These kinds of odd ranges could be useful. I find with a 24-70, I'm usually fighting against either the wide end being not quite wide enough or the long end being not quite long enough, but not by enough to make it worth switching lenses. It's nice to have some middle ground options in addition to the standard trio of zooms.
Back in my apsc days I immediately hated the Rokinon 12mm f2 MF lens cuz of it’s terrible sunstars and it was hard finding decent lenses wider than the sigma 16f14 back then
And the Tamron 17-50mm F/4 is even 40 grams lighter than the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L. The minimum focus is closer and the filter size smaller. All while providing more range. Looks like an excellent offering!
My nickname for Budweiser, despite living in St. Louis for 20+ years, is not very flattering. Does not mix with my palette, I get a banana aftertaste! Do you grow hops nearby? I thought I saw an image of them before the beer can? Stay warm!
I wish they`d do the tests on real world landscapes and concentrate on edges which are of far more interest than corners (and often better than the corners too) . all the test chart does is test how good the lens is for copy work, lenses often perform totally differently at real world distances than at close range ........ shame the lens hasn`t the magic which made the 28-75-G2 and 35-150 special .
I use real time tracking with subject detection. If the subject is close to the box it will focus on the subject, but if there is no detected subject it will simply track whatever you place the box on. And it’s very effective. It’s simple and it works
For landscape f4 is not a problem and 17-50 is a very useful focal range, but very soft corners at 17mm are. For street it is not so important, so I see this more as a street photographers lens, not for architecture at the wide end.
Unfortunate that it doesn’t live up to their normal standards. I already have the 20-40mm f/2.8 so I wasn’t really interested in this one. I don’t mind sacrificing some range for a brighter aperture and a smaller lens.
Tamron has the 18-70 f2.8 you're missing that 1 extra mm of focal length but it's supposedly a pretty nice lens. I personally when with the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 as I really love Sigma's sharpness and it's a super tiny lens.
Scratch my original comment. I forget we're speaking strictly FF lenses. Fully agree with your comment. A FF lens equivalent to these focal ranges would be amazing at f2.8
I know, I was just about to mention the FF factor. 17-70 2.8 FF on my gimbal would be insane, it would save me from switching between two lenses. Tamron 17-28 and 28-75.
Look at the size of modern 24-70 lenses and add the extra bulk of another 7 mm of ultra wide fast aperture. You would definitely need to step up your gym regimen
2:22 - Do they have a phone app for that? Or, do I have to lug around my laptop, if I want to change a setting? OK, I'm being a little bit facetious. But, it would be nice if manufacturers made a standard phone app, to communicate with their lenses, and then designed that software to work with any of the lenses. Put the menus and settings the firmware of the lens itself. Then the phone software just has to read that and display the UI to the user. Kinda like a web server and web browser, but much simplified. All the lens has to send is a bit of JASON, describing the menus and settings. Then the software reads that, displays the actual menus, then just sends back some JASON with the chosen setting. If you don't understand this, that's OK. Just forward the suggestion to the manufacturers. Whoever does it first will win over a lot of customers.
That is my thinking as well. A two lens landscape solution where you are stopping down anyway. For an up coming landscape photographer looking to save some dollars and invest that elsewhere. Or, one that wants to have a small kit solution of just two lenses, Tamron now has a compelling one/two punch with the 17-50 and the 50-400.
I've been wrestling with getting the lens to pair with my 50-400 with one complicating factor. I also have the Tamron 35-150 AND the Sony 16-35 GMII. So, if I wanted to bring two lenses and wanted the extra telephoto reach of the 50-400, I could still use the 16-35 and only have a small focal length gap. Or, since I use an A7RV I could put the camera into APCS mode to get that 50mm look at 35mm. So not sure if I want to separate "kits" consisting of two lenses with contiguous focal lengths given the gap between 35mm and 50mm is not much. Any thoughts?
@@scottsolomon7579, if it were me, I wouldn't even worry about the focal length gap between 35mm and 50mm. When shooting full frame with that A7R5, you just have so many megapixels, that if 50 mm was too tight, just shoot at 35mm and crop in a little in post. For perspective, the Leica q3 I think has the equivalent resolution but a 28mm lens, but has in camera crop modes to try its best to give the look of a longer focal length. In this vein, shooting at 35mm and needed something more akin to 45mm, you still will have, and I am guessing, somewhere in the ballpark between 30-40 megapixels post crop. My Z7ii full sensor tops out at 45 megapixels.
