Just read the comments and I am a bit surprised at the snarky attitudes in some of them. Anyone who takes the time and effort to explain their purchase, product use, etc., should be commended. Thanks again.
Thanks for the comment Gary. I think brand loyalty has a little to do with it. Or, just the idea that Zeiss/Sony is the 'big guy' and Tamron is the 'little guy'. Sadly, hatred of any 'big guy' is a cause that people rally too. I just did another video comparing some 85mm lenses that I have and I used both my Tamron 28-75 and the Zeiss 16-35 while shooting it. I was impressed with the Zeiss all over again. Something about that lens suits my sensibility - especially at 35mm. I"m not sure if it's the sharpness, or color, or what but when I see footage from that lens I always get excited about sharing it.
@@MattSpaugh Why we humans get so attached to a product is strange. Consider Harley Davidson...these guys tatoo the product on their bodies. That is brand loyalty! I must confess I do get a kick when I find another Sony shooter. That's because I'm wondering if their experience is the same or different than mine. Again, thanks.
@@GaryDichtenberg as a vintage BMW motorcycle rider, I can tell you that the Harley guys are indeed off the chart in terms of brand loyalty. We're all odd beings in that respect. I think is has a lot to do with 'belonging' - or feeling part of a group - and whatever comfort that brings. How that can revolve around a product is still a bit of a mystery to be. BMW guys are a lot the same... but without the brand tattoos... usually.
Thanks! Very useful review, you might get more views putting Vs 16-35mm f/4 in the title as that's the direct comparison I was looking for. Thanks again
Thanks for the comment Andy. I think that's why some early commenters were kinda miffed - they felt like I'd duped them into watching a video about the 16-35 when they were looking for info on the 17-28. Have a great day!
Even tho I prefer and owns the Tamron 17-28, your video does make sense So there's no right or wrong answer, it just depends on the user which lens they prefer more
BAM - that is the point of everything I try to put out there. I want to encourage people to really take a look at their needs and the work that they're doing and make equipment choices accordingly! Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment!
Finally watched a review that sees things correctly. I too love my 16-35 oss. The lack of oss and the 28mm would not work for my needs whereas the 16-35 has never let me down.
Thanks Mike. The comments on this have been interesting. Everyone seems to have a strong opinion on the 16-35. They either love it or hate it. I tend to think that most people who've had some time with it come to really appreciate its strengths. Thanks for taking the time to comment - have a good one!
Thank you Matt. Great review and excellent points. I have the Tamron 17-28. I just shot some interiors for a client. Thinking that 17mm may not be wide enough, I borrowed my friend's Sigma 14-24 f2.8. The Sigma is wider but the Tamron held its own. I shot everything at f11 and f13. So I guess it would be hard to tell the quality differences at those F-stops. If I swap my Tamron for something wider, It would be the Sony 12-24 not anything else. Even the 14mm did not seem wide enough in one or two situations!
Every point is valid, especially based on one's main use of the glass. However, I own both (and recently sold my 16-35GM which was just not getting used anymore because of these two, go figure!) and have found the Tamron to be consistently sharper than the Zeiss, especially in the corners, and especially stopped down to f/4 (to match the zeiss). The Tamron is lighter, allows me to change the FOV while on the gimbal with no rebalance (changing with the zeiss puts some pressure on the gimbal, and I couldn't ever think of doing that with the much heavier GM that is now bye-bye), and the warranty is WAY better (which if you own lenses for a long time is a real value). Plus one thing to note is that I don't think the OSS/no-OSS comparison is valid (unless you're talking about putting these on non-IBIS a6X00 bodies). At these wide focal lengths with IBIS in the body, having or not having lens OSS is no different that I have ever noticed (again, at these focal lengths below 35mm - the longer you go, the more lens OSS is a real desire). I've found that at 35mm or less, whether you have 3-axis-in-body + 2-axis-in-lens or 5-axis-in-body-only, it's the same - so I feel the Tamron does have a stop better than the zeiss and I've proved that in real-world to myself. I hate the fact that Tamron made the lens TOO small and light and wish they would have made it a standard 16-35, but that's the only gripe I can give at that price point. Lighter, sharper, brighter, better balanced, and better warranty is what the Tamron has going for it IMHO.
Valid points, well presented - two of my favorite things! On the OSS, you're spot-on that the wider the focal length, the less of an issue it is, but in my testing I could tell a difference in what I'd call micro-jitters. Warranties certainly can be an issue for some but I buy most of my lenses used. It's a gamble I know but in 30 years of shooting, I've managed to stay ahead of the game. Maybe I've just been lucky. Tamron makes great lenses. To hit the price points they're aiming for, and the make those great products, there are trade-offs. On this lens they sacrificed the zoom range IMHO. With a zoom range limited to 11mm, I'd likely go with a pair of fast primes over a zoom with such limited reach. But hey, that's what makes the world go 'round, right? Thanks for watching and taking the time to share your thoughts. I really appreciate it. Have a great day!
I was researching the Tamron 17-28mm VS the Tamron 28-75mm for use on a Sony A7iii for what I'm trying to achieve. Within 40 seconds you answered my question. This video which is the first I've seen of your channel looks really nice.. Very close to the look I'm shooting for.. Pun intended! : ) Thanks for the help..
Glad to hear the video was helpful. The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a really amazing lens, especially for the money. That and the Zeiss 16-35 f/4 are the first lenses I pack for almost any job I do. Thanks for watching!
I just purchased a used copy of the 16-35mm Sony... I decided on that lens instead of the 17-28mm Tamron f/2.8 because of the very low price that I got the Sony for. Roberts Camera also gave me a free 6-month warranty (unusual for a used eBay item)...
Thanks W.C.! I have no doubt that the 17-28 is an awesome lens. Modern Tamron glass is fantastic! But, for my needs at this point in my business, the Zeiss is the more versatile option. If you get the 17-28, check back in and let me know what you think of it. Thanks for commenting, have a great day!
Thanks for not comparing with GM which most reviews are doing right now. Great video but I’ll go with Tamron and I’ll tell you why. You said when you need a faster wide lens you already have wide prime. For those of us who don’t have it or who don’t want to buy an extra fast wide lens, having 2.8 on Tamron is more appealing than 16 vs 17 or 28 vs 35. OSS isn’t that important to me as I don’t take chances for hand shake when I’m shooting and Tamron is cheaper still. I’m sure everyone have different needs and for most Sony is more suitable but for me I’ll go with Tamron. Thanks again.
Good points and your comment is exactly in line with the intent of my video: different needs for different photographers. Different gear for different workflows. Thanks for watching and taking the time to share your thoughts.
I think it depends on use case and equipments you use to select between 16-35 vs, 17-28 or like sigma 18-30. I own Zeiss 16-35 f4, Sony 16-38 f2.8, Zeiss Batis 18, Tamron 17-28 and a few sony prime in the range. When I use A7C, Tamron is the default lens I pick because it’s smaller, lighter, shoot closer and faster than Zeiss 16-35. It’s a perfect fit for the small A7C body. However, when I use my A7R4, I choose larger Sony 16-35 f2.8 GM to Betis 18mm because they are sharper, faster than Zeiss 16-35 and balance better on bigger body. Also the high resolution exposes some Tamron color imperfection that you don’t notice from A7C. OSS is helpful when I hand held in dark places or travel so I love that 24-105 f4 Sony, but this 16-35 f4 is kind of sitting in the middle of better choices, and end of staying in the box for a very long time now. I will sell it when I trade in the A7R4 for A7R5. Tamron will stay, when I go travel my primary is Hasselblad 907X 50C and backup is an A7C with this 17-28 plus a Tamron 28-200. That covers everything I need.
Yeah, that was kind of the point of the whole video. Lenses need to be chosen for the job and the type of work. Sadly, a lot of people missed the point. Thanks for watching.
Some excellent points Sony does have more range. But tanron is faster = less blur The image stabilize station shouldn't matter cause sony bodies have 5 stops stabilization
Precise and detailed, genuine review, tough to find such real reviews in the world of videos trying to sell only, and great knowledge Matt, yours is the one of the top channels on RUclips when it comes to gear review. Please suggest what would you recommend, will be the best FE lens to pair with Sony A7iii for 1) Kitchen studio indoor background with good lighting setup. Filming tasty style recipe videos to get sharp closeup mouthwatering macro over the top and 40 degree footage while cooking on the heat. Fast timelapse, fast forwards from the oven glass and on stove frying. 2)Cinematic brolls, slow motion while cutting, chopping, pouring, slicing and prepping the food. Also very Important - host/talent presenting prescriptive style narration during intro, in betweens and end to explain tips and techniques to fast prep, cook and present the dish. 3) Small size products(phones), white goods(washing machine) and car reviewing Carwow and MKBHD style videos along with host talking to camera. 4) Business Enterpreneurship Valuetainment, Tai Lopez style videos. host/talent presenting talking to camera on business, finance topics and pointers scrolling or highlighting on the clear seemless white background. CAN ANY ONE LENS DO ALL OF THE ABOVE? SHORTLISTED LENses For FOOD FILMING over the top and 1) Sony FE 90 mm F 2.8 Macro OR 1) FE 35 mm F 1.8 Food close up brolls, ff, slow mo 2)Sony FE 16 to 35 F2.8 GN Or 2) Tamron 17 to 35 F 2.8 (delisting) Or 2) Sony 16 to 35 F4 FOR TALKING to CAM VIDEOs 3) FE PZ 28 - 135 Mm F4 OSS Cine OR 3) Tamron 28 to 70 F2.8 OR 3) Sony Fe 24 to 105 f4 oss Please suggest if one of these above or some other lens can do all of the above Or would you recommend 2 lens combination? All indoors, with good lighting setup. NOTE: I have a sony 28-70 F3.5 to t.6 kit lense that came with A7iii. Thanks in advance HIGH REGARDS for your work. Sanjay
@@MattSpaugh great work! Can you please help me in selecting an appropriate lens for my specific purpose. I think you are the best person who can guide in this.
Everyone who can afford it should own the 90mm Sony Macro - period. That said, everything you list that you want to shoot needs something faster IMHO. I'd consider the Sony 50mm f/1.8 my favorite all-rounder. The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is a lens I'd suggest you consider as well. The Sigma is big - so video can be a challenge, especially on a gimbal. But something fast in a 35mm would likely suit your work well. If I could only have one lens it would be the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. It's not cheap but its a GREAT value. You'll find it a significant upgrade from your kit lens. Good luck in your search and thanks again for your kind words about my video.
@@MattSpaugh thanks Matt.. if you had a budget of around usd $3500. to buy lenses for A7iii for the purposes I mentioned. What lenses would you buy? Would you consider 16-35.gm and 90 macro and the 50 1.8 for all the purposes ?
@@CREATIVIZOR The 16-35 GM is a really great lens. I love my Zeiss 16-35 f/4, but GM is faster and sharper. With $3,500 to spend (I'm guessing thats USD), get that and and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and you'll be set for a long time. Next I'd add a fast 50mm: either the Sony 1.8 or the Zeiss 55mm 1.8 (find a used one if you can and save some $$$), and then the 90mm Macro.
I liked your video but a few things. I have the 16-35 Zeiss and now the Tamron 17-28. I put both lenses on an a7III fixed on a tripod and the 1mm difference was not as dramatic as you showed. Optically the Tamron is also sharper with less flair than the Zeiss. I’m a real estate photographer so bright light coming through windows is a problem. The Tamron is much better as it should be with the advance of new lens coatings. The Zeiss is getting a little old at this point. The Tamron also focuses better than the Zeiss. The color and contrast is also better with the Tamron. To sum up there will probably be another cheap 16-35 lens available soon because I’ll most likely be selling it as well. Oh BTW yes you can buy a used Zeiss for about the same price as the Tamron but you won’t be getting the 6 year warranty Tamron provides.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. My 16/17mm test was done exclusively with the Zeiss lens, setting it a 16 and then 17. 17mm on the Tamron and 17mm on the Zeiss may be slightly different, but I obviously did not have the Tamron on-hand for the comparison. Interestingly, flare is not a huge issue for me (I guess I"m a rube...I've learned to control it and in many cases I actually like it). You're spot-on with the warranty on a new lens but as far as the Zeiss "getting a little old" I don't agree. I shoot with many vintage lenses that are 50+ years old. While it's true that coatings can suffer over time, good glass should last a lifetime. As with everything I post in my videos, that's just my two cents. Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts. Have a great day!
Matt Spaugh Photography as far as the coating comment I made I should have been more specific. Lens coating technology has advanced, especially for mirrorless glass. Tamron is using something new. Dust barely sticks to the 17-28 front element where my Zeiss is a dust magnet. Perhaps one of the new nano coatings, I’m not sure. For what I shoot it’s imperative that my shots are clean of light problems. The Tamron is much more behaved than the Zeiss. I guess it depends on what you shoot and what sacrifices you are willing to make. From my tests so far the Tamron is just a better lens and I have pretty much switched to it for my work.
So you chose it for the stabilization and the extended zoom range? The zoom range I get sort of. But 2.8 is brighter and you won't need that much stabilization. Most Sony cameras has IBIS also. What many fail to see is that using more optical elements and constructions for stabilization affects sharpness. Used to shoot with the Canon 16-35 F4 L lens. It was fine and if you are not doing astro or are bothered by the price the Sony is not a bad choice by any means.
Everyone is saying the tamron is better or they like it more and I get that the tamron is faster(2.8) and sharper but it's a common known thing that the zoom ring gets looser over time and the lens moves easier while the Sony is staying the same and will not move without a hand turning the zoom ring. I don't have one of the two lenses and Will probably buy the sigma 14-24 f2.8 great video. Keep on doing this
Thanks Nave! I can't speak to the long-term quality of Tamron vs. Zeiss, but I will say that the Zeiss lenses I own are extremely well built and have stood the test of time. Thanks for watching and taking the time to share your thoughts. If you get the Sigma, let me know what you think of it. I have a 14mm prime lens but nothing that wide in a zoom.
Great video. What I liked: your opinion is different than most that I've seen on this lens. That said, it did resonate with me that with the OSS makes up for the one stop less aperture, something I was starting to think on my own from using other zooms. Your comment on relative pricing when considering the used market is also legit. Also like the background in your video. I'm a sub now, thanks again.
