Own it for 6 months and not happy. I know that it is not a parfocal lens but focus moves a LOT while zooming in or out, so zooming is not possible during video record. When you tilt your camera vertical, gravity changes the focal length of the lens which is ridiculous. For photography, not bad at all tho. OIS combine with IBIS makes a wonderful job for long exposures.
I have the 16-55 and thats such a beast on my xs20. Just got the sigma 18-50 and it's good but this just has more range and stabilization and the iq seems on par with the other 2 lenses. I think ill be going with this one.
It's been almost a year since I got this lens and your review definitely was an encouragement Kevin, so thanks for that. This really is a great lens and a perfect partner to the Fuji 70-300. Image quality and AF has been great combined with the X-T4. I've used it for up close sports videography for clients and it did an excellent job. The Tamron 17-70 and Classic Chrome is highly recommended for video, unless you shoot in F-Log and I'm also loving this lens for sports, landscape, travel and portrait photography. Definitely a genuine all-rounder of a lens! If it was parfocal, it'll be pretty much perfect. Because you do portraits Kevin, I wonder if you can give me some advice? The next two lenses I'll add to the kit will be the Fuji 33 1.4 and the 90 F2, but I'm not sure which one to get first. They're both around the same price used and I know they'll both be badass. If you were in my position as someone who shoots a lot of sports while wanting to a lot more portraits soon (at least 75% outdoors and not too much indoors), which would you pick? Thanks mate 👍
Super glad my review helped you out and I do love my 17-70 and still use it all the time. To your question, I would ask myself which type of portraits you do. If you like more head and shoulders and tighter shots, I'd do the 90mm f/2. Although personally, I opted for the Viltrox 75mm 1.2 for these duties, as it falls right in between 56 and 90mm for tighter portraits. However, if you decide to shoot portraits as more of a story teller, where the location matters equally to the subject, the 33 1.4 would be the one I'd get. 33 is just a bit too tight for me, so I went to a 23mm 1.4 for those duties.
@@KevinDeal thanks much for the quick response. I should mention that I did use the Sigma 30 for the Canon M50 before getting an X-T4 and I've thought about it for the Fuji too. Only thing that's making me think it's worth saving for the Fuji 33 is the AF speed (especially for video), better IQ shot wide open and better weather sealing. I did see your video when you compared the Sigma to the 35 1.4 and it did look good, so it's only the video AF concern I have really after seeing other reviews for it on the Fuji system. Also thought about the Viltrox 27 because it looks incredible, but it's the same weight as the 70-300 and I want a prime around those focal lengths to be much lighter. Yeah I've heard and can see the Viltrox 75 is awesome. However, Gareth Danks's video mentioned the 90 would be a better option for sport because of the autofocus. Have you had any firmware updates with the Viltrox that have improved the autofocus speed? If so, I'd definitely consider it.
@@nomadictimbo9185 based on your response I think you thought it out well. I agree the 90 will be better for sports and I think you're going to love the 33 1.4. It's a beautiful lens. Kind of makes me wonder why I don't own one. lol And yes, the Viltrox 75mm is NOT a light lens.
@@KevinDeal thanks for your input, really appreciate it and yeah you'll be right:). Since getting into photography/videography I've never I've done anywhere near as much research before making a purchasing decision when it comes to gear for obvious reasons. The 33 and the 90 will more than likely be my prime duo. However, when it comes to zooms (and I'm sure you'll agree), the Tamron and the 70-300 are definitely a great pair, particularly given they both have the 67mm filter thread along with similar autofocus speed. I'm still mega impressed with how fast the Tamron is despite not having a linear motor.
I'm getting this lens today, replacing my XF10-24 as my workhorse for video. Watching some videos just to make sure it's a good investment. Thanks for the video.
@@KevinDeal Quite possible. I had the same issue with the very well sealed S5 and the 24 105. Could use them in rain all day, but used it ONCE close to the seafront without the hot shoe cover and humidity crept in after about an hour. Also, my Tamron 70 180 has held up in the rain just fine so far. Also no dust at all (in contrast to my Sigma). Fun fact: On MPB, most Fujifilm 16 55 2.8 are reduced in price due to humidity in the lens...
So that’s a technique called shutter drag. You may have already heard of it, but if not, look up some videos on the technique on You Tube. I have two light sources. A fast one like a strobe and a slow one like an LED light. I hit the model with a strobe but do it with an extremely slow shutter speed, like 1/8 or slower. As I take the picture I intentionally move my camera to create streaks with the slower light source (LED). My exact settings: 2 seconds | f/6.3 | ISO 125
I got it but returned it the next day. Back focus all over the place which shouldn't occur but it is there. No way to correct this so unusable. With manual focus I got it right but at 70mm still very soft and lack of contrast. Maybe a lemon. Got the Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 and much happier.