Thank you for this review! I was actually waiting for it. Of course, the optical performance of Sony's 20-70 seems better, but the Tamron goes 3 mm wider. Isnt't that a big difference? Anyhow, thanks for this review and your excellent work! Merry Christmas!
This is a handy lens if you have a Sony full-frame camera and a Sony APS-C camera as a backup. This lens would be great on either due to the focal range. If it were f2.8 and a better optical performer, it would be a hat trick.
I bought one and used it for a while... But ended up switching to the Sony 20-70 F/4 used for only about $120 more. More buttons, better macro, more zoom range, sharper, and about the same size and weight. Plus image stabilization on native sony glass is a little better. This Tamron certainly has a use-case, I was able to get some really fun ultra wide angle shots with it. And 50mm is about as zoomed in as I usually need, so its a great range, probably even more useful than the 20-70 range. But ultimately the 20-70 ties or wins in so many other areas that it's just better for my use case.
Good review, as always: pleasing to watch and very informative 😊 I was very hopeful about this lens, but I got disappointed upon reading Christopher Frost's review. Shame your test is confirming Chris' wasn't just one bad sample, and those corners aren't good enough, even when you stop down, for my use (landscape and architecture).
I've watched this on my phone, so can't say much about the sharpness samples, however in other ways it seems like this lens makes a lot of sense. Yeah, the focal range isn't really for me, but it might be what someone else is after and it seems to deliver reasonably good quality.
17-50 actually makes sense. I don't own a full-frame camera. I do have an EF-S 10-22, which is 16-35 in full frame. There are lots of times when I'm shooting wide angle when 16-50 would be enough range that I wouldn't have to switch lenses. I'd be very interested in this if I owned a full-frame body and the image quality were there.
There are too much zoom lenses available for Sony now and I'm really happy that I bought a Sony body because of them. If I could only have one of each range but have not enough money, I'd go with this one and the 50-400 to do street and landscape photos. But in order to do night shots like astrophotography, I need at least f/2.8 lenses.
I got the chance to shoot with one, yes, the edge is just horrible, I won't even call it a 17mm lens as I have to crop out the edge a lot. it kind of reminds me the optic quality of old Canon 17-40L I had like 15 or 20 years ago, which is not great at all even back in the DSLR days.
I shot with the 17-50 for two days at a Tamron workshop. It stayed on my camera almost the entire time. I never felt it was lacking. FYI, I shot full time weddings with Canons and the 17-40 was my wide lens as I cold not afford the 16-35 f2.8. The 17-40 was not great either but got the job done. I just sold my 17-28 yesterday thinking of picking up a 17-50. Now I am having second thoughts. They have dropped the price to $550 though. I am wondering why. Are the sales not that good and they are dropping the price to get rid of inventory?! I shoot landscapes and shoot at f8, f11 a lot but according to Chris' chart it is not sharp in the corners event f8 at 17mm. Bummer.
I've been looking for something like this for a good while, I love my 28-75G2, but I want some super wide angle capability. The 20-70 was compelling, but the F4 was a dealbreaker for me. Sadly a similar story here, I'd but this in a heartbeat if it had a constant 2.8 and had some actual consistent sharpness to it, even if it added another $500 to the price.
Man this is what I was hoping to come, actual ultrawide to short tele if I want just one lens, but I have to skip it even tho it's here now and I really want to support the creative decision and the range of this lens. I was wanting one lens but now I want really ultrawide and really tele, which is the iPhone 13mm to hundreds of tele mm, but that will likely be a 2 lenses setups, since I decide to get the Tamron 50-400 to get that really tele, it's not so practical to have another lens to carry but has very near range and not maximise the coverage. I was happy to found this and thought it's amazing to have same series and connected range of lens to continue it plus potentially same rendering, but I rather to have a wider ultrawide and just crop at the longer end side, hence I decided I will get the Sony 12-24mm F4 as ultrawide and everyday lens, I can crop 1.5 times to reach 36mm and still get 26mp on the A7RV, it's well connected to the 50-400mm, plus the 17-50 seem like it can add a bit more cost to make the performance even better! Sony 20-70 is nice and it was my previous choice but not ultrawide enough! I hope this kind of new direction of range of lenses get make and improve more!