I commented it but deleted it because I thought more about it and didn’t feel it was really accurate. I think this is a great review and I think your opinions are well said. People on the internet take things personal and forget that what works for you may not work for them, and vice versa. The only thing I would tell you to work on would be, on your titles. This is a pretty doesn’t get to the point quickly, as some people have stated. Just “Why I’m Not Buying the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8” would’ve been better IMO. Also, the more I think about it, it doesn’t sound like you’ve actually used the lens. So the claims of clickbait kind of ring true because you made a comparison video about a lens you don’t own and haven’t used. So I think a better video to make would have been to focus solely on the 16-35 instead of trying to do a full video comparison. There are plenty of non-statistical reasons we buy lenses that could’ve weighted your decision differently and made you go a different direction. But you wouldn’t know that because you haven’t actually used the lens. No anger or malice, just some small critics to help you grow. Will be subscribing to your channel. Keep up the good work.
I got my Zeiss 1635 as well for $850 all included on ebay. Couldn't be any happier. The build quality of Zeis is one of a kinds (I own about 4 lens including Tamron 28-70mm 2.8, but nothing beat Zeiss). Like you said, that extra 1 mm wide end (16mm) and the fact that I can go for 35 mm ( makes it so versatile. I don't have to switch lens as much. good points!
Thanks for the comment. The Zeiss build and feel is different from the Tamron for sure. There are times when I miss the speed of 2.8... but I tend to buy faster primes and slower zooms. The trade-offs work well for the type of work I do and the way I like to shoot. Have a good one!
I bought the Tamron 2 days ago & I’m keeping it. So far/so good. Very sharp crystal clear results. The focus is slightly stiffer than other lens,s but it’s not a problem for me. No complaints from me even with the price. Over $1400 dollars Australian. Neville J.
I'm with you. When I was renting the 16-35, I never shot a session that I didn't come back amazed by footage/stills. Thanks for taking the time to comment - have a good one!
I can't say that I've been able to gain 3 whole stops but Phillip Reeve claims it in his long-term review. Shooting technique plays a big role and I'd say he's got a steadier hand than me! Glad you liked the video and took the time to comment. I appreciate it - have a great day Andy!
Great review except for one major oversight. Oss lenses only perform the pitch and yaw stabilization on a Sony with 5 axis stabilization. A function which I personally feel is not the most essential. We frequently shoot photo and video without issue. To each their own I suppose. Your reasoning only seems like it would apply to non moving subjects. Thanks for sharing
You are surely laid out some facts for lots of people to chose. It's been a battle for me for me to choose between these two lenses, and you certainly pointed out some facts for me to favor the Sony over the Tamron. I have a shaky hand and the OSS can make photography different. Thank you
7:00 i dont like people who compare 1 product as used and the other one as new. That makes no sense. Yeah you can buy the 16-35 used for 800 but you can also buy the 17-28 for less... There is no point to say that the 16-35 is cheaper used if you do not say how much a 17-28 would cost used...
Thats some real sound logic there cowboy. You do realize that the minute you but a lens it's used. It changes nothing about the lens - it's identical to when it was new... but y'know, it's used. But whatever, you do you, boo.
@@MattSpaugh yes but when comparing the price of 2 products its pretty unfair to say that you can buy 1 product used and then compare the price of the used lems and the new lens. of course it does not matter if a lens is new or used with no dust and scratches, but you cant again compare the price of 2 lenses and say only for 1 lens that you can get that to a lower price if you buy that lens used. i am really sorry for my bad english and i hope you do understand what i mean!
@@tommyIT When I made this video - over 2 years ago - I could spend $800 on a new Tamron lens or $800 on a used Zeiss lens. What you're able to buy is based on what you can afford - whether it's new or used is irrelevant. That's what $800 would buy at the time. Even at full retail, I'd pick the Zeiss lens. It is the more versatile lens and that's the point of my video. And who would buy a used lens with dust and scratches???
Thanks Matt. Thumbs up from me...this is exactly the conundrum I am pondering at the moment....nearly hit yes twice on the Sony 16-35mm. I also have the 28-75 Tamron which is an awesome lens for the money so expect that the 17-28 will also be fantastic...... Decisions decisions. hopefully they will roll out a 70-200 soon......;-) Keeping an eye out for future vids. Don't worry about the negative comments putting an opinion out there always splits the crowd. Keep up the good work.
Thanks Chris for the encouragement. Gear is funny stuff for sure - I've never been a big brand-loyalty kinda guy. Leaving Canon after 30+ years was a pain, but the decision had very little to do with whether or not I liked the company - I just need to get my job done as professionally as possible within budget constraints. I'm sure someone will do a side-by-side when the 17-28 officially hits. Like I've said, if money was no issue, I'd own both but I don't live in that world yet. Have a great day - more vids on the way!
Welcome to the SFFW! After 20+ years as a Canon shooter, I have zero regrets in my decision to switch to Sony. The A7III is such a perfect tool for this job. Glad you found the video helpful - thanks for watching!
I’ve watched most of the Tamron 17-28 RUclips videos and you definitely gave an informative and unique perspective on this lens compared to most of the boring cookie cutter videos regarding the 17-28. Keep up the great content.
Matt Spaugh Photography All these camera RUclipsrs copy each other’s videos. I’d say you do you and you’ll be successful. Your videos really are refreshing and informative.
This was the deciding factor me to choose sony over the tamron. I've been debating this for weeks. I really wish tamron was 16-35 or closer to that. I'm also sold that oss pared with IBIS makes a noticeable difference. I thank you for making this video.
I've sold my canon 16-35 adopted to my a7iii. i was considering tamron 17-28 for the price and also the F2.8 aperture but i was really concerned about 17mm and 16mm. I shoot wedding events and I always shoot 16mm most of the time since that's my style. I think I'd go for 16-35 sony since I can buy used ones right now for the same or even cheaper price.
My thoughts exactly. For events the Sony/Zeiss 16-35 is so ideal. The f/4 aperture does not bother me for that type of work either - yes the extra light would be nice, but shallow depth of field can be problematic when shooting events IMHO. Thanks for watching!
@@MattSpaugh I tried to convince myself I needed 2.8 on a wide angle. Reality for me is f4 is fine as most of my shots are during the day. I have the sony 28 f2 for anything night and kinda wide. That is an over looked lens for 28 and f2. Very compact. Tamron 17-28 is going back. Good review points.
@@JamesonsTravels Yeah, I've missed having the extra speed in low light situations, but those don't come up too often for me plus, the low-light performance is so strong on the A7III that it's never been a major issue. I have some faster, wide primes as well that can cover. In general, I opt for fasts primes and slower zooms. I need to make a video about that!
Depends on what you are looking for. I shoot no video. For me, the 2.8 aperture and the ability of closer focusing would help to shoot exactly the way I want with a lens like that - dramatically wide pictures, with good subject isolation. Plus it's cheaper, plus it's smaller, some say it's also sharper.
Thanks Matt. I have recently bought the Tamron 28-75 and was planning on buying the 17-28. I had sort of forgotten about the Sony 16-35 f/4 as an alternative. I am currently still using my Canon 16-35 f/4 with the MC11 adapter. I mostly use the wide zoom for landscape shots where the 2.8 is not important. I will give this some more investigation. Phil
HA! Finally someone who doesn't hate me for posting this video. I'm glad you saw the comparison for what it was. I absolutely love my 28-75 and as I've mentioned, I was really, REALLY excited about the 17-28 when it was first announced. If the price point had been a little lower, I doubt I would've taken the time to consider any other alternatives. You can rent the 16-35 pretty cheaply (I rent from aperturent.com) and I'd recommend it if you have not shot with it before. I even made a video about the pros and cons of renting equipment at basically revolves around my experience with the 16-35. Glad you liked the video, and thanks for your comments.
@@MattSpaugh Hi Matt, Here in Canada we have to add 30% exchange rate + 13% sales tax on top of the US price difference which makes the difference even more significant. I have checked locally and the only used Sony 16-35 f/4 actually wants more than a brand new Tamron 17-28 f/2.8. Other things to consider are the Tamron will come with a 6-year warranty vs. none on a used lens, The Tamron is 20% lighter, it also has a rubber mount gasket, and it is internal zoom so less likely to suck in dust and will maintain balance while zoomed on a gimbal. I am sort of leaning toward the new Tamron, but will till keep an eye on the used Sony market until the Tamron becomes readily available here. Thanks again for your video. It's always good to keep an open mind. One size doesn't fit all.
@@PhilT993 Being that I'm primarily a portrait/headshot photographer and my video work is mostly interview/documentary, the weather sealing is not something I'd considered in my decision - a really good point though. Bummer on the exchange rate and sales tax. Have a good one.
Thank you for your comments about these two lenses. I already have the Zeiss which is very convenient not only for landscape photography, and your arguments confirm me that there is no reason to change horses!But what I missed in your discussion are remarks about image and bokeh quality.
I'm glad you found the video helpful. Some people love to hate on the 16-35, but I never fail to get images and video that I love from it. For the record, I'm trying get my hands on the 17-28 to do some actual comparison shots. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment - have a great day!
Generally one uses wide lenses to incorporate a full scene. Having more bokeh narrows the depth of field making a lot of the scenery out of focus. To the untrained eye that just seems blurry. Maybe bokeh in this case is not as important. That applies to scenery. However on particular objects. A faster lens is awesome. I can’t speak to sharpness. I’ve got 4 tamron lenses ( not the 17-28) they are so sharp.
Thanks. Good pragmatic comparison that helped me think through my own lens choices. I just received the new Tamron 70-180 f2.8 and was very impressed so started to think through the merits (or otherwise) of Tamron's sister optics. I already own and like the Sony Zeiss 16-35 f4 and think I will stay with it. I'm always reading about how much better the GM version is. I'm lucky in that I could afford one but choose the Zeiss as it was a lot smaller and still performed pretty well. Being a lot cheaper didn't hurt either. My main use is travel (less heft is a big plus). Also I use a tripod when I can and for many landcape shots would typically shoot at f5.6 or f8 anyway. If I need small and fast I have prime Sony options of 24mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.8. I'm also considering the 20mm f1.8. The small form factor and fast f2.8 for Tamron seem like big wins.....but.... I too think the range is limited and whilst f2.8 is attractive and I can see a lot of merit in the Tamron it's not enough to switch and too profligate/impractical to own and pack both. Given a fast prime (for astro) I'm happy where I am. I may get into video in future so good to know that OSS is a bigger plus than I previously thought.
You're reasons are actually very very sound and logical for choosing the Sony lens instead, however I PERSONALLY could never feel that sense of pride and satisfaction of shooting a Sony over a Tamron (....i've been a Tamron fanboy for over 30 yrs now : D )
@@MattSpaugh Well, to a point I guess.....for example, eating a bowl of unflavored hot oatmeal would get the job done of satisfying hunger, but wouldn't we all rather have several slices of delicious pepperoni pizza instead? (yer welcome btw....)
HA - point taken! Truth is, while it would be nice to make content that everyone enjoys, it's definitely NOT my primary goal. Being honest about what I do comes first. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Have a great day!
Glad it was helpful. I still use my 16-35 on almost every shoot and find it to be a very versatile lens. If I made a change, it would be to the Sony f/2.8 version but there are a lot more things my company needs before that purchase happens. Rome Georgia or Rome Italy? I went to Italy once. Singing in cathedrals all over the place. 35 concerts in 5 weeks! I was just a kid though so I think most of the culture was wasted on me. I did eat rabbit there for the first time so there's that. Thanks for watching!
@@MattSpaugh Ha! Rome, GA. I just bought an A9ii and have to start selling my Nikons to afford lenses, lol. Have you been up here? Berry College is beautiful, but it's still closed for Covid.
@@ItsTOUGHtobeFascinating Ahhh yes, Rome Georgia. I had a peach of a girlfriend that went there back in ye olde mid-eighties. Beautiful place. I went through a similar situation liquidating Canon gear a couple of years back when I bought my first A7III. I have zero regrets. Canon's lack of foresight into mirrorless, and their general contempt for their customer base made the switch a no brainer. I sold a lot of good glass and THEN watched the prices plummet as the market got flooded with people doing the same thing I did. If you ever find yourself in Atlanta, beers are on me.
I preferred the tamron with f2.8 over the f4 and couldn't be more happy with it... I've got more focal lengths to choose for don't need the extra 35mm because if I need a 35 I would get my 35 1.8 instead which is sharper faster and lighter or simply put the 28-75 which is also great...
I hear you, and thanks for sharing your perspective. The f/4 aperture can be drawback in certain situations for sure. That Sony 16-35 f2/8 G-Master really is the best of both worlds... too rich for my budget though - for now! Have a good one, thanks for watching.
@@MattSpaugh The Sony is still heavy for gimbal use for example, this is actually my first wide-angle if we can call it like that, I've been wanting one since ever, finally bought it and in this case for a reasonable price. I'm the guy who never bought an Iphone because I always try to buy the best bang for the buck... I think that even If money was no object I would still buy the tamron because it's not my main lens and it does the job pretty well! Thank you! Have a nice day!
Thanks for this, Matt! I like the possibility of getting the Sony cheaper 2nd hand but also would probably rather have a brand-new Tamron (with the peace of mind that comes with that). Also, on your last point about the focus ring stiffness, wouldn’t you say that the Tamron is a better option on the gimbal because of its internal zoom (consistent ergonomic) over the Sony’s external?
Thanks GE! It seems to be working well for me. I've got a video in the works that better explains my logic on the subject. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. Have a good one!
At this moment i can't decide wich will be better for me. A 100% of time i'm using now 28-75 as the only lens that i have with my A7III on a gimbal. And for second a6400 camera - 18-105 for outdoors portraits and 50 f/1.8 for indoors. Thank you for video
The more I 'live with' the 16-35 the more I like it. However, there are times when I really miss having the extra speed of a f/2.8 aperture. I have the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 but it's big and heavy. Not good for gimbal work at all. Thanks for watching. Have a great day!
If you're somewhere where you can rent both, I'd highly recommend it. I know it costs money but no amount of review watching can compare to first-hand experience. I use aperturent.com for my rentals and they're fantastic.
@@MattSpaugh unfortunately, i living in small russian town Chita (300k civilian), located near the China, between Baikal lake and Pascific ocean. There is no rent or any user of this lens ) Most of videographers using canon lenses or m4/3 system.
@@foxhouse_tips It's still amazing to me that one guy in a tiny studio in Atlanta, Georgia, USA can put out a video that can reach someone so far away. Good luck with your search and thanks again for watching. I finally got a decent haircut so hopefully I'll be putting out more videos soon!
@@MattSpaugh Hehe ) So, i'll be waiting ) Also, i need some haircut too )) Your speech are good anought to me as not native speaker. So i can understand a most of information. Good luck! I wish you more subscribers!