Most of the shots are close to straight out of the camera. I shoot in RAW but use the film simulations, at least on the color shots. When I import the shots into Capture One, the simulations are applied. I do very minor tweaks in post. Exposure, highlights, shadows and maybe contrast. Stuff I could technically also do in my camera. I do have a custom black and white noir style preset I made in Capture One that I've been using with my work lately and most of the black and white shots you see were altered with that noir preset that I made. Thanks for watching!
I have not directly compared the 17-70 to the 16-80. I'm sure the 16-80 is a fantastic lens. At the end of the day, a brighter maximum aperture was more important to me than an extra 10mm.
Do you own the Tamron 17-70? Are you liking it? Tell me about it in the comments below.
I will soon because of you
@@TristanSmith99 Glad I could help!
Own it for 6 months and not happy. I know that it is not a parfocal lens but focus moves a LOT while zooming in or out, so zooming is not possible during video record. When you tilt your camera vertical, gravity changes the focal length of the lens which is ridiculous. For photography, not bad at all tho. OIS combine with IBIS makes a wonderful job for long exposures.
@@meteturhan3505 yeah. Definitely can't recommend this for video. Stills, it's great.
just ordered one!
I have the 16-55 and thats such a beast on my xs20. Just got the sigma 18-50 and it's good but this just has more range and stabilization and the iq seems on par with the other 2 lenses. I think ill be going with this one.
I’m sure you’ll love it.
It's been almost a year since I got this lens and your review definitely was an encouragement Kevin, so thanks for that. This really is a great lens and a perfect partner to the Fuji 70-300. Image quality and AF has been great combined with the X-T4. I've used it for up close sports videography for clients and it did an excellent job. The Tamron 17-70 and Classic Chrome is highly recommended for video, unless you shoot in F-Log and I'm also loving this lens for sports, landscape, travel and portrait photography. Definitely a genuine all-rounder of a lens! If it was parfocal, it'll be pretty much perfect.
Because you do portraits Kevin, I wonder if you can give me some advice? The next two lenses I'll add to the kit will be the Fuji 33 1.4 and the 90 F2, but I'm not sure which one to get first. They're both around the same price used and I know they'll both be badass. If you were in my position as someone who shoots a lot of sports while wanting to a lot more portraits soon (at least 75% outdoors and not too much indoors), which would you pick?
Thanks mate 👍
Super glad my review helped you out and I do love my 17-70 and still use it all the time.
To your question, I would ask myself which type of portraits you do. If you like more head and shoulders and tighter shots, I'd do the 90mm f/2. Although personally, I opted for the Viltrox 75mm 1.2 for these duties, as it falls right in between 56 and 90mm for tighter portraits.
However, if you decide to shoot portraits as more of a story teller, where the location matters equally to the subject, the 33 1.4 would be the one I'd get. 33 is just a bit too tight for me, so I went to a 23mm 1.4 for those duties.
@@KevinDeal thanks much for the quick response. I should mention that I did use the Sigma 30 for the Canon M50 before getting an X-T4 and I've thought about it for the Fuji too. Only thing that's making me think it's worth saving for the Fuji 33 is the AF speed (especially for video), better IQ shot wide open and better weather sealing.
I did see your video when you compared the Sigma to the 35 1.4 and it did look good, so it's only the video AF concern I have really after seeing other reviews for it on the Fuji system. Also thought about the Viltrox 27 because it looks incredible, but it's the same weight as the 70-300 and I want a prime around those focal lengths to be much lighter.
Yeah I've heard and can see the Viltrox 75 is awesome. However, Gareth Danks's video mentioned the 90 would be a better option for sport because of the autofocus. Have you had any firmware updates with the Viltrox that have improved the autofocus speed? If so, I'd definitely consider it.
@@nomadictimbo9185 based on your response I think you thought it out well.
I agree the 90 will be better for sports and I think you're going to love the 33 1.4. It's a beautiful lens. Kind of makes me wonder why I don't own one. lol
And yes, the Viltrox 75mm is NOT a light lens.
@@KevinDeal thanks for your input, really appreciate it and yeah you'll be right:). Since getting into photography/videography I've never I've done anywhere near as much research before making a purchasing decision when it comes to gear for obvious reasons.