I was waitig for this lens since August, bought it in December and ... Send it back after a week ! Unfortunately the corners were really soft and the borders were not that good. May be a bad copy....I bought the 17 28 F2.8, much better results.
Actually, that is not real Budweiser. The real Budweiser comes from the czech city of Budvar. And that is an excelent beer. That Anheuser-Busch product is not alowed to be sold as Budweiser in Europe. And therefore it is not sold at all.
Saadly too expensive. The name Tamron isnt a top tier name, so price must be lower. Lack of switched and buttons also drags the price down. So at this price, its a no for me. Sadly.
maybe they tested the lens with in body camera correction, so they wouldn't see it but that would explain the bad optical performance of the lens, especially at the wide end...
It works exceptionally well for landscape photography, especially when paired with the TAMRON 50-400mm F/4.5-6.3, creating a powerful combination, two lenses for every situation.
Yah it’s the King of Beers! I feel like it gets a bad rap for no reason. It’s become a cultural phenomenon to automatically discredit it. Jordan hates it verbally for example, so I put some in a glass for him one day and told him it was a craft lager from BC. He said it was crisp and refreshing. Now everyone is entitled to their opinion on what they like or don’t like, and will admit Bud Light is the one beer in my life that I have put down unfinished. It was terrible in my opinion. Regular Bud is a balanced Pilsner with a smooth rice finish. It’s not my go to at all, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with it. Time to make a beer review channel.
These kinds of odd ranges could be useful.
I find with a 24-70, I'm usually fighting against either the wide end being not quite wide enough or the long end being not quite long enough, but not by enough to make it worth switching lenses.
It's nice to have some middle ground options in addition to the standard trio of zooms.
A 16-35 becomes a lot more versatile if it is a 16-50. I have often wished for something of this ilk.
Genuine question: How many people consider sunstars as a dealbreaker when buying a lens?
Pretty important for a potential landscape lens a 17-50 f4 could be...
Back in my apsc days I immediately hated the Rokinon 12mm f2 MF lens cuz of it’s terrible sunstars and it was hard finding decent lenses wider than the sigma 16f14 back then
only the most pretentious photographer would
people shooting sports and news. Outlets almost never buy shots with flair.
@@meatbyproducts that makes sense, but isn’t that flare and ghosting rather than sunstars?
I AM SO LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS LENS!!! Just need it in Z mount now.
You can easily adapt this E-mount on your Z, question is do you really want such quality lens on your camera.
@@dannyli9424 I have tested one out, and yes it works fine. I am willing to wait for the actual Z mount
I have followed Chris for a long time ... I really enjoy all the videos.
This range doesn't seem odd to me as I had a Canon 17-40mm for like 15 years.
And the Tamron 17-50mm F/4 is even 40 grams lighter than the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L. The minimum focus is closer and the filter size smaller. All while providing more range. Looks like an excellent offering!
Agree, I always miss the switches for MF/AF and image stabilizer.
It reminds me of the old Canon 17-40mm f4, a great little lens.
My nickname for Budweiser, despite living in St. Louis for 20+ years, is not very flattering. Does not mix with my palette, I get a banana aftertaste! Do you grow hops nearby? I thought I saw an image of them before the beer can? Stay warm!
I wish they`d do the tests on real world landscapes and concentrate on edges which are of far more interest than corners (and often better than the corners too) . all the test chart does is test how good the lens is for copy work, lenses often perform totally differently at real world distances than at close range ........ shame the lens hasn`t the magic which made the 28-75-G2 and 35-150 special .
I really love that "plastic feel" on Tamron. Its grippy.
Super Video … Danke Dir. Wie fokussierst Du auf’r Dinge, die nicht automatisch erkannt werden? Mit touch Tracking im wide area Modus?
I use real time tracking with subject detection. If the subject is close to the box it will focus on the subject, but if there is no detected subject it will simply track whatever you place the box on. And it’s very effective. It’s simple and it works
A knuckle soup bone in the corners at 17 mm.
Thanks for helping me understand this lens. L O L😅
For landscape f4 is not a problem and 17-50 is a very useful focal range, but very soft corners at 17mm are. For street it is not so important, so I see this more as a street photographers lens, not for architecture at the wide end.
5:10 Sunstars are awesome!
Will this lens be offered in other full frame mounts?
You got the VXC! 😱
3:32 nice pic
Unfortunate that it doesn’t live up to their normal standards. I already have the 20-40mm f/2.8 so I wasn’t really interested in this one. I don’t mind sacrificing some range for a brighter aperture and a smaller lens.