Not sure what's up with the downvotes they are all valid and if you have the 28-75 it would be nice to pair with the 17-28 but with oss I hear it's better plus I've seen videos with the 16-35 f4 just I can barely notice its the f4 and look better then beginners using the GM variation plus if you're a photographer just use primes lol don't astro photographers usually use higher fstops anyways?
Thanks for the video. It would have been nice if you had talked about the optical quality, which, at the end of the day, is what we come for in reviews. The rest (aperture, OSS, focal length range) I can easily read in the specs. Maybe that's why you got many thumbs down? Thanks anyway
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I state that most any lens in this price range is going to have exceptional optics plus, there are more than enough videos that focus on optical quality. Also, not having BOTH lenses on hand (the 17-28 had not been released when this video was made BTW), it would be impossible to do a comparison between the two lenses. For a working professional, "at the end of the day", there is more to lens selection than optical quality. This video is about whether or not the trade offs in speed are worth the gains in focal length, and to highlight an option that many people might overlook when choosing a wide angle zoom. It's about making a purchase based on practical use for whatever kind of work the lens is being used for.
The zoom ring on 17-28 is better than the 28-75, it's smoother now :D. Anyway, great video. Actually, for some photographer like me (noviceeee), spending $877 for the new 17-28 and with the kit (28-70) is better than spending $1053 for the 16-35 (new lens only). For me, I only shot landscape so I don't worry to much about the portrait photos. The kit lens would provide a bit zoom when I need :D
Matt, just an observation. I am curious what your take might be. When shooting with the 17-28 and the 14-24 and a 7RIV, I did the set up and zoomed in to do manual focus in all the shot I did. What I noticed is that the fine details showed the amazing resolving power of the lenses. However, when looking at the images on my computer later on, I noticed that the details I saw are not there as much. Is it possible that the lenses are out resolving the 61MP sensor. In another words, the sensor is not able to capture the details that the lenses are capable of delivering. Curious about your experiences. Thanks.
I don't actually own either of those lenses but it sounds to me like you could be getting some camera shake? 61MP should be grabbing every bit of what you're seeing in the viewfinder or on screen. I find that the majority of my images that are not super-sharp are the result of camera shake. Upping my shutter speed usually does the trick. Hope that helps. Sounds like you've got some real nice gear to work with! Thanks for watching.
@@MattSpaugh Thank you Matt. I had the camera on a heavy duty CF tripod and had a 10lbs. sandbag hanging from the bottom to keep it steady for all the shots I needed to be in register. I used a bluetooth Sony remote to trigger the camera. This was my first gig doing this type of images on my Sony. I have done this type of work on my Pentax K1 in the past with excellent results. I guess I have to do some more experimenting to find out what is going on. My landscape images with the A7RVI and the Tamron 70-180 are unreal. The 17-28 looks amazingly good too. Just this interior stuff! Thank you for your feedback.
@@MattSpaugh I use Photoshop auto align anyway. There is some movement no matter how steady you keep it. K-1000 and a 50mm f2 lens is how my photography journey started a long time ago!
Very helpful as I often question whether I need 2.8's or better for all of my lenses. If Money were no issue, I'd have the Sony GM 2.8 over my f4 but I've been happy with my f4 Sony 16-35mm as well. The Tamron will get good praise I'm sure but.... the Sony prevails prevails.
I've found that I tend to opt for faster primes and save money by buying slower zooms. I'm with you on the money - that G-Master 16-35 is the best of both worlds for sure, but at this stage of my business, 2 grand ain't in the cards for something that wide. I still think the Tamron is a great lens, I'm just not willing to sacrifice focal length and stabilization for a wider aperture. Thanks for taking the time to comment - have a great day!
I'm slightly confused regarding stabilization. Most full frame Sony bodies have ibis. The ibis provide 5 axis of stabilization on non OSS lenses. I'd really like to see a stabilization comparison with the two lenses. Perhaps the Tamron speed advantage coupled with the ibis would push the Tamron to the front of the pack. I'm not so sure 17mm vs 16mm is a deal breaker. There are far too many advantages to the Tamron to ignore. In my opinion...
@@MattSpaugh very good point. I'd hate to have to carry additional lenses if I didn't have to. Essentially the Tamron having such a small range makes it a somewhat flexible wide angle prime. 28mm is useful but not ideal. The sony reaching 35mm is a lot more useful. I just hate slow lenses. For landscape however they are usually fine.
Pretty informative. Some strong points. I'd say, though, that I haven't seen any evidence that OSS does a better job at stabilizing its 2 axes than IBIS on lenses with such a short focal distance. This "3 stops of difference" stuff may be more for longer focal ranges and/or for cameras without 5-axis IBIS. Have you tried an unstabilized super-wide angle lens with IBIS on yet? (Turning off OSS on lenses that have it automatically also turns off IBIS, so you'd really need an unstabilized lens for comparison) As a stills photographer I obviously don't share many of the objections you have to the Tamron anyway. I didn't vote on your video, but as far as advice goes, I'd say lose the record scratch sound as that can get really jarring after a while. And if you really want people to like your presentation, then take your own feedback seriously and properly inform yourself before turning on the camera. This wasn't even a live recording. Again you know what you're doing wrong. Good luck!
Pretty sure all the downvotes are butthurt tamron users! I myself picked up the 17-28mm and love it! It’s super sharp and great in low light. Being kinda OCD I really love how the lens starts at 17 and ends at 28 where the 28-75 takes off from. Granted that a 16-35 is more flexible I still love how they pair so perfectly.
I'm just glad the thumbs-uppers are now beating the dislikes! Ha - really doesn't matter too much to me. It's all just my two cents and everyone is entitled to agree or disagree. Glad you like the vid and thanks for taking time to comment. Once you've had some time with the new lens, check back in and let me know how you like it. If I become flush with cash, I'll probably buy one too!
Both lenses ending and starting at the exact same focal length may be great for those suffering from OCD but in the real world it's more convenient to have some overlap. Saves you from having to swap lenses ever so often.
I love the OCD part, being a software engineer myself, I always thought it was odd that 16-35 was a defacto, when 24-70 would pair with 70-200, made no sense. I guess it was just too tough to make 1X-24mm with the longer flange distances, but that has changed. The sigma 14-24 f2.8 is small for what it is, the Tamron fits the size as well. Got the Tamron myself because I have the 28-75, max efficiency, very impressive performance. These are my core lenses, anything else will be for fun.
U forgot to mention that The tamron comes with a 6 year warranty from tamron. But the Sony being bought use pretty much does not have a warranty. That is valuable information
I guess the fact that in 32 years of professional photography I've never had a warranty issue kinda takes that off my radar. It's definitely a good point though. Tamron makes an awesome product (the 28-75 f/2.8 is my favorite zoom lens) and they stand by it for sure.
I own the 28-75, I don't like particularly how the images look out of it, probably because i'm a long time prime shooter. I need a wide angle lens, Bokeh won't really matter at those lengths, but reaching 35mm would save me a couple of lens swaps! Never owned a lens as slow as f/4 tho... I can't consider now the GM because to cover that filter-thread i'll need another 500$ on a good ND
I too have the 28-75. It's a great lens but I will say I don't 'crave' to shoot with it like to do some of my other glass. 16-53 really is a sweet range to have - and like you say, saves some lens swaps for sure. Thanks for taking the time to comment - have a good one!
I’ve made the same decision to get a Sony 16-35 f/4. I was waiting for this Tamron wide lens. But the funny thing is that in Australia, the Tamron would cost 400 dollars more than the Sony (brand new, because of sale and cashback promotion).
Awesome. I ended up getting my 16-35 a good bit cheaper than the 17-28 would've cost me. OF course, I have no warranty and it's a used lens. Thanks for the comment - have a great day.
Glad you liked it. It's been pretty amazing the responses I've received. Everything from being called stupid for buying the Zeiss to being accused of posting click-bait. It's a funny world out there - watch yourself. And, have a great day!
I don't like the 35mm perspective; I shoot mostly 20mm and 28mm. So this would be a great lens; wider than my 20; and ends at my 28mm. If they made this for the Nikon Z mount I''d buy it tomorrow.
Interesting. 35mm-50mm have always been a sweet-spot for me personally. 35 because to evenly covers the full-frame sensor and 50 because its such a natural amount of compression/distortion. I will say that I'm not a fan of poor lenses that have unnatural distortion at 35mm. Thanks for taking the time to comment - have a good one!
Another convert. Oddly enough, in one of my more recent videos I compare that same lens to the newer Tamron 20-40 f/2.8, which I really, really like. I still have the 16-35 and it definitely has its place, but unless you absolutely need that 16-20mm range, the 20-40 is definitely worth checking out. Thanks for watching. ruclips.net/video/RZ2HOwxh7-8/видео.html
@@MattSpaugh i appreciate the response, and the recommendation. Just ordered the Zeis last night second hand for pretty cheap, will be good for those real estate shots. I have a tamron 2.8 24-75 its a good lens, but with it not having optical image stabilization, even with a gimbal its more difficult to get those smooth shots.
@@bogdanlyashenko5582 if you're doing anything in real estate, or architectural - even landscape work, you definitely need that 16-20 range. I'm guessing that you'll love the Zeiss 16-35 f/4. Good luck with it!
I absolutely agree-- the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 for the Canon mount (or Nikon) was an awesome lens. Why didn't Tamron make that same lens for the Sony? This 17-28mm misses the mark.
Yeah, I'll always have fond recollections of shooting with that 15-30. Everything about it was so perfect for me at that time in my career. I will say I don't miss the size and weight of that thing - what a load! It would've been great if the wide/fast/mirrorless option had been more along those lines. Trade-offs are the name of the game though. Thanks for taking the time to comment, have a great day!
Isn't the OSS argument pretty much negated on modern full frame Sony cameras since they all have in body stabilization? Additional plusses for the tamron: (i) lighter; (ii) internal focusing -- good for gimbal use and (iii) almost no focus breathing in video
It's a bit hard to tell with the OSS but my personal experience with stabilized lenses and non-stabilized of the same focal length is that I get smoother footage with the stabilized lens. My brain could playing tricks on me though. Excellent point on the internal zoom - a plus for the Tamron that I had not considered since I rarely change my focal length when doing gimbal work (focus: yes, zoom: almost never). Lastly, It would be interesting to see a focus breathing comparison between the two when shooting video. Personally, I have not experienced it to any significant degree on the 16-35 but I tend to pull focus manually for most shots. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. You make some good points that I had not considered. I appreciate it.
I don't understand, how can you compare the OSS if the sony cameras has stabilizer inside?, the OSS it doesn't matter. If you compare the sharpness within sony f4 16-35 and tamron 17-28 f2.8, it a big difference, thats whay people compare the tamron with the G master f2.8, becouse of the sharpness
The OSS in the lens is independent of the IBIS of the camera. Working together, they provide more stabilization than either does independently. I do not address sharpness issues in my video because when this video was made, the 17-28 was not yet shipping and my experience with Tamron and Zeiss lenes tells me that both are sharp enough for my purposes. I'm primarily comparing these lenses for video work but for stills I can see how a difference in sharpness might be a concern for you. At identical focal lengths and aperture, the my Zeiss 16-35 is sharper than my Tamron 28-75 - but it's not significant enough to matter for the work I do and the people who pay me to do it. I'm guessing that you own or have access to both? If so, please point me to your comparison of the two, I'd love to see your results. Thanks for commenting and have a great day!
First time I’ve seen your channel... good comments, good production and presentation style. Got to say the scratch/pause/record noise becomes annoying after the 2nd or 3rd time though. Gave you a like anyway!
Point taken on the record scratch. You're not the first to mention it. I like it as a way of correcting mistakes with onscreen text. I've reduced the volume of the scratch significantly in videos that came after this one. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I appreciate it!
I enjoy your video ..... I own sony 16-35 f4 , still working great ..... Tamron in Indonesia cost more expensive than Sony 16-35 f4 for the new ones ...... the different only weight ....
Thanks Buzz! As a relatively new RUclipsr, it's very tempting to try and emulate what the 'cool kids' are doing as far as content creation goes. I'm glad my video spoke to you and thanks for taking the time to comment. Have a good one!
You guys clearly don't plan to shoot low light, astro or want this for portraits. The Tamron is excellent on my a7rii. I've used the sony 16-35 2.8 and it is very simular quality wise but over double the price.
That's kinda the point Douglas: different tools for different jobs. I tend to go with primes for the applications you mention. For astro photography I like the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 or any of the Laowa zero-d primes. For portraits, I'm partial to the Sony 85mm f/1.8 or a nice, fast vintage 135. Portraits at wide focal lengths are rarely flattering IMHO. In a zoom lens I want flexibility and I feel the 16-35 f/4 is a good balance of features and a great value. Thanks for taking the time to comment - have a great day!
@@MattSpaugh I am about to sell my now obsolete Rokinon 14mm. I find the Tamron sharper and it has less distortion and I also have the valuable metadata for post work. So that's one less lens to be carting around. As for portraits, of course primes are going to be better- and that's why I have some. However, the wide angle could still be used if need be. Some models you may want to emphasize their whole figure with a sleek tall look. I have yet to test this out on the 17-28mm, but I have with Tamrons 28-75mm and it was amazing. I also shoot a bit from a helicopter, and have found in the past with my f4 lens' that I have had to really crank up the iso to get a sharp image. So the 2.8 will come in handy there too.
Thanks Jim, I'm glad you liked it. I've had good luck finding used lenses on Craigslist and Facebook Marketplace. Ebay works too but I prefer to be able to try a lens before buying. KEH.com is a good resource too. You'll pay a little more, but you can buy from them with confidence. It's an f/4 lens so yes, you cannot get as shallow a depth of field with the Zeiss as you can with the Tamron. For that I prefer prime lenses. I tend to buy faster primes and slower zooms.
I tell you what, the build quality of the Sony 1635 is not stable(sorry for my English), some of the lens produce worse IQ, but some of the lens perform very well, just go to a camera store and test a couple of the 1635 lens you’ll find the difference of the IQ is significant, that’s why the reviews are so two extremes.
Have you owned multiple versions of this lens? Do you work in a store where you have the opportunity to use different copies of the 16-35? I hear this all the time, but I've used many Zeiss 16-35 lenses and I've never found one that wasn't stellar. I think this has been blown out of proportion by people who repeat what they've heard instead of speaking from first-hand experience. I don't mean to sound like a jerk, I really would like to know if you've used multiple versions of this lens and found them to be different in quality? KEH Camera (large reseller of used equipment) is in my town and I may actually take this up with them - see if they'll let me test every single 16-35 that comes through the shop. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I never hear this accusation from people who've owned multiple copies of this lens. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment - I really do appreciate it.