The 33 and the 90 will more than likely be my prime duo. However, when it comes to zooms (and I'm sure you'll agree), the Tamron and the 70-300 are definitely a great pair, particularly given they both have the 67mm filter thread along with similar autofocus speed. I'm still mega impressed with how fast the Tamron is despite not having a linear motor.
@@nomadictimbo9185 yes, the 17-70 and 70-300 are my vacation combo. Throw in the Tamron 11-20 into the mix and that's my trio.
I'm getting this lens today, replacing my XF10-24 as my workhorse for video.
Watching some videos just to make sure it's a good investment.
Thanks for the video.
Outside of it not being parfocal, it seems to just fine on all other video tests I did.
Beautiful sample photo of Tamron 17-70mm, still keep this lens ..❤
Thank you
Thanks for the review a bit concerning about the water ingress.
I am planning on getting this lens and the xh2 shortly.
The more research I do, the more I think it may have happened through my hot shoe.
@@KevinDeal Quite possible. I had the same issue with the very well sealed S5 and the 24 105. Could use them in rain all day, but used it ONCE close to the seafront without the hot shoe cover and humidity crept in after about an hour. Also, my Tamron 70 180 has held up in the rain just fine so far. Also no dust at all (in contrast to my Sigma). Fun fact: On MPB, most Fujifilm 16 55 2.8 are reduced in price due to humidity in the lens...
Very useful vidoe. But most importantly: GREAT photos!
Thanks for stopping by!
That's a fantastic shot at 10:28. How did you get that shot? what settings did you use on the camera?
So that’s a technique called shutter drag. You may have already heard of it, but if not, look up some videos on the technique on You Tube.
I have two light sources. A fast one like a strobe and a slow one like an LED light. I hit the model with a strobe but do it with an extremely slow shutter speed, like 1/8 or slower. As I take the picture I intentionally move my camera to create streaks with the slower light source (LED).
My exact settings:
2 seconds | f/6.3 | ISO 125
When the weather sealing failed. Did you have the lens attached properly, (screwed all the way in) the whole time in the rain?
I did
thank you for this video...good review.... i am leaning on the lens and most likely will just go for it....
Do it! Love this lens.
I have the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-F4 on my Nikon D5500
Cool lens.
Thanks mate! I’m sold
Glad my video helped!
I’m thinking about getting this lens. You compared it to your F4 canon. Isn’t the Tamron really an F4 in full frame?
Depth of field wise. Yes. Light transmission wise. It is 2.8.
Yes, it is also an f4 equivalent. can't believe many pros still don't get this...
How do you like the image stabilization? Works good with ibis for video?
It's pretty decent for video.
I got this lens and love it 🚀🚀**Paired with the Fuji XT3
Awesome. XT3 is a solid camera.
Excellent video 😊!
Thank you very much!
I got it but returned it the next day. Back focus all over the place which shouldn't occur but it is there. No way to correct this so unusable. With manual focus I got it right but at 70mm still very soft and lack of contrast. Maybe a lemon. Got the Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 and much happier.
The Fuji 16-55 is a gem of a lens.
Hi, thanks for your review! Are the showed pictures straight out of camera? Thanks
Most of the shots are close to straight out of the camera. I shoot in RAW but use the film simulations, at least on the color shots. When I import the shots into Capture One, the simulations are applied. I do very minor tweaks in post. Exposure, highlights, shadows and maybe contrast. Stuff I could technically also do in my camera.
I do have a custom black and white noir style preset I made in Capture One that I've been using with my work lately and most of the black and white shots you see were altered with that noir preset that I made.
Thanks for watching!
Do you think this is a viable lens for paid work (engagement, family photos, etc).
I do. It’s pro. Just not weather sealed.
So you say it is our fav 3rd party zoom, what is your fav first party zoom or your fav zoom
The 16-55 2.8 is pretty amazing. A little sharper but doesn’t go as long.
Idk if it’s just me but I find the the autofocus to be very inconsistent with this lens
Fuji in general has inconsistent autofocus in my opinion, so it's hard for me to tell if it's the lens or the system. Just my experience.
Have you tried XF 16-80mm? what are your takes on Tamron 17-70mm vs XF 16-80mm
I have not directly compared the 17-70 to the 16-80. I'm sure the 16-80 is a fantastic lens. At the end of the day, a brighter maximum aperture was more important to me than an extra 10mm.
I’m curious also since I need a lens for my daughter’s basketball games.
@@Unaidedfoot Not sure this lens would be long enough for a basketball game if you want to do shots that have isolation.
Those bears were pretty creepy looking from your vacation shots .
The Country Bears at Disney World ARE creepy.
I'm offended . Lol just kidding . I don't mind when lenses don't have aperture rings either