Ahhh eye soothing ❤❤
good lens!
I've thought this equivalent zoom range would be really great in an aps-c format. If anyone knows of a 12-30 lens or thereabouts, please let me know!
Nikon Z 12-28mm
Dream lens would be 17-70 - 2.8, would that be impossible, too heavy?
Tamron has the 18-70 f2.8 you're missing that 1 extra mm of focal length but it's supposedly a pretty nice lens. I personally when with the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 as I really love Sigma's sharpness and it's a super tiny lens.
Scratch my original comment. I forget we're speaking strictly FF lenses. Fully agree with your comment. A FF lens equivalent to these focal ranges would be amazing at f2.8
I know, I was just about to mention the FF factor. 17-70 2.8 FF on my gimbal would be insane, it would save me from switching between two lenses. Tamron 17-28 and 28-75.
Look at the size of modern 24-70 lenses and add the extra bulk of another 7 mm of ultra wide fast aperture. You would definitely need to step up your gym regimen
@@almostinfamous42 I'm jacked bring it on!lol
why am I hearing cbat
This is 17 to 75mm because just put in APS C mode
Love my Sony 20-70 G and 70-200 f4 Macro G OSS II combo. Chris, you could fit those and a drone, easily, in your Wotencraft 10L.
not much heavier than Zuiko 8-25mm F4 (411g)
2:22 - Do they have a phone app for that? Or, do I have to lug around my laptop, if I want to change a setting?
OK, I'm being a little bit facetious. But, it would be nice if manufacturers made a standard phone app, to communicate with their lenses, and then designed that software to work with any of the lenses. Put the menus and settings the firmware of the lens itself. Then the phone software just has to read that and display the UI to the user. Kinda like a web server and web browser, but much simplified. All the lens has to send is a bit of JASON, describing the menus and settings. Then the software reads that, displays the actual menus, then just sends back some JASON with the chosen setting. If you don't understand this, that's OK. Just forward the suggestion to the manufacturers. Whoever does it first will win over a lot of customers.
Big Tamron - 67mm Filter conspiracy 💀
Hey Tamron Make L mount glass!
Dear Crisnikal my friend is same like you 100% 😂 you want I sent pictures
17 to 50 is genius to me. But not F4 😂
Looks like a great $200 kit lens
It's definitely better than the 28-70 kit lens.
I'm done with Bud beer.
Only read the title so far and waiting for some butthurt Tamron fanboys to get started 😅
There are Tamron fanboys?
I was wondering why I was having pain when I sat down. Thanks for the diagnosis.😂
I wish there was a RF version of this lens. Wishful thinking, I know.
You've gotta complain to Canon about that :/
@@DroopyPenguin95 I feel like we can form a louder voice here.
Canon hates third party
Shoulda picked a better camera systems.
The whole purpose of this lens was to match the 50-400 for a 2-lens setup.
That is my thinking as well. A two lens landscape solution where you are stopping down anyway. For an up coming landscape photographer looking to save some dollars and invest that elsewhere. Or, one that wants to have a small kit solution of just two lenses, Tamron now has a compelling one/two punch with the 17-50 and the 50-400.
I recently purchased the 50-400 for a trip to Nova Scotia. Very nice lens!
but the softness in the corners, especially at the wide end, will make a lot of landscape people think twice...
I've been wrestling with getting the lens to pair with my 50-400 with one complicating factor. I also have the Tamron 35-150 AND the Sony 16-35 GMII. So, if I wanted to bring two lenses and wanted the extra telephoto reach of the 50-400, I could still use the 16-35 and only have a small focal length gap. Or, since I use an A7RV I could put the camera into APCS mode to get that 50mm look at 35mm. So not sure if I want to separate "kits" consisting of two lenses with contiguous focal lengths given the gap between 35mm and 50mm is not much. Any thoughts?
@@scottsolomon7579, if it were me, I wouldn't even worry about the focal length gap between 35mm and 50mm. When shooting full frame with that A7R5, you just have so many megapixels, that if 50 mm was too tight, just shoot at 35mm and crop in a little in post. For perspective, the Leica q3 I think has the equivalent resolution but a 28mm lens, but has in camera crop modes to try its best to give the look of a longer focal length. In this vein, shooting at 35mm and needed something more akin to 45mm, you still will have, and I am guessing, somewhere in the ballpark between 30-40 megapixels post crop. My Z7ii full sensor tops out at 45 megapixels.