16-35 F/4 had few pretty bad reviews out there. I prefer G Master 16-35 instead but it is very expensive. Tamron 17-28 is a great option to consider if you cannot afford a G Master for that focal length. Your video gave me all the reasons to go for this lens. Thanks
If money was no object, the G-Master wins hands down. Unfortunately, money's still an object - at least for me - and focal length + OSS beats a faster aperture for my work. Thanks for taking the time to comment - have a good one!
Thanks! You mentioned things I needed to know. I am trying to decide on an (almost) everything lens for a7iii, (apples to oranges here) between Tamron 17-28 or Sony 24-105. Your thoughts: Which lens is better for making videos, (Gimble: Feiyu 2000) to include macro?
When I was a Canon shooter I used a 24-105 as my everyday lens and that focal length range was perfect (for me anyway). I do not have any experience with the Sony 24-105 but I've never met a Sony lens I didn't like. They're pricey, but in my experience, worth the money. My everyday lens is the Tamron 28-75 and I cannot recommend it highly enough - it's fantastic and works really well for video as well as stills. Hope that helps - thanks for watching and have a great day!
Hey Matt! After researching a ton, YT has suggested me your video and maybe you can help me decide. I am a somewhat newbie portrait shooter that occasionally does some events. I have the ZA 55mm and the FE 85mm and have been meaning to get something wider to play with distortion. I do enjoy primes more than zooms. I'm almost decided on the 35mm 1.8, but that's because the 24mm 1.4 is just too expensive for me. I wonder if the Tamron might be a better choice due to flexibility. Then again, the 35mm prime will get me better separation (the "all important" bokeh) and it focuses relatively closer (I like to get really close-up shots)... Could you help me with your thoughts?
55mm and 85mm are great portrait focal lengths in my opinion. I never shoot portraits at less than 35mm unless I'm intentionally trying to get weird distortion in the subject. I'd say for portrait work - you're set! You mention liking primes over zooms and I agree - for certain things. When I shoot events, I take three lenses: The Zeiss 16-35 that I talk about in this video, the Tamron 28-75 which might be the best value in a zoom lens EVAR! and my Sony 70-200 f/4. In most cases, the 16-35 does everything I need and neither of the other lenses ever leaves my bag. Events, weddings, street photography, etc. all require flexibility. Zooms give you that. With a 16-35 and the two primes you already have, you could get a LOT of work done. I hope that's helpful, good luck in your creative endeavors and thanks for taking the time to comment.
@@MattSpaugh After I got the 85mm, I've been using the 55mm (which was my first ever lens) so much less. It's a beautiful lens, but the 85mm matches the way I "see" the world just so well. But it doesn't work for everything and then... Most of the time I grab the 55mm I end up thinking "I wish this was wider". It's either I want to incorporate more into the frame or I want to intentionally distort something. I second shot a couple of weddings (with only those two lenses) and I really feel that my images were distinctly different than the first shooter's thanks to the look the primes give (wide f-stop and also the constraints that end up opening up my creativity). That's why I'm more inclined towards a prime. Thank you very much for your insights! Also, I really like how you structure your videos and the way to speak in them. I hope your channel grows and you're able to put out more and more content!
When this video was made, the 17-28 was not yet available for purchase. In this class of lenses, however, the optical differences are going to be minor in my opinion. Having seen some images from other folks shot with the 17-28, I have to say I prefer the overall look of the Zeiss 16-35. It's so subjective though - the only way for you to know is to either borrow or rent both lenses and see which one looks best for you - your subject matter - your camera body - your style of shooting. I keep lenses indefinitely so spending $75 or so on the front-end to rent a lens is a worthwhile investment to me on something that I plan to keep for a long time. Thanks for watching, and for taking the time to comment. Have a good one!
I have Zeiss 16-35 f4 but I was not convinced by this lens in the clash with GM 16-35. 16mm-17mm is not a big difference. that's why I think I'll give a chance to the tamron ... is a newer product than the zeiss f4 in terms of optics. Modern design ... and has better AF !!! working with the gimbal is much more comfortable ... I don't understand the comparison with a smoother zoom in sony ... it works OK in every tamron and I don't think that in 17-28 there will be a problem with it ... besides what it has anyway ??? Lens definitely more modern than Sony Zeiss f4 .. for me comparison makes no sense ... Please test tamron vs. zeiss on f4 and then we will talk ... Tamron is definitely sharper and you will see more details ... this is a design that will easily cope with higher resolution matrices like those on a7R3 and A7R4 cameras !!! But it is not the Sony ZEISS 16-35 f4 fault that when these cameras were made it was not planned ... SZ is an older and more amateur product.
I'm not sure what part of the world you're in but here in the US, Craigslist has actually been where I've found the best deals on contemporary lenses. Facebook Marketplace usually has a wide selection of lenses too. KEH.com is also an excellent resource. You'll pay a little more with them, but they're a trusted retailer of used equipment. I've purchased a number of what I'd call 'vintage' lenses via ebay - I've bought from Ukraine and Kiev without issue. All that said - buyer beware! Make sure you know what you're getting and understand that any used lens carries some risk. Good hunting!
I think you just convinced me to stick to getting the 16-35. I was gonna get the tamron 17-28 but after this video and seeing the things you pointed out. I'm gonna get the Sony 16-35
I'm glad you found my video helpful. When I really think about it, the greater range of focal length alone almost seals the deal for me. Some people will always opt for the faster lens: more cinematic, better bokeh, etc, and while those things are certainly true, they aren't the whole story by any means. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment - I appreciate it.
@@MattSpaugh Thank you for the video. I am looking for a wide lens for real estate and trying to stick to native sony lenses and I have seen used ones around $800-$900 on adorama. Not a bad price and i like the versatility of going to 35mm
@@RawloftheDead I personally think you'd be very pleased with the Zeiss 16-35. For real estate, a tripod is going to be your friend, so the slower aperture is not an issue. I used to the use the Tamron 15-30 for real estate and LOVED it. I also have the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, but distortion can be a problem and it's also a manual lens so it's going to slow you down a bit while shooting.
I'm with you! (obviously). The 11mm range of the Tamron is the main reason I went searching for other options. I understand that it keeps the size and weight down, but at that point, I'd almost rather use a 20mm or 24mm prime and 'zoom with my feet". Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment.
Duuudeee, I like your take on this lens man, you make sense. I have been thinking about getting this lens for a month now but on the fence cuz of lack of image stabilization as i primarily shoot videos. I use a Sony A7s as my main camera with a 28-75 FE kit lens and Sony A5100 as my bcam with a 35mm f1.8. Both cameras as you might know do not have IBIS but the lenses do have OSS and i can totally see the difference in handheld shots. I wanted to go wide so I had ordered the samyang fe 24mm lens but the handled video and the AF motor noise just was not cutting it for me so i returned it. I want to get a wide angle lens either a faster prime Sigma 16mm f1.4 or Sony 20mm f2.8 or get a constant aperture zoom like the 16-35 zeiss f4. I would love to know your take on these 3 lenses and which one you would prefer under what situations in categories of bang for buck, versatility and quality ? And if you have any other lens for suggestions for video work, thats more than welcome too. Again thanks a lot in advance for reading this and helping me out Matt.
I'm with you on OSS making a difference for video and, in all honesty, that was the biggest thing that swayed my purchase decision. As far as the other lenses you're asking about, I'm afraid I have really limited experience with them but I'll share some thoughts. Sigma: their lenses have always seemed big and heavy to me. It seems like Initially they were taking existing lens designs and adapting them to the mirrorless format. I'll be interested to see how their new, "Specifically Designed for Sony FE" lenses perform. In general, I buy faster primes and live with slower zooms. For my work the optical benefits of a prime lens can't compete with the flexibility of a fixed aperture zoom. Speaking of which; I do not shoot variable aperture lenses - they just don't work in my style of shooting. In the end, I'm making corporate video, interview/documentary stuff, and trailers for theatrical productions and this is what works for me. Thanks for the encouragement - more vids are on the way!
That video will support my decision towards the Zeiss 16-35. Thanks for a really good and short video. I watched like 50 videos before but this one was compact and on the point. Thanks!
Thanks for the insights! I still lean towards the Tamron, but I get your point. One question: Which camera are you using? Because I feel like on a stabilized a7m3 or whatever, the oss in the lens wouldn‘t be effective enough to compete against the advantages of 2.8
If new 17-28 is anything like the 28-75, it'll be a great lens for sure. I shoot an A7III and the lens stabilization does make a big difference. You cannot 'turn off' the OSS in the Zeiss lens without turning off the IBIS in the A7III, but when using non-stabilized lenses of the same focal length I can tell a difference. My hand-held skills are rubbish so I need all the help I can get! Thanks for the comment.
My pleasure! Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. I'm wrapping up two new videos this week that should be up right after Christmas. Have a good one!
if tamron keeps making smaller and even smaller good quality lens for mirrorless camera, they will be the ultimate lens maker in the future … period … cause that’s what everybody wants … who wants a big fat heavy expensive sony lens on a tiny mirrorless body!!!
The Sony is pretty notorious for bad copy variance though, apparently there are some pretty bad copies out there. Plus it doesn't stay sharp all throughout the whole range, so for many people I'm told that the usable end of the range actually comes out to about 28mm anyhow. Since the Tamron is faster and sharper, you could probably get about an equivalent result by cropping into a 35mm equivalent FL from 28mm on the Tamron. Also, I've seen video results of stabilized vs non stabilized lenses on modern Sony bodies that have IBIS. The results are very, very hard to tell apart, because Sony lens stabilization doesn't compliment IBIS as much (meaning barely at all) as other systems like Panasonic's Dual IS 2 for example. If you're using an old body without stabilization though, then OSS will make a big difference. Lastly, Tamron offers a pretty insanely good warranty from what I've heard on their new products (I think it's like 5 or 6 years?) so you may be underestimating the value of the Tamron when buying new.
I have no reason to doubt your copy variance comment, but in countless rentals and the final purchase of my used lens I've never noticed a difference, nor have I gotten a lemon. I guess I've been lucky. Sharpness throughout the entire focal length range is actually one of the greatest strengths of this lens in my experience. Again, maybe I got my hands on good lenses. You note that you've seen video results. Again, my personal first-hand experience is that it makes a difference - maybe not quite as much with video, but certainly with stills photography. The claim of 3 stops is not an exaggerated. Again, I'm not trying to argue with you - your points are valid - but I can only speak from my personal experience. You're spot-on with Tamron's warranty and general quality of product. I love their lenses and place a high value on the way they back up their products. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, I appreciate it!
Back in days of yore when the A7III first came out and i was making my switch to Sony it definitely did not adapt perfectly. I had an offer that let me get my money out of it and, as much as I loved the look of it, it was a cinder block of a lens. That thing weighed a ton. Thanks for watching!
It's on the list... fortunately I got a TON of work in October and November. Really grateful too, April-October was incredibly slow due to lockdown. I've got two that I'm hopefully wrapping in the next week. One is a review of the Glow China Ball light modifier, the other is a comparison of Sony's 50mm 1.8 and the Zeiss 55mm 1.8. The fast prime/slow zoom will likely follow after that. Thanks for watching and letting me know what kind of content you want to see!
Just read the comments and I am a bit surprised at the snarky attitudes in some of them. Anyone who takes the time and effort to explain their purchase, product use, etc., should be commended. Thanks again.
Thanks for the comment Gary. I think brand loyalty has a little to do with it. Or, just the idea that Zeiss/Sony is the 'big guy' and Tamron is the 'little guy'. Sadly, hatred of any 'big guy' is a cause that people rally too. I just did another video comparing some 85mm lenses that I have and I used both my Tamron 28-75 and the Zeiss 16-35 while shooting it. I was impressed with the Zeiss all over again. Something about that lens suits my sensibility - especially at 35mm. I"m not sure if it's the sharpness, or color, or what but when I see footage from that lens I always get excited about sharing it.
@@MattSpaugh Why we humans get so attached to a product is strange. Consider Harley Davidson...these guys tatoo the product on their bodies. That is brand loyalty! I must confess I do get a kick when I find another Sony shooter. That's because I'm wondering if their experience is the same or different than mine. Again, thanks.
@@GaryDichtenberg as a vintage BMW motorcycle rider, I can tell you that the Harley guys are indeed off the chart in terms of brand loyalty. We're all odd beings in that respect. I think is has a lot to do with 'belonging' - or feeling part of a group - and whatever comfort that brings. How that can revolve around a product is still a bit of a mystery to be. BMW guys are a lot the same... but without the brand tattoos... usually.
Don't understand the thumbs down. I got the tamron, I love the tamron but this video is put together very well
I"m sure that Tamron is a fine piece of glass. It just wasn't the most elegant solution for my needs. Thanks for the comment - have a great day!
Thanks! Very useful review, you might get more views putting Vs 16-35mm f/4 in the title as that's the direct comparison I was looking for. Thanks again
Thanks for the comment Andy. I think that's why some early commenters were kinda miffed - they felt like I'd duped them into watching a video about the 16-35 when they were looking for info on the 17-28. Have a great day!
Is that what they call click bait?
I love the Tamron 17-28 but I totally respect your reasons not to go with it. Great points and great video
Thanks Louie, I appreciate the comment! I'm sure if I had the 17-28 I'd find many reasons to love it too.
Even tho I prefer and owns the Tamron 17-28, your video does make sense
So there's no right or wrong answer, it just depends on the user which lens they prefer more
BAM - that is the point of everything I try to put out there. I want to encourage people to really take a look at their needs and the work that they're doing and make equipment choices accordingly! Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment!
Finally watched a review that sees things correctly. I too love my 16-35 oss. The lack of oss and the 28mm would not work for my needs whereas the 16-35 has never let me down.
Thanks Mike. The comments on this have been interesting. Everyone seems to have a strong opinion on the 16-35. They either love it or hate it. I tend to think that most people who've had some time with it come to really appreciate its strengths. Thanks for taking the time to comment - have a good one!
Thank you Matt. Great review and excellent points. I have the Tamron 17-28. I just shot some interiors for a client. Thinking that 17mm may not be wide enough, I borrowed my friend's Sigma 14-24 f2.8. The Sigma is wider but the Tamron held its own. I shot everything at f11 and f13. So I guess it would be hard to tell the quality differences at those F-stops. If I swap my Tamron for something wider, It would be the Sony 12-24 not anything else. Even the 14mm did not seem wide enough in one or two situations!
I've had that 14-24 on my rental wish list for some time now. Thanks for sharing your thoughts - and experience!
