm make me think otherwise.
For portraits you would prefer a prime lens, and the Viltrox 75mm f/1.2 is arguably the best option for Fujifilm. Or a 56mm if you don't want to be so close. Maybe you bought this lens but you can by a cheaper but still good enough 56mm prime lenses from Viltrox or TTArtisan.
Great review! But you missed one very important fact. How does it compare with Fuji 16-80 which is being sold as kit with some of their bodies. As these two are primarily travel do-it - all types Landscapes will figure significantly. Fuji with corner softness throughout and less than optimal telephoto end performance seems less attractive proposition. Your views?
Got this lens today but will return it tomorrow. It has one serious problem that I can not fix. It has severe backfocus esspecially at close range. I did some portrait shots at 70mm and was not really impressed. After some testing I discovered the backfocus problem. Really strange but I think a callibration problem. Will play it safe and get the Fuji 16-55mm instead. The Tamron specs sound great but it will always stay a third party option. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Pitty.🥺
Thank you for your review! The work you put into your videos is impressive, so great to really test out the lens in, in my view, a very practical sense. It might be interesting to see the RAW files, maybe from Capture One for Fuji, so as to skip the limits of the Adobe processing algorithm and compare those to other lenses etc within the Fuji universe? But of course that makes it difficult to compare them to other brands. Looks like a great lens for the price, one always has to consider that aspect.
I've heard a lot of anecdotal feedback about Capture One, so I have tested it in the past, and frankly, I didn't see any kind of measurable difference. And yes, that does make it very difficult to compare platforms.
With a 40mp sensor, fuji gives an option to zoom, jpeg-only, digital teleconverter of 1.4x and 2x. In a pinch, this Tamron's focal length would make it a far more versatile lens than the original intent. Less weight in the bag, although it pairs well with the 70-300 by fuji. But I am curious how the image quality holds up at 1.4x and 2x vs manually cropping in lightroom.
I personally think the that 40MP on an APS-C sensor is too much... from file size, and the introduction of noise as lower ISO values. I think that the 26MP sensor is the optimal number of pixels. That said, I wonder how noticeable the difference in performance of this lens is between 40 and 26 MPs. It would have been great if you have some examples for comparison between the two sensors.
I noticed that my Imac' s Mojave Preview app has much better sharpening than my older computer from 2012. Using, (gasp!) system 10.6.11 (hey, it's loaded with apps that don't require monthly payments)
@@joshmartonosi5624 I wouldn't know. I hava an R10, but because of Canon's policy, thinking of switching to Fuji. thinking more of range 17-70 vs 16-80.
Yes and no. For light gathering, F2.8 is F2.8. It behaves the exact same regardless of what the crop factor of the camera is as it is a measurement of the size of the physical aperture opening. For depth of field, however, aperture does behave differently when on a crop sensor.
I tried two copies of this lens and honestly I'm not impressed at all. AF-S is almost unuseable. Very inconsistent. If the AF hits, it may be a little better at the borders than my 16-80. The macro capability at the wide end is pretty useless. At the long end and close up its weak, the 16-80 much better. Considering its huge size its not worth it imo.
In May I took a bunch of shots of somebody coming down a zip wire at speed. It was mounted on an X-T5. Lens and Camera had the latest firmware. The subject was spinning. The X-T5 on high speed burst latched onto the head and face from 250 yards out. 90% of the shots were in focus. I don't know what you were doing with your copies. Mine is good with the latest firmware. Also in my experience the 16-80 is not a patch on it.
@@DustinAbbottTWI X-T3 and X-T4. With zone focus and AF-C its ok. The Fuji AF sytem has its quirks at wider angles and stopped down, i have the impression it's even worse with the tamron than with native lenses. At 17mm with AF-S and F5.6 center is ok and borders are terrible. With AF-ON or carefully manual focussed its good.
Dustin you're generally very articulate and well spoken, however, you should distinguish between when to say number and amount. It's not the amount of pixels, but the number. We use amount for things that we cannot count outright -- eg. the amount of sugar was 2kg. I like your stuff so thought you would appreciate this feedback. Cheers and thanks for the review.