Thank you for this review! I was actually waiting for it.
Of course, the optical performance of Sony's 20-70 seems better, but the Tamron goes 3 mm wider. Isnt't that a big difference?
Anyhow, thanks for this review and your excellent work!
Merry Christmas!
And you can crop on the 50 to get 75mm too!
What’s up DPReview TV Viewers! What’s up CSTV viewers!
This lens pairs really well with the Tamron 50-400mm, would be great as a travel lens combo.
That’s gonna be one heavy backpack
@@onegrapefruitlover Wdym? That Tamron weighs roughly as much as a 24-70 2.8 and half as much as my 150-600. And it covers huge focal range.
This is a handy lens if you have a Sony full-frame camera and a Sony APS-C camera as a backup. This lens would be great on either due to the focal range. If it were f2.8 and a better optical performer, it would be a hat trick.
@@KC3VFL I don't own any Sony photography or videography gear. Micro Four Thirds user here!
2.8 with this focal range would probably result in way too big a lens.
The Tamron 20-40mm F2.8 is in that direction. I don't need the reach of the 70mm and I'd rather have that brighter aperture
No Budweiser please …
I bought one and used it for a while... But ended up switching to the Sony 20-70 F/4 used for only about $120 more.
More buttons, better macro, more zoom range, sharper, and about the same size and weight. Plus image stabilization on native sony glass is a little better.
This Tamron certainly has a use-case, I was able to get some really fun ultra wide angle shots with it. And 50mm is about as zoomed in as I usually need, so its a great range, probably even more useful than the 20-70 range.
But ultimately the 20-70 ties or wins in so many other areas that it's just better for my use case.
“Hey here’s that 17-50mm you told me to make”
“Great! Crop frame right?”
“….”
Good review, as always: pleasing to watch and very informative 😊
I was very hopeful about this lens, but I got disappointed upon reading Christopher Frost's review. Shame your test is confirming Chris' wasn't just one bad sample, and those corners aren't good enough, even when you stop down, for my use (landscape and architecture).
I've watched this on my phone, so can't say much about the sharpness samples, however in other ways it seems like this lens makes a lot of sense. Yeah, the focal range isn't really for me, but it might be what someone else is after and it seems to deliver reasonably good quality.
17-50 actually makes sense.
I don't own a full-frame camera. I do have an EF-S 10-22, which is 16-35 in full frame. There are lots of times when I'm shooting wide angle when 16-50 would be enough range that I wouldn't have to switch lenses. I'd be very interested in this if I owned a full-frame body and the image quality were there.
There are too much zoom lenses available for Sony now and I'm really happy that I bought a Sony body because of them. If I could only have one of each range but have not enough money, I'd go with this one and the 50-400 to do street and landscape photos. But in order to do night shots like astrophotography, I need at least f/2.8 lenses.
Hmm i'm not sure what this is for.. i have my 20-70 and its only 20g heavier with more reach
I dunno why they couldn't just update the 17-28 2.8. I waited as long as I could for a g2 for that lens, but I ended up getting the Sigma 16-28 2.8.
I had a different experience: very sharp at 17mm, even in the corners, but at 50mm in the lower left corner soft. Perhaps a production problem...
I got the chance to shoot with one, yes, the edge is just horrible, I won't even call it a 17mm lens as I have to crop out the edge a lot. it kind of reminds me the optic quality of old Canon 17-40L I had like 15 or 20 years ago, which is not great at all even back in the DSLR days.
I shot with the 17-50 for two days at a Tamron workshop. It stayed on my camera almost the entire time. I never felt it was lacking. FYI, I shot full time weddings with Canons and the 17-40 was my wide lens as I cold not afford the 16-35 f2.8. The 17-40 was not great either but got the job done.
I just sold my 17-28 yesterday thinking of picking up a 17-50. Now I am having second thoughts. They have dropped the price to $550 though. I am wondering why. Are the sales not that good and they are dropping the price to get rid of inventory?!
I shoot landscapes and shoot at f8, f11 a lot but according to Chris' chart it is not sharp in the corners event f8 at 17mm. Bummer.
Tamron has some great lenses like the 28-200. This lens is far too slow and optically not good enough
Should mention the 20-40 f2.8. It's not as wide or as long but brighter, smaller, and cheaper by a smidge. Also, the 20mm is more usable.