Every point is valid, especially based on one's main use of the glass. However, I own both (and recently sold my 16-35GM which was just not getting used anymore because of these two, go figure!) and have found the Tamron to be consistently sharper than the Zeiss, especially in the corners, and especially stopped down to f/4 (to match the zeiss). The Tamron is lighter, allows me to change the FOV while on the gimbal with no rebalance (changing with the zeiss puts some pressure on the gimbal, and I couldn't ever think of doing that with the much heavier GM that is now bye-bye), and the warranty is WAY better (which if you own lenses for a long time is a real value). Plus one thing to note is that I don't think the OSS/no-OSS comparison is valid (unless you're talking about putting these on non-IBIS a6X00 bodies). At these wide focal lengths with IBIS in the body, having or not having lens OSS is no different that I have ever noticed (again, at these focal lengths below 35mm - the longer you go, the more lens OSS is a real desire). I've found that at 35mm or less, whether you have 3-axis-in-body + 2-axis-in-lens or 5-axis-in-body-only, it's the same - so I feel the Tamron does have a stop better than the zeiss and I've proved that in real-world to myself. I hate the fact that Tamron made the lens TOO small and light and wish they would have made it a standard 16-35, but that's the only gripe I can give at that price point. Lighter, sharper, brighter, better balanced, and better warranty is what the Tamron has going for it IMHO.
Valid points, well presented - two of my favorite things!
On the OSS, you're spot-on that the wider the focal length, the less of an issue it is, but in my testing I could tell a difference in what I'd call micro-jitters.
Warranties certainly can be an issue for some but I buy most of my lenses used. It's a gamble I know but in 30 years of shooting, I've managed to stay ahead of the game. Maybe I've just been lucky.
Tamron makes great lenses. To hit the price points they're aiming for, and the make those great products, there are trade-offs. On this lens they sacrificed the zoom range IMHO. With a zoom range limited to 11mm, I'd likely go with a pair of fast primes over a zoom with such limited reach.
But hey, that's what makes the world go 'round, right? Thanks for watching and taking the time to share your thoughts. I really appreciate it. Have a great day!
I was researching the Tamron 17-28mm VS the Tamron 28-75mm for use on a Sony A7iii for what I'm trying to achieve. Within 40 seconds you answered my question. This video which is the first I've seen of your channel looks really nice.. Very close to the look I'm shooting for.. Pun intended! : ) Thanks for the help..
Glad to hear the video was helpful. The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a really amazing lens, especially for the money. That and the Zeiss 16-35 f/4 are the first lenses I pack for almost any job I do. Thanks for watching!
I just purchased a used copy of the 16-35mm Sony... I decided on that lens instead of the 17-28mm Tamron f/2.8 because of the very low price that I got the Sony for. Roberts Camera also gave me a free 6-month warranty (unusual for a used eBay item)...
Congrats - it's a great lens. I use mine all the time.
Great video! I'm probably still going to end up with the Tamron but am happy to see you have offered me a legitimate alternative.
Thanks W.C.! I have no doubt that the 17-28 is an awesome lens. Modern Tamron glass is fantastic! But, for my needs at this point in my business, the Zeiss is the more versatile option. If you get the 17-28, check back in and let me know what you think of it. Thanks for commenting, have a great day!
Thanks for not comparing with GM which most reviews are doing right now. Great video but I’ll go with Tamron and I’ll tell you why. You said when you need a faster wide lens you already have wide prime. For those of us who don’t have it or who don’t want to buy an extra fast wide lens, having 2.8 on Tamron is more appealing than 16 vs 17 or 28 vs 35. OSS isn’t that important to me as I don’t take chances for hand shake when I’m shooting and Tamron is cheaper still. I’m sure everyone have different needs and for most Sony is more suitable but for me I’ll go with Tamron. Thanks again.
Good points and your comment is exactly in line with the intent of my video: different needs for different photographers. Different gear for different workflows. Thanks for watching and taking the time to share your thoughts.
I think it depends on use case and equipments you use to select between 16-35 vs, 17-28 or like sigma 18-30. I own Zeiss 16-35 f4, Sony 16-38 f2.8, Zeiss Batis 18, Tamron 17-28 and a few sony prime in the range. When I use A7C, Tamron is the default lens I pick because it’s smaller, lighter, shoot closer and faster than Zeiss 16-35. It’s a perfect fit for the small A7C body. However, when I use my A7R4, I choose larger Sony 16-35 f2.8 GM to Betis 18mm because they are sharper, faster than Zeiss 16-35 and balance better on bigger body. Also the high resolution exposes some Tamron color imperfection that you don’t notice from A7C. OSS is helpful when I hand held in dark places or travel so I love that 24-105 f4 Sony, but this 16-35 f4 is kind of sitting in the middle of better choices, and end of staying in the box for a very long time now. I will sell it when I trade in the A7R4 for A7R5. Tamron will stay, when I go travel my primary is Hasselblad 907X 50C and backup is an A7C with this 17-28 plus a Tamron 28-200. That covers everything I need.
Yeah, that was kind of the point of the whole video. Lenses need to be chosen for the job and the type of work. Sadly, a lot of people missed the point.
Thanks for watching.
Some excellent points
Sony does have more range.
But tanron is faster = less blur
The image stabilize station shouldn't matter cause sony bodies have 5 stops stabilization
Having image stabilization on a slower lens like the 16-35, IMHO, actually does make a difference. Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts!
Precise and detailed, genuine review, tough to find such real reviews in the world of videos trying to sell only, and great knowledge
Matt, yours is the one of the top channels on RUclips when it comes to gear review.
Please suggest what would you recommend, will be the best FE lens to pair with Sony A7iii for
1) Kitchen studio indoor background with good lighting setup.
Filming tasty style recipe videos to get sharp closeup mouthwatering macro over the top and 40 degree footage while cooking on the heat. Fast timelapse, fast forwards from the oven glass and on stove frying.
2)Cinematic brolls, slow motion while cutting, chopping, pouring, slicing and prepping the food.
Also very Important - host/talent presenting prescriptive style narration during intro, in betweens and end to explain tips and techniques to fast prep, cook and present the dish.
3) Small size products(phones), white goods(washing machine) and car reviewing Carwow and MKBHD style videos along with host talking to camera.
4) Business Enterpreneurship Valuetainment, Tai Lopez style videos. host/talent presenting talking to camera on business, finance topics and pointers scrolling or highlighting on the clear seemless white background.
CAN ANY ONE LENS DO ALL OF THE ABOVE?
SHORTLISTED LENses
For FOOD FILMING over the top and
1) Sony FE 90 mm F 2.8 Macro
OR
1) FE 35 mm F 1.8
Food close up brolls, ff, slow mo
2)Sony FE 16 to 35 F2.8 GN
Or
2) Tamron 17 to 35 F 2.8 (delisting)
Or
2) Sony 16 to 35 F4
FOR TALKING to CAM VIDEOs
3) FE PZ 28 - 135 Mm F4 OSS Cine
OR
3) Tamron 28 to 70 F2.8
OR
3) Sony Fe 24 to 105 f4 oss
Please suggest if one of these above or some other lens can do all of the above
Or would you recommend 2 lens combination?
All indoors, with good lighting setup.
NOTE: I have a sony 28-70 F3.5 to t.6 kit lense that came with A7iii.
Thanks in advance
HIGH REGARDS for your work.
Sanjay
WOW, I'm humbled. Thanks so much for the encouragement. I just call 'em like I see 'em!
@@MattSpaugh great work! Can you please help me in selecting an appropriate lens for my specific purpose. I think you are the best person who can guide in this.
Everyone who can afford it should own the 90mm Sony Macro - period. That said, everything you list that you want to shoot needs something faster IMHO. I'd consider the Sony 50mm f/1.8 my favorite all-rounder. The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is a lens I'd suggest you consider as well. The Sigma is big - so video can be a challenge, especially on a gimbal. But something fast in a 35mm would likely suit your work well. If I could only have one lens it would be the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. It's not cheap but its a GREAT value. You'll find it a significant upgrade from your kit lens. Good luck in your search and thanks again for your kind words about my video.
@@MattSpaugh thanks Matt.. if you had a budget of around usd $3500. to buy lenses for A7iii for the purposes I mentioned. What lenses would you buy? Would you consider 16-35.gm and 90 macro and the 50 1.8 for all the purposes ?
@@CREATIVIZOR The 16-35 GM is a really great lens. I love my Zeiss 16-35 f/4, but GM is faster and sharper. With $3,500 to spend (I'm guessing thats USD), get that and and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and you'll be set for a long time. Next I'd add a fast 50mm: either the Sony 1.8 or the Zeiss 55mm 1.8 (find a used one if you can and save some $$$), and then the 90mm Macro.
Great points Matt. I have the Tamron and it works great for me but I totally understand why the 16-35 is better for your needs.
Thanks for watching!
I liked your video but a few things. I have the 16-35 Zeiss and now the Tamron 17-28. I put both lenses on an a7III fixed on a tripod and the 1mm difference was not as dramatic as you showed. Optically the Tamron is also sharper with less flair than the Zeiss. I’m a real estate photographer so bright light coming through windows is a problem. The Tamron is much better as it should be with the advance of new lens coatings. The Zeiss is getting a little old at this point. The Tamron also focuses better than the Zeiss. The color and contrast is also better with the Tamron. To sum up there will probably be another cheap 16-35 lens available soon because I’ll most likely be selling it as well. Oh BTW yes you can buy a used Zeiss for about the same price as the Tamron but you won’t be getting the 6 year warranty Tamron provides.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. My 16/17mm test was done exclusively with the Zeiss lens, setting it a 16 and then 17. 17mm on the Tamron and 17mm on the Zeiss may be slightly different, but I obviously did not have the Tamron on-hand for the comparison. Interestingly, flare is not a huge issue for me (I guess I"m a rube...I've learned to control it and in many cases I actually like it).
You're spot-on with the warranty on a new lens but as far as the Zeiss "getting a little old" I don't agree. I shoot with many vintage lenses that are 50+ years old. While it's true that coatings can suffer over time, good glass should last a lifetime. As with everything I post in my videos, that's just my two cents. Thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts. Have a great day!
Matt Spaugh Photography as far as the coating comment I made I should have been more specific. Lens coating technology has advanced, especially for mirrorless glass. Tamron is using something new. Dust barely sticks to the 17-28 front element where my Zeiss is a dust magnet. Perhaps one of the new nano coatings, I’m not sure. For what I shoot it’s imperative that my shots are clean of light problems. The Tamron is much more behaved than the Zeiss. I guess it depends on what you shoot and what sacrifices you are willing to make. From my tests so far the Tamron is just a better lens and I have pretty much switched to it for my work.
@@MattSpaugh your video convinced me, this guy’s comment made me flip back, and then this reply flipped me back again. Thanks for your opinions!
So you chose it for the stabilization and the extended zoom range? The zoom range I get sort of. But 2.8 is brighter and you won't need that much stabilization. Most Sony cameras has IBIS also. What many fail to see is that using more optical elements and constructions for stabilization affects sharpness. Used to shoot with the Canon 16-35 F4 L lens. It was fine and if you are not doing astro or are bothered by the price the Sony is not a bad choice by any means.
Everyone is saying the tamron is better or they like it more and I get that the tamron is faster(2.8) and sharper but it's a common known thing that the zoom ring gets looser over time and the lens moves easier while the Sony is staying the same and will not move without a hand turning the zoom ring. I don't have one of the two lenses and Will probably buy the sigma 14-24 f2.8 great video. Keep on doing this
Thanks Nave! I can't speak to the long-term quality of Tamron vs. Zeiss, but I will say that the Zeiss lenses I own are extremely well built and have stood the test of time. Thanks for watching and taking the time to share your thoughts. If you get the Sigma, let me know what you think of it. I have a 14mm prime lens but nothing that wide in a zoom.
Great video. What I liked: your opinion is different than most that I've seen on this lens. That said, it did resonate with me that with the OSS makes up for the one stop less aperture, something I was starting to think on my own from using other zooms. Your comment on relative pricing when considering the used market is also legit. Also like the background in your video. I'm a sub now, thanks again.
Wow Robert, thanks for the detailed review! Glad you liked the video and thanks for subscribing. I still love my 16-35 f/4.
I commented it but deleted it because I thought more about it and didn’t feel it was really accurate. I think this is a great review and I think your opinions are well said. People on the internet take things personal and forget that what works for you may not work for them, and vice versa. The only thing I would tell you to work on would be, on your titles. This is a pretty doesn’t get to the point quickly, as some people have stated. Just “Why I’m Not Buying the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8” would’ve been better IMO. Also, the more I think about it, it doesn’t sound like you’ve actually used the lens. So the claims of clickbait kind of ring true because you made a comparison video about a lens you don’t own and haven’t used. So I think a better video to make would have been to focus solely on the 16-35 instead of trying to do a full video comparison. There are plenty of non-statistical reasons we buy lenses that could’ve weighted your decision differently and made you go a different direction. But you wouldn’t know that because you haven’t actually used the lens.
No anger or malice, just some small critics to help you grow. Will be subscribing to your channel. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for the input - much appreciated.
Been very happy with my 17-28mm, I keep coming back to it... I do a lot of astro landscapes and it's brilliant for it.
Thanks for sharing.
I got my Zeiss 1635 as well for $850 all included on ebay. Couldn't be any happier. The build quality of Zeis is one of a kinds (I own about 4 lens including Tamron 28-70mm 2.8, but nothing beat Zeiss). Like you said, that extra 1 mm wide end (16mm) and the fact that I can go for 35 mm ( makes it so versatile. I don't have to switch lens as much. good points!
Thanks for the comment. The Zeiss build and feel is different from the Tamron for sure. There are times when I miss the speed of 2.8... but I tend to buy faster primes and slower zooms. The trade-offs work well for the type of work I do and the way I like to shoot. Have a good one!
@@MattSpaugh agree. I have my sigma art prime lens for 1.4 bokeh :D
I bought the Tamron 2 days ago & I’m keeping it. So far/so good. Very sharp crystal clear results. The focus is slightly stiffer than other lens,s but it’s not a problem for me. No complaints from me even with the price. Over $1400 dollars Australian. Neville J.
The 16-35 really is a solid performer. I'll never understand why some people are so down on it. To each his own! Thanks for watching.
I love my 16-35 f4! the 16 vs 17 is a huge difference! hence why I went with the 24-70 2.8 instead of the 28-75 2.8! still all great lenses though!
I'm with you. When I was renting the 16-35, I never shot a session that I didn't come back amazed by footage/stills. Thanks for taking the time to comment - have a good one!
oh! 24-70 costs like 17-28 and 28-75 together.
The Tamron Is much sharper than the Sony, ligther, compact, faster and cheaper. What else.
its definetely not sharper. got them both. Sony is one of the sharpest there is
@@jakubhabran I have both as well, and the tamron is sharper for me.
@@Mnw336 i've had both and yes, tamron is sharper for me as well!
@@jakubhabran you must be thinking about the 16-35 gmaster.
Tamron is weather sealed
Awesome video! I can't believe OSS can give you up to 3 stops of light over a non OSS lens!!😳 Definitely helped make my decision up!
I can't say that I've been able to gain 3 whole stops but Phillip Reeve claims it in his long-term review. Shooting technique plays a big role and I'd say he's got a steadier hand than me! Glad you liked the video and took the time to comment. I appreciate it - have a great day Andy!
Great review except for one major oversight. Oss lenses only perform the pitch and yaw stabilization on a Sony with 5 axis stabilization. A function which I personally feel is not the most essential. We frequently shoot photo and video without issue. To each their own I suppose. Your reasoning only seems like it would apply to non moving subjects. Thanks for sharing
Excellent point - but when you're hand-held work is as pathetic as mine, every little bit helps! Thanks for the comment - have a good one!
You are surely laid out some facts for lots of people to chose. It's been a battle for me for me to choose between these two lenses, and you certainly pointed out some facts for me to favor the Sony over the Tamron. I have a shaky hand and the OSS can make photography different. Thank you
Cool. Glad the video was helpful. Thanks for watching!
7:00 i dont like people who compare 1 product as used and the other one as new. That makes no sense. Yeah you can buy the 16-35 used for 800 but you can also buy the 17-28 for less...
There is no point to say that the 16-35 is cheaper used if you do not say how much a 17-28 would cost used...
Thats some real sound logic there cowboy. You do realize that the minute you but a lens it's used. It changes nothing about the lens - it's identical to when it was new... but y'know, it's used.
But whatever, you do you, boo.
@@MattSpaugh yes but when comparing the price of 2 products its pretty unfair to say that you can buy 1 product used and then compare the price of the used lems and the new lens. of course it does not matter if a lens is new or used with no dust and scratches, but you cant again compare the price of 2 lenses and say only for 1 lens that you can get that to a lower price if you buy that lens used.
i am really sorry for my bad english and i hope you do understand what i mean!
@@tommyIT When I made this video - over 2 years ago - I could spend $800 on a new Tamron lens or $800 on a used Zeiss lens.
What you're able to buy is based on what you can afford - whether it's new or used is irrelevant. That's what $800 would buy at the time.
Even at full retail, I'd pick the Zeiss lens. It is the more versatile lens and that's the point of my video.
And who would buy a used lens with dust and scratches???
Thanks Matt. Thumbs up from me...this is exactly the conundrum I am pondering at the moment....nearly hit yes twice on the Sony 16-35mm. I also have the 28-75 Tamron which is an awesome lens for the money so expect that the 17-28 will also be fantastic...... Decisions decisions. hopefully they will roll out a 70-200 soon......;-) Keeping an eye out for future vids. Don't worry about the negative comments putting an opinion out there always splits the crowd. Keep up the good work.
Thanks Chris for the encouragement. Gear is funny stuff for sure - I've never been a big brand-loyalty kinda guy. Leaving Canon after 30+ years was a pain, but the decision had very little to do with whether or not I liked the company - I just need to get my job done as professionally as possible within budget constraints. I'm sure someone will do a side-by-side when the 17-28 officially hits. Like I've said, if money was no issue, I'd own both but I don't live in that world yet. Have a great day - more vids on the way!
Awesome video, thank you for sharing your thoughts! As someone who is new to the full frame Sony world, this was super helpful :)
Welcome to the SFFW! After 20+ years as a Canon shooter, I have zero regrets in my decision to switch to Sony. The A7III is such a perfect tool for this job. Glad you found the video helpful - thanks for watching!
I’ve watched most of the Tamron 17-28 RUclips videos and you definitely gave an informative and unique perspective on this lens compared to most of the boring cookie cutter videos regarding the 17-28. Keep up the great content.
Whooo hoooo, the tide is turning! Most of the comments on this one have been negative so thanks for the encouragement.
Matt Spaugh Photography All these camera RUclipsrs copy each other’s videos. I’d say you do you and you’ll be successful. Your videos really are refreshing and informative.
I am the same. I use the 16-35 for landscapes a lot, shooting at f8 most of the time. So the range is essential for me.
Thanks for watching!
This was the deciding factor me to choose sony over the tamron. I've been debating this for weeks. I really wish tamron was 16-35 or closer to that. I'm also sold that oss pared with IBIS makes a noticeable difference. I thank you for making this video.
Thanks for the comments - love the screen name!
I've sold my canon 16-35 adopted to my a7iii. i was considering tamron 17-28 for the price and also the F2.8 aperture but i was really concerned about 17mm and 16mm. I shoot wedding events and I always shoot 16mm most of the time since that's my style. I think I'd go for 16-35 sony since I can buy used ones right now for the same or even cheaper price.
My thoughts exactly. For events the Sony/Zeiss 16-35 is so ideal. The f/4 aperture does not bother me for that type of work either - yes the extra light would be nice, but shallow depth of field can be problematic when shooting events IMHO. Thanks for watching!
Good video. Very through and concise. I own both and can attest to your opinions.
Oh wow - thanks for the comment and for weighing in. You're the first person to coment who owns both lenses. Have a great day!
@@MattSpaugh I tried to convince myself I needed 2.8 on a wide angle. Reality for me is f4 is fine as most of my shots are during the day. I have the sony 28 f2 for anything night and kinda wide. That is an over looked lens for 28 and f2. Very compact. Tamron 17-28 is going back. Good review points.
@@JamesonsTravels Yeah, I've missed having the extra speed in low light situations, but those don't come up too often for me plus, the low-light performance is so strong on the A7III that it's never been a major issue. I have some faster, wide primes as well that can cover. In general, I opt for fasts primes and slower zooms. I need to make a video about that!
Depends on what you are looking for. I shoot no video. For me, the 2.8 aperture and the ability of closer focusing would help to shoot exactly the way I want with a lens like that - dramatically wide pictures, with good subject isolation. Plus it's cheaper, plus it's smaller, some say it's also sharper.
Thanks Matt. I have recently bought the Tamron 28-75 and was planning on buying the 17-28. I had sort of forgotten about the Sony 16-35 f/4 as an alternative. I am currently still using my Canon 16-35 f/4 with the MC11 adapter. I mostly use the wide zoom for landscape shots where the 2.8 is not important. I will give this some more investigation. Phil
HA! Finally someone who doesn't hate me for posting this video. I'm glad you saw the comparison for what it was. I absolutely love my 28-75 and as I've mentioned, I was really, REALLY excited about the 17-28 when it was first announced. If the price point had been a little lower, I doubt I would've taken the time to consider any other alternatives. You can rent the 16-35 pretty cheaply (I rent from aperturent.com) and I'd recommend it if you have not shot with it before. I even made a video about the pros and cons of renting equipment at basically revolves around my experience with the 16-35. Glad you liked the video, and thanks for your comments.
@@MattSpaugh Hi Matt, Here in Canada we have to add 30% exchange rate + 13% sales tax on top of the US price difference which makes the difference even more significant. I have checked locally and the only used Sony 16-35 f/4 actually wants more than a brand new Tamron 17-28 f/2.8. Other things to consider are the Tamron will come with a 6-year warranty vs. none on a used lens, The Tamron is 20% lighter, it also has a rubber mount gasket, and it is internal zoom so less likely to suck in dust and will maintain balance while zoomed on a gimbal. I am sort of leaning toward the new Tamron, but will till keep an eye on the used Sony market until the Tamron becomes readily available here. Thanks again for your video. It's always good to keep an open mind. One size doesn't fit all.
@@PhilT993 Being that I'm primarily a portrait/headshot photographer and my video work is mostly interview/documentary, the weather sealing is not something I'd considered in my decision - a really good point though. Bummer on the exchange rate and sales tax. Have a good one.
Thank you for your comments about these two lenses. I already have the Zeiss which is very convenient not only for landscape photography, and your arguments confirm me that there is no reason to change horses!But what I missed in your discussion are remarks about image and bokeh quality.
I'm glad you found the video helpful. Some people love to hate on the 16-35, but I never fail to get images and video that I love from it. For the record, I'm trying get my hands on the 17-28 to do some actual comparison shots. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment - have a great day!
Generally one uses wide lenses to incorporate a full scene. Having more bokeh narrows the depth of field making a lot of the scenery out of focus. To the untrained eye that just seems blurry. Maybe bokeh in this case is not as important. That applies to scenery. However on particular objects. A faster lens is awesome. I can’t speak to sharpness. I’ve got 4 tamron lenses ( not the 17-28) they are so sharp.
Thanks. Good pragmatic comparison that helped me think through my own lens choices. I just received the new Tamron 70-180 f2.8 and was very impressed so started to think through the merits (or otherwise) of Tamron's sister optics.
I already own and like the Sony Zeiss 16-35 f4 and think I will stay with it. I'm always reading about how much better the GM version is. I'm lucky in that I could afford one but choose the Zeiss as it was a lot smaller and still performed pretty well. Being a lot cheaper didn't hurt either. My main use is travel (less heft is a big plus). Also I use a tripod when I can and for many landcape shots would typically shoot at f5.6 or f8 anyway. If I need small and fast I have prime Sony options of 24mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.8. I'm also considering the 20mm f1.8.
The small form factor and fast f2.8 for Tamron seem like big wins.....but.... I too think the range is limited and whilst f2.8 is attractive and I can see a lot of merit in the Tamron it's not enough to switch and too profligate/impractical to own and pack both. Given a fast prime (for astro) I'm happy where I am. I may get into video in future so good to know that OSS is a bigger plus than I previously thought.
You're reasons are actually very very sound and logical for choosing the Sony lens instead, however I PERSONALLY could never feel that sense of pride and satisfaction of shooting a Sony over a Tamron (....i've been a Tamron fanboy for over 30 yrs now : D )
Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. Everybody's gotta love somebody I guess. I love whatever gets the job done!
@@MattSpaugh Well, to a point I guess.....for example, eating a bowl of unflavored hot oatmeal would get the job done of satisfying hunger, but wouldn't we all rather have several slices of delicious pepperoni pizza instead? (yer welcome btw....)
Don’t say you want to make videos everybody enjoys! You are making a good point here and all the thumbs down guys don’t get it ;-)
HA - point taken! Truth is, while it would be nice to make content that everyone enjoys, it's definitely NOT my primary goal. Being honest about what I do comes first. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Have a great day!
Exactly what i was looking for! And supporting the locals! Hi from Rome!
Glad it was helpful. I still use my 16-35 on almost every shoot and find it to be a very versatile lens. If I made a change, it would be to the Sony f/2.8 version but there are a lot more things my company needs before that purchase happens.
Rome Georgia or Rome Italy? I went to Italy once. Singing in cathedrals all over the place. 35 concerts in 5 weeks! I was just a kid though so I think most of the culture was wasted on me. I did eat rabbit there for the first time so there's that.
Thanks for watching!
@@MattSpaugh Ha! Rome, GA. I just bought an A9ii and have to start selling my Nikons to afford lenses, lol. Have you been up here? Berry College is beautiful, but it's still closed for Covid.
@@ItsTOUGHtobeFascinating Ahhh yes, Rome Georgia. I had a peach of a girlfriend that went there back in ye olde mid-eighties. Beautiful place.
I went through a similar situation liquidating Canon gear a couple of years back when I bought my first A7III. I have zero regrets.
Canon's lack of foresight into mirrorless, and their general contempt for their customer base made the switch a no brainer. I sold a lot of good glass and THEN watched the prices plummet as the market got flooded with people doing the same thing I did.
If you ever find yourself in Atlanta, beers are on me.
@@MattSpaugh Awesome! Same for you if you find yourself in Rome!
I preferred the tamron with f2.8 over the f4 and couldn't be more happy with it... I've got more focal lengths to choose for don't need the extra 35mm because if I need a 35 I would get my 35 1.8 instead which is sharper faster and lighter or simply put the 28-75 which is also great...
I hear you, and thanks for sharing your perspective. The f/4 aperture can be drawback in certain situations for sure. That Sony 16-35 f2/8 G-Master really is the best of both worlds... too rich for my budget though - for now! Have a good one, thanks for watching.
@@MattSpaugh The Sony is still heavy for gimbal use for example, this is actually my first wide-angle if we can call it like that, I've been wanting one since ever, finally bought it and in this case for a reasonable price. I'm the guy who never bought an Iphone because I always try to buy the best bang for the buck... I think that even If money was no object I would still buy the tamron because it's not my main lens and it does the job pretty well!
Thank you! Have a nice day!
Thanks for this, Matt! I like the possibility of getting the Sony cheaper 2nd hand but also would probably rather have a brand-new Tamron (with the peace of mind that comes with that).
Also, on your last point about the focus ring stiffness, wouldn’t you say that the Tamron is a better option on the gimbal because of its internal zoom (consistent ergonomic) over the Sony’s external?
I like your logic about faster primes and slower zooms, i am tending toward that approach also. Well made presentation, thanks.
Thanks GE! It seems to be working well for me. I've got a video in the works that better explains my logic on the subject. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. Have a good one!
At this moment i can't decide wich will be better for me. A 100% of time i'm using now 28-75 as the only lens that i have with my A7III on a gimbal. And for second a6400 camera - 18-105 for outdoors portraits and 50 f/1.8 for indoors. Thank you for video
The more I 'live with' the 16-35 the more I like it. However, there are times when I really miss having the extra speed of a f/2.8 aperture. I have the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 but it's big and heavy. Not good for gimbal work at all. Thanks for watching. Have a great day!
If you're somewhere where you can rent both, I'd highly recommend it. I know it costs money but no amount of review watching can compare to first-hand experience. I use aperturent.com for my rentals and they're fantastic.
@@MattSpaugh unfortunately, i living in small russian town Chita (300k civilian), located near the China, between Baikal lake and Pascific ocean. There is no rent or any user of this lens ) Most of videographers using canon lenses or m4/3 system.
@@foxhouse_tips It's still amazing to me that one guy in a tiny studio in Atlanta, Georgia, USA can put out a video that can reach someone so far away. Good luck with your search and thanks again for watching. I finally got a decent haircut so hopefully I'll be putting out more videos soon!
@@MattSpaugh Hehe ) So, i'll be waiting ) Also, i need some haircut too )) Your speech are good anought to me as not native speaker. So i can understand a most of information. Good luck! I wish you more subscribers!