Why would I want this thing
I've been looking for something like this for a good while, I love my 28-75G2, but I want some super wide angle capability. The 20-70 was compelling, but the F4 was a dealbreaker for me. Sadly a similar story here, I'd but this in a heartbeat if it had a constant 2.8 and had some actual consistent sharpness to it, even if it added another $500 to the price.
Tampon make great zoom lens but that bokeh...I have to return my 11-20 and 17-70 for bokeh and flare
Background score is awesome as is the review
I prefer onion rings to French fries.
Or… is it a good apsc lens?
Nice review, so thanks for this. But I'm sticking with my 20-40f2.8 and 35-150f2-2.8. I need the 2.8 and not the 17.
Man this is what I was hoping to come, actual ultrawide to short tele if I want just one lens, but I have to skip it even tho it's here now and I really want to support the creative decision and the range of this lens. I was wanting one lens but now I want really ultrawide and really tele, which is the iPhone 13mm to hundreds of tele mm, but that will likely be a 2 lenses setups, since I decide to get the Tamron 50-400 to get that really tele, it's not so practical to have another lens to carry but has very near range and not maximise the coverage. I was happy to found this and thought it's amazing to have same series and connected range of lens to continue it plus potentially same rendering, but I rather to have a wider ultrawide and just crop at the longer end side, hence I decided I will get the Sony 12-24mm F4 as ultrawide and everyday lens, I can crop 1.5 times to reach 36mm and still get 26mp on the A7RV, it's well connected to the 50-400mm, plus the 17-50 seem like it can add a bit more cost to make the performance even better! Sony 20-70 is nice and it was my previous choice but not ultrawide enough! I hope this kind of new direction of range of lenses get make and improve more!
Very nice lens but why no real ultra wide full frame zoom with front thread filters?
Wish I have watched this video before I have bought it.
What's your experience with it? What are you using it for?
4:24 이 채널을 시청하면서 한국어를 본 것은 처음인 것 같습니다. 깜짝놀랐다.
I was waitig for this lens since August, bought it in December and ... Send it back after a week ! Unfortunately the corners were really soft and the borders were not that good. May be a bad copy....I bought the 17 28 F2.8, much better results.
Actually, that is not real Budweiser. The real Budweiser comes from the czech city of Budvar. And that is an excelent beer. That Anheuser-Busch product is not alowed to be sold as Budweiser in Europe. And therefore it is not sold at all.
Saadly too expensive. The name Tamron isnt a top tier name, so price must be lower. Lack of switched and buttons also drags the price down. So at this price, its a no for me. Sadly.
That would be perfect. My 17-35 Tokina is amazing but just a little too short.
Wish Tamron joins the L mount alliance. These lenses are so attractive.
If I end up shooting my video in inglewood now it’ll look like a completely diff season!
i love this series of videos thanks supersaf and congratulations on your new achievement 🎉
Wow those echoes are gnarly at 7:20 lol
Hey is this lens made of plastic?
Good review
Eff AB ;)
I love the new music 🙂
You didn’t mention the distortion problem of this lens
maybe they tested the lens with in body camera correction, so they wouldn't see it but that would explain the bad optical performance of the lens, especially at the wide end...
It works exceptionally well for landscape photography, especially when paired with the TAMRON 50-400mm F/4.5-6.3, creating a powerful combination, two lenses for every situation.
Powerful, sooo powerful
Plus the Tamron 50-400mm has 1:2 macro. The duo covers a lot of ground.
Budweiser, really?
Yah it’s the King of Beers! I feel like it gets a bad rap for no reason. It’s become a cultural phenomenon to automatically discredit it. Jordan hates it verbally for example, so I put some in a glass for him one day and told him it was a craft lager from BC. He said it was crisp and refreshing. Now everyone is entitled to their opinion on what they like or don’t like, and will admit Bud Light is the one beer in my life that I have put down unfinished. It was terrible in my opinion. Regular Bud is a balanced Pilsner with a smooth rice finish. It’s not my go to at all, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with it. Time to make a beer review channel.
@@niccollsvideoI mean...
If they sponsor You It would be a great improvement.
A hot guy over man - woman sewed in hybrid...
Sharp, so sharp! So is the iPhone and it's always in my pocket.
Do people still buy cameras like this?
noob