Not sure what's up with the downvotes they are all valid and if you have the 28-75 it would be nice to pair with the 17-28 but with oss I hear it's better plus I've seen videos with the 16-35 f4 just I can barely notice its the f4 and look better then beginners using the GM variation plus if you're a photographer just use primes lol don't astro photographers usually use higher fstops anyways?
I feel like astro photographers would want to use a open aperature to let in the most light from the stars/moonlight since its dark.
Thanks for the video. I have been looking at these two lenses and your info helped a lot.
Thanks for the video. It would have been nice if you had talked about the optical quality, which, at the end of the day, is what we come for in reviews. The rest (aperture, OSS, focal length range) I can easily read in the specs. Maybe that's why you got many thumbs down? Thanks anyway
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I state that most any lens in this price range is going to have exceptional optics plus, there are more than enough videos that focus on optical quality. Also, not having BOTH lenses on hand (the 17-28 had not been released when this video was made BTW), it would be impossible to do a comparison between the two lenses. For a working professional, "at the end of the day", there is more to lens selection than optical quality. This video is about whether or not the trade offs in speed are worth the gains in focal length, and to highlight an option that many people might overlook when choosing a wide angle zoom. It's about making a purchase based on practical use for whatever kind of work the lens is being used for.
The zoom ring on 17-28 is better than the 28-75, it's smoother now :D. Anyway, great video. Actually, for some photographer like me (noviceeee), spending $877 for the new 17-28 and with the kit (28-70) is better than spending $1053 for the 16-35 (new lens only). For me, I only shot landscape so I don't worry to much about the portrait photos. The kit lens would provide a bit zoom when I need :D
Glad to hear about the smoother ring. It really is the only drawback for me on the 28-75. Glad you like the vid - have a good one.
I really liked this comparison. Great job Matt
Thanks!
Matt, just an observation. I am curious what your take might be. When shooting with the 17-28 and the 14-24 and a 7RIV, I did the set up and zoomed in to do manual focus in all the shot I did. What I noticed is that the fine details showed the amazing resolving power of the lenses. However, when looking at the images on my computer later on, I noticed that the details I saw are not there as much. Is it possible that the lenses are out resolving the 61MP sensor. In another words, the sensor is not able to capture the details that the lenses are capable of delivering. Curious about your experiences. Thanks.
I don't actually own either of those lenses but it sounds to me like you could be getting some camera shake? 61MP should be grabbing every bit of what you're seeing in the viewfinder or on screen. I find that the majority of my images that are not super-sharp are the result of camera shake. Upping my shutter speed usually does the trick.
Hope that helps. Sounds like you've got some real nice gear to work with!
Thanks for watching.
@@MattSpaugh Thank you Matt. I had the camera on a heavy duty CF tripod and had a 10lbs. sandbag hanging from the bottom to keep it steady for all the shots I needed to be in register. I used a bluetooth Sony remote to trigger the camera. This was my first gig doing this type of images on my Sony. I have done this type of work on my Pentax K1 in the past with excellent results. I guess I have to do some more experimenting to find out what is going on.
My landscape images with the A7RVI and the Tamron 70-180 are unreal. The 17-28 looks amazingly good too. Just this interior stuff! Thank you for your feedback.
@@boristahmasian9604 Definitely no camera shake with that set up - WOW.
I had a Pentaxx K-1000 for a time. Great camera.
@@MattSpaugh I use Photoshop auto align anyway. There is some movement no matter how steady you keep it. K-1000 and a 50mm f2 lens is how my photography journey started a long time ago!
Very helpful as I often question whether I need 2.8's or better for all of my lenses. If Money were no issue, I'd have the Sony GM 2.8 over my f4 but I've been happy with my f4 Sony 16-35mm as well. The Tamron will get good praise I'm sure but.... the Sony prevails prevails.
I've found that I tend to opt for faster primes and save money by buying slower zooms. I'm with you on the money - that G-Master 16-35 is the best of both worlds for sure, but at this stage of my business, 2 grand ain't in the cards for something that wide. I still think the Tamron is a great lens, I'm just not willing to sacrifice focal length and stabilization for a wider aperture. Thanks for taking the time to comment - have a great day!
I'm slightly confused regarding stabilization. Most full frame Sony bodies have ibis. The ibis provide 5 axis of stabilization on non OSS lenses. I'd really like to see a stabilization comparison with the two lenses. Perhaps the Tamron speed advantage coupled with the ibis would push the Tamron to the front of the pack. I'm not so sure 17mm vs 16mm is a deal breaker.
There are far too many advantages to the Tamron to ignore. In my opinion...
11mm of zoom vs 19mm of zoom is a deal breaker. Zoom lenses are about flexibility. You want fast, buy primes. In my opinion...
@@MattSpaugh very good point. I'd hate to have to carry additional lenses if I didn't have to. Essentially the Tamron having such a small range makes it a somewhat flexible wide angle prime. 28mm is useful but not ideal. The sony reaching 35mm is a lot more useful. I just hate slow lenses. For landscape however they are usually fine.
Pretty informative. Some strong points. I'd say, though, that I haven't seen any evidence that OSS does a better job at stabilizing its 2 axes than IBIS on lenses with such a short focal distance. This "3 stops of difference" stuff may be more for longer focal ranges and/or for cameras without 5-axis IBIS. Have you tried an unstabilized super-wide angle lens with IBIS on yet? (Turning off OSS on lenses that have it automatically also turns off IBIS, so you'd really need an unstabilized lens for comparison)
As a stills photographer I obviously don't share many of the objections you have to the Tamron anyway.
I didn't vote on your video, but as far as advice goes, I'd say lose the record scratch sound as that can get really jarring after a while. And if you really want people to like your presentation, then take your own feedback seriously and properly inform yourself before turning on the camera. This wasn't even a live recording. Again you know what you're doing wrong.
Good luck!
Thanks for the comments!
Pretty sure all the downvotes are butthurt tamron users!
I myself picked up the 17-28mm and love it! It’s super sharp and great in low light.
Being kinda OCD I really love how the lens starts at 17 and ends at 28 where the 28-75 takes off from. Granted that a 16-35 is more flexible I still love how they pair so perfectly.
I'm just glad the thumbs-uppers are now beating the dislikes! Ha - really doesn't matter too much to me. It's all just my two cents and everyone is entitled to agree or disagree. Glad you like the vid and thanks for taking time to comment. Once you've had some time with the new lens, check back in and let me know how you like it. If I become flush with cash, I'll probably buy one too!
@@MattSpaugh certainly will!
Both lenses ending and starting at the exact same focal length may be great for those suffering from OCD but in the real world it's more convenient to have some overlap.
Saves you from having to swap lenses ever so often.
@@Ni5ei I did mention that.
I love the OCD part, being a software engineer myself, I always thought it was odd that 16-35 was a defacto, when 24-70 would pair with 70-200, made no sense. I guess it was just too tough to make 1X-24mm with the longer flange distances, but that has changed. The sigma 14-24 f2.8 is small for what it is, the Tamron fits the size as well. Got the Tamron myself because I have the 28-75, max efficiency, very impressive performance. These are my core lenses, anything else will be for fun.
U forgot to mention that The tamron comes with a 6 year warranty from tamron. But the Sony being bought use pretty much does not have a warranty.
That is valuable information
I guess the fact that in 32 years of professional photography I've never had a warranty issue kinda takes that off my radar. It's definitely a good point though. Tamron makes an awesome product (the 28-75 f/2.8 is my favorite zoom lens) and they stand by it for sure.
I own the 28-75, I don't like particularly how the images look out of it, probably because i'm a long time prime shooter.
I need a wide angle lens, Bokeh won't really matter at those lengths, but reaching 35mm would save me a couple of lens swaps!
Never owned a lens as slow as f/4 tho...
I can't consider now the GM because to cover that filter-thread i'll need another 500$ on a good ND
I too have the 28-75. It's a great lens but I will say I don't 'crave' to shoot with it like to do some of my other glass. 16-53 really is a sweet range to have - and like you say, saves some lens swaps for sure. Thanks for taking the time to comment - have a good one!
I’ve made the same decision to get a Sony 16-35 f/4. I was waiting for this Tamron wide lens. But the funny thing is that in Australia, the Tamron would cost 400 dollars more than the Sony (brand new, because of sale and cashback promotion).
Awesome. I ended up getting my 16-35 a good bit cheaper than the 17-28 would've cost me. OF course, I have no warranty and it's a used lens. Thanks for the comment - have a great day.
Hmmm that is funny, not Ha ha funny but just funny.
thanks for your opinion
Sooo glad you made this video!
Glad you liked it. It's been pretty amazing the responses I've received. Everything from being called stupid for buying the Zeiss to being accused of posting click-bait. It's a funny world out there - watch yourself. And, have a great day!
I don't like the 35mm perspective; I shoot mostly 20mm and 28mm. So this would be a great lens; wider than my 20; and ends at my 28mm. If they made this for the Nikon Z mount I''d buy it tomorrow.
Interesting. 35mm-50mm have always been a sweet-spot for me personally. 35 because to evenly covers the full-frame sensor and 50 because its such a natural amount of compression/distortion. I will say that I'm not a fan of poor lenses that have unnatural distortion at 35mm. Thanks for taking the time to comment - have a good one!
you just sold me over to the sony lens with the optical stabilization.
Another convert. Oddly enough, in one of my more recent videos I compare that same lens to the newer Tamron 20-40 f/2.8, which I really, really like. I still have the 16-35 and it definitely has its place, but unless you absolutely need that 16-20mm range, the 20-40 is definitely worth checking out. Thanks for watching. ruclips.net/video/RZ2HOwxh7-8/видео.html
@@MattSpaugh i appreciate the response, and the recommendation. Just ordered the Zeis last night second hand for pretty cheap, will be good for those real estate shots.
I have a tamron 2.8 24-75 its a good lens, but with it not having optical image stabilization, even with a gimbal its more difficult to get those smooth shots.
@@bogdanlyashenko5582 if you're doing anything in real estate, or architectural - even landscape work, you definitely need that 16-20 range. I'm guessing that you'll love the Zeiss 16-35 f/4. Good luck with it!
@@MattSpaugh much appreciated! Thanks
I understand you like your lens.
I love any lens that gets the job done!
I absolutely agree-- the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 for the Canon mount (or Nikon) was an awesome lens. Why didn't Tamron make that same lens for the Sony? This 17-28mm misses the mark.
Yeah, I'll always have fond recollections of shooting with that 15-30. Everything about it was so perfect for me at that time in my career. I will say I don't miss the size and weight of that thing - what a load! It would've been great if the wide/fast/mirrorless option had been more along those lines. Trade-offs are the name of the game though. Thanks for taking the time to comment, have a great day!
Isn't the OSS argument pretty much negated on modern full frame Sony cameras since they all have in body stabilization?
Additional plusses for the tamron: (i) lighter; (ii) internal focusing -- good for gimbal use and (iii) almost no focus breathing in video
It's a bit hard to tell with the OSS but my personal experience with stabilized lenses and non-stabilized of the same focal length is that I get smoother footage with the stabilized lens. My brain could playing tricks on me though.
Excellent point on the internal zoom - a plus for the Tamron that I had not considered since I rarely change my focal length when doing gimbal work (focus: yes, zoom: almost never).
Lastly, It would be interesting to see a focus breathing comparison between the two when shooting video. Personally, I have not experienced it to any significant degree on the 16-35 but I tend to pull focus manually for most shots.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. You make some good points that I had not considered. I appreciate it.
great video!
Q: Tamron have FOCUS BY WIRE - will it work with my gimbal DJI RS 2 so I can controle the focus from gimbal?
NO idea. I use a Feiyu Tech AK2000, but I have a remote follow focus. Thanks for watching.
@@MattSpaugh ok. Can You adjust he zoom from gimbal?
I don't understand, how can you compare the OSS if the sony cameras has stabilizer inside?, the OSS it doesn't matter. If you compare the sharpness within sony f4 16-35 and tamron 17-28 f2.8, it a big difference, thats whay people compare the tamron with the G master f2.8, becouse of the sharpness
The OSS in the lens is independent of the IBIS of the camera. Working together, they provide more stabilization than either does independently.
I do not address sharpness issues in my video because when this video was made, the 17-28 was not yet shipping and my experience with Tamron and Zeiss lenes tells me that both are sharp enough for my purposes. I'm primarily comparing these lenses for video work but for stills I can see how a difference in sharpness might be a concern for you. At identical focal lengths and aperture, the my Zeiss 16-35 is sharper than my Tamron 28-75 - but it's not significant enough to matter for the work I do and the people who pay me to do it.
I'm guessing that you own or have access to both? If so, please point me to your comparison of the two, I'd love to see your results. Thanks for commenting and have a great day!
IMO Sony R3 & tamron 17-28 is best pick for you if you need extra 35mm focal range. U can reach 42 instead of 35
Well alright then...
First time I’ve seen your channel... good comments, good production and presentation style. Got to say the scratch/pause/record noise becomes annoying after the 2nd or 3rd time though.
Gave you a like anyway!
Point taken on the record scratch. You're not the first to mention it. I like it as a way of correcting mistakes with onscreen text. I've reduced the volume of the scratch significantly in videos that came after this one. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I appreciate it!
It's a good lens mate
I enjoy your video ..... I own sony 16-35 f4 , still working great ..... Tamron in Indonesia cost more expensive than Sony 16-35 f4 for the new ones ...... the different only weight ....
Thanks Michael.
Bets video I've seen on the lens so far. Thank you.
Thanks Buzz! As a relatively new RUclipsr, it's very tempting to try and emulate what the 'cool kids' are doing as far as content creation goes. I'm glad my video spoke to you and thanks for taking the time to comment. Have a good one!
You guys clearly don't plan to shoot low light, astro or want this for portraits. The Tamron is excellent on my a7rii. I've used the sony 16-35 2.8 and it is very simular quality wise but over double the price.
That's kinda the point Douglas: different tools for different jobs. I tend to go with primes for the applications you mention. For astro photography I like the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 or any of the Laowa zero-d primes. For portraits, I'm partial to the Sony 85mm f/1.8 or a nice, fast vintage 135. Portraits at wide focal lengths are rarely flattering IMHO. In a zoom lens I want flexibility and I feel the 16-35 f/4 is a good balance of features and a great value. Thanks for taking the time to comment - have a great day!
@@MattSpaugh I am about to sell my now obsolete Rokinon 14mm. I find the Tamron sharper and it has less distortion and I also have the valuable metadata for post work. So that's one less lens to be carting around. As for portraits, of course primes are going to be better- and that's why I have some. However, the wide angle could still be used if need be. Some models you may want to emphasize their whole figure with a sleek tall look. I have yet to test this out on the 17-28mm, but I have with Tamrons 28-75mm and it was amazing. I also shoot a bit from a helicopter, and have found in the past with my f4 lens' that I have had to really crank up the iso to get a sharp image. So the 2.8 will come in handy there too.
Yeah, I definitely wouldnt use that lens for portraits or astro
Really very good video- right at my dilemma- where were you able to find the used Sony lens? Also- do you miss any bokeh?
Thanks Jim, I'm glad you liked it. I've had good luck finding used lenses on Craigslist and Facebook Marketplace. Ebay works too but I prefer to be able to try a lens before buying. KEH.com is a good resource too. You'll pay a little more, but you can buy from them with confidence.
It's an f/4 lens so yes, you cannot get as shallow a depth of field with the Zeiss as you can with the Tamron. For that I prefer prime lenses. I tend to buy faster primes and slower zooms.
I tell you what, the build quality of the Sony 1635 is not stable(sorry for my English), some of the lens produce worse IQ, but some of the lens perform very well, just go to a camera store and test a couple of the 1635 lens you’ll find the difference of the IQ is significant, that’s why the reviews are so two extremes.
Have you owned multiple versions of this lens? Do you work in a store where you have the opportunity to use different copies of the 16-35? I hear this all the time, but I've used many Zeiss 16-35 lenses and I've never found one that wasn't stellar. I think this has been blown out of proportion by people who repeat what they've heard instead of speaking from first-hand experience. I don't mean to sound like a jerk, I really would like to know if you've used multiple versions of this lens and found them to be different in quality? KEH Camera (large reseller of used equipment) is in my town and I may actually take this up with them - see if they'll let me test every single 16-35 that comes through the shop. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I never hear this accusation from people who've owned multiple copies of this lens. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment - I really do appreciate it.
16-35 F/4 had few pretty bad reviews out there. I prefer G Master 16-35 instead but it is very expensive. Tamron 17-28 is a great option to consider if you cannot afford a G Master for that focal length. Your video gave me all the reasons to go for this lens. Thanks
If money was no object, the G-Master wins hands down. Unfortunately, money's still an object - at least for me - and focal length + OSS beats a faster aperture for my work. Thanks for taking the time to comment - have a good one!
Thanks! You mentioned things I needed to know. I am trying to decide on an (almost) everything lens for a7iii, (apples to oranges here) between Tamron 17-28 or Sony 24-105. Your thoughts: Which lens is better for making videos, (Gimble: Feiyu 2000) to include macro?
When I was a Canon shooter I used a 24-105 as my everyday lens and that focal length range was perfect (for me anyway). I do not have any experience with the Sony 24-105 but I've never met a Sony lens I didn't like. They're pricey, but in my experience, worth the money.
My everyday lens is the Tamron 28-75 and I cannot recommend it highly enough - it's fantastic and works really well for video as well as stills. Hope that helps - thanks for watching and have a great day!
interesting and true. what is the micro exterio please?
Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure I understand your question. Micro Exterio?
I like the video and content, but the record scratching sound just didn't do it for me.
Ha - you're not the first to voice a negative opinion of the record scratch. Glad you liked the video. Happy new year!
Hey Matt! After researching a ton, YT has suggested me your video and maybe you can help me decide.
I am a somewhat newbie portrait shooter that occasionally does some events. I have the ZA 55mm and the FE 85mm and have been meaning to get something wider to play with distortion. I do enjoy primes more than zooms.
I'm almost decided on the 35mm 1.8, but that's because the 24mm 1.4 is just too expensive for me. I wonder if the Tamron might be a better choice due to flexibility. Then again, the 35mm prime will get me better separation (the "all important" bokeh) and it focuses relatively closer (I like to get really close-up shots)...
Could you help me with your thoughts?
55mm and 85mm are great portrait focal lengths in my opinion. I never shoot portraits at less than 35mm unless I'm intentionally trying to get weird distortion in the subject. I'd say for portrait work - you're set!
You mention liking primes over zooms and I agree - for certain things. When I shoot events, I take three lenses: The Zeiss 16-35 that I talk about in this video, the Tamron 28-75 which might be the best value in a zoom lens EVAR! and my Sony 70-200 f/4. In most cases, the 16-35 does everything I need and neither of the other lenses ever leaves my bag. Events, weddings, street photography, etc. all require flexibility. Zooms give you that.
With a 16-35 and the two primes you already have, you could get a LOT of work done.
I hope that's helpful, good luck in your creative endeavors and thanks for taking the time to comment.
@@MattSpaugh After I got the 85mm, I've been using the 55mm (which was my first ever lens) so much less. It's a beautiful lens, but the 85mm matches the way I "see" the world just so well. But it doesn't work for everything and then... Most of the time I grab the 55mm I end up thinking "I wish this was wider". It's either I want to incorporate more into the frame or I want to intentionally distort something.
I second shot a couple of weddings (with only those two lenses) and I really feel that my images were distinctly different than the first shooter's thanks to the look the primes give (wide f-stop and also the constraints that end up opening up my creativity). That's why I'm more inclined towards a prime.
Thank you very much for your insights! Also, I really like how you structure your videos and the way to speak in them. I hope your channel grows and you're able to put out more and more content!
Hi! Thanks for this comparation, but it lack the most important - comparation of image quality (rendering, sharpness...) ))))
When this video was made, the 17-28 was not yet available for purchase. In this class of lenses, however, the optical differences are going to be minor in my opinion. Having seen some images from other folks shot with the 17-28, I have to say I prefer the overall look of the Zeiss 16-35.
It's so subjective though - the only way for you to know is to either borrow or rent both lenses and see which one looks best for you - your subject matter - your camera body - your style of shooting. I keep lenses indefinitely so spending $75 or so on the front-end to rent a lens is a worthwhile investment to me on something that I plan to keep for a long time. Thanks for watching, and for taking the time to comment. Have a good one!
I have Zeiss 16-35 f4 but I was not convinced by this lens in the clash with GM 16-35. 16mm-17mm is not a big difference. that's why I think I'll give a chance to the tamron ... is a newer product than the zeiss f4 in terms of optics. Modern design ... and has better AF !!! working with the gimbal is much more comfortable ... I don't understand the comparison with a smoother zoom in sony ... it works OK in every tamron and I don't think that in 17-28 there will be a problem with it ... besides what it has anyway ??? Lens definitely more modern than Sony Zeiss f4 .. for me comparison makes no sense ... Please test tamron vs. zeiss on f4 and then we will talk ... Tamron is definitely sharper and you will see more details ... this is a design that will easily cope with higher resolution matrices like those on a7R3 and A7R4 cameras !!! But it is not the Sony ZEISS 16-35 f4 fault that when these cameras were made it was not planned ... SZ is an older and more amateur product.
Good points. Thanks for watching and taking the time to share your thoughts. I appreciate it!
Hey Matt nice video. Can I ask where you go for used lens?
I'm not sure what part of the world you're in but here in the US, Craigslist has actually been where I've found the best deals on contemporary lenses. Facebook Marketplace usually has a wide selection of lenses too. KEH.com is also an excellent resource. You'll pay a little more with them, but they're a trusted retailer of used equipment. I've purchased a number of what I'd call 'vintage' lenses via ebay - I've bought from Ukraine and Kiev without issue. All that said - buyer beware! Make sure you know what you're getting and understand that any used lens carries some risk. Good hunting!
@@MattSpaugh thank you so much. I have look at KEH before. Did not know about Facebook. Thank you.
@@BrianTheCameraGuy and there you go...facebook.com/marketplace/item/455283905055680/
I think you just convinced me to stick to getting the 16-35. I was gonna get the tamron 17-28 but after this video and seeing the things you pointed out. I'm gonna get the Sony 16-35
I'm glad you found my video helpful. When I really think about it, the greater range of focal length alone almost seals the deal for me. Some people will always opt for the faster lens: more cinematic, better bokeh, etc, and while those things are certainly true, they aren't the whole story by any means. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment - I appreciate it.
@@MattSpaugh Thank you for the video. I am looking for a wide lens for real estate and trying to stick to native sony lenses and I have seen used ones around $800-$900 on adorama. Not a bad price and i like the versatility of going to 35mm
@@RawloftheDead I personally think you'd be very pleased with the Zeiss 16-35. For real estate, a tripod is going to be your friend, so the slower aperture is not an issue. I used to the use the Tamron 15-30 for real estate and LOVED it. I also have the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, but distortion can be a problem and it's also a manual lens so it's going to slow you down a bit while shooting.
Great review. What about 20mm 1.8
What about it? Never used one personally but I know Levi Allen loves it.
ruclips.net/video/DwTxg7QLYoo/видео.html
Focal range is most significant difference between this lenses in my opinion.
I'm with you! (obviously). The 11mm range of the Tamron is the main reason I went searching for other options. I understand that it keeps the size and weight down, but at that point, I'd almost rather use a 20mm or 24mm prime and 'zoom with my feet". Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment.
Duuudeee, I like your take on this lens man, you make sense. I have been thinking about getting this lens for a month now but on the fence cuz of lack of image stabilization as i primarily shoot videos. I use a Sony A7s as my main camera with a 28-75 FE kit lens and Sony A5100 as my bcam with a 35mm f1.8. Both cameras as you might know do not have IBIS but the lenses do have OSS and i can totally see the difference in handheld shots. I wanted to go wide so I had ordered the samyang fe 24mm lens but the handled video and the AF motor noise just was not cutting it for me so i returned it. I want to get a wide angle lens either a faster prime Sigma 16mm f1.4 or Sony 20mm f2.8 or get a constant aperture zoom like the 16-35 zeiss f4. I would love to know your take on these 3 lenses and which one you would prefer under what situations in categories of bang for buck, versatility and quality ? And if you have any other lens for suggestions for video work, thats more than welcome too. Again thanks a lot in advance for reading this and helping me out Matt.
I'm with you on OSS making a difference for video and, in all honesty, that was the biggest thing that swayed my purchase decision. As far as the other lenses you're asking about, I'm afraid I have really limited experience with them but I'll share some thoughts. Sigma: their lenses have always seemed big and heavy to me. It seems like Initially they were taking existing lens designs and adapting them to the mirrorless format. I'll be interested to see how their new, "Specifically Designed for Sony FE" lenses perform. In general, I buy faster primes and live with slower zooms. For my work the optical benefits of a prime lens can't compete with the flexibility of a fixed aperture zoom. Speaking of which; I do not shoot variable aperture lenses - they just don't work in my style of shooting. In the end, I'm making corporate video, interview/documentary stuff, and trailers for theatrical productions and this is what works for me. Thanks for the encouragement - more vids are on the way!
That video will support my decision towards the Zeiss 16-35. Thanks for a really good and short video. I watched like 50 videos before but this one was compact and on the point. Thanks!
Glad you liked it and thanks for taking the time to comment. Have a good one!
Thanks for the insights! I still lean towards the Tamron, but I get your point. One question: Which camera are you using? Because I feel like on a stabilized a7m3 or whatever, the oss in the lens wouldn‘t be effective enough to compete against the advantages of 2.8
If new 17-28 is anything like the 28-75, it'll be a great lens for sure. I shoot an A7III and the lens stabilization does make a big difference. You cannot 'turn off' the OSS in the Zeiss lens without turning off the IBIS in the A7III, but when using non-stabilized lenses of the same focal length I can tell a difference. My hand-held skills are rubbish so I need all the help I can get! Thanks for the comment.
I like the tech details... thank you sir
My pleasure! Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. I'm wrapping up two new videos this week that should be up right after Christmas. Have a good one!
@@MattSpaugh Excellent... looking forward to it.
Thank you! This was the review I was looking for. Regards.
Awesome - thanks for watching!
if tamron keeps making smaller and even smaller good quality lens for mirrorless camera, they will be the ultimate lens maker in the future … period … cause that’s what everybody wants … who wants a big fat heavy expensive sony lens on a tiny mirrorless body!!!
The Sony is pretty notorious for bad copy variance though, apparently there are some pretty bad copies out there. Plus it doesn't stay sharp all throughout the whole range, so for many people I'm told that the usable end of the range actually comes out to about 28mm anyhow. Since the Tamron is faster and sharper, you could probably get about an equivalent result by cropping into a 35mm equivalent FL from 28mm on the Tamron.
Also, I've seen video results of stabilized vs non stabilized lenses on modern Sony bodies that have IBIS. The results are very, very hard to tell apart, because Sony lens stabilization doesn't compliment IBIS as much (meaning barely at all) as other systems like Panasonic's Dual IS 2 for example. If you're using an old body without stabilization though, then OSS will make a big difference.
Lastly, Tamron offers a pretty insanely good warranty from what I've heard on their new products (I think it's like 5 or 6 years?) so you may be underestimating the value of the Tamron when buying new.
I have no reason to doubt your copy variance comment, but in countless rentals and the final purchase of my used lens I've never noticed a difference, nor have I gotten a lemon. I guess I've been lucky. Sharpness throughout the entire focal length range is actually one of the greatest strengths of this lens in my experience. Again, maybe I got my hands on good lenses.
You note that you've seen video results. Again, my personal first-hand experience is that it makes a difference - maybe not quite as much with video, but certainly with stills photography. The claim of 3 stops is not an exaggerated. Again, I'm not trying to argue with you - your points are valid - but I can only speak from my personal experience.
You're spot-on with Tamron's warranty and general quality of product. I love their lenses and place a high value on the way they back up their products.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, I appreciate it!
Great e explanation!!
Thanks! Glad you liked it.
Why on earth did you sell the 15-30mm f2.8 VC..? It adapts perfectly to E mount with a chipped/AF adapter...
Back in days of yore when the A7III first came out and i was making my switch to Sony it definitely did not adapt perfectly.
I had an offer that let me get my money out of it and, as much as I loved the look of it, it was a cinder block of a lens. That thing weighed a ton.
Thanks for watching!
@@MattSpaugh Indeed a beast..!
100% agree
Thanks Hugo, and thanks for taking the time to comment, I appreciate it!
Did you ever do the video about fast primes and slow zooms? Would love to see it but can’t find it
It's on the list... fortunately I got a TON of work in October and November. Really grateful too, April-October was incredibly slow due to lockdown.
I've got two that I'm hopefully wrapping in the next week. One is a review of the Glow China Ball light modifier, the other is a comparison of Sony's 50mm 1.8 and the Zeiss 55mm 1.8.
The fast prime/slow zoom will likely follow after that. Thanks for watching and letting me know what kind of content you want to see!