WOW THIS LENS IS SHARP! My video here doesn't do it justice, in that regard... the full review is better on my site. It has better resolution than my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 in the center, and at the edge at f/2.8, though the "sweet spot effect" helps the full frame lens at the edge of the frame when stopped down. And it's as sharp as my Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro in the center, and about the same at the edge at until f/5.6. But really, it's the flexibility and low light capabilities that set this lens apart from the other options out there.
@Matthew Gore Great review! But at that time there didn't exist the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8. I'd like to know your oppinion about it, compared to this Tamron. I can't decide what i should buy for my A6000 (no IBIS!). Both lenses are great... sharp and much cheaper than the Sony lens. Compared Sigma vs. Tamron: Sigma's advantages are size, weight and price (~500€). Tamron's advantages are more wide angle, more tele and stabilization. But are they worth the higher price (~750€, but i'll get it for 650€)? What are your thougts?
@@SenseiFritz For me, the image stabilization of the Tamron is worth every penny on an a6000, but it all depends on how you shoot. If you always shoot from a tripod, or shoot in good light, etc, then it doesn't matter so much, but I almost always shoot hand held, and my favorite shots are usually when light is low. I do like the lighter weight of the Sigma, but it's not a huge difference, and for me, the extra zoom range of the Tamron is worth the weight. I haven't done side by side comparisons of the two, but image quality seems comparable. Good luck!
@@MatthewGore Thank you VERY much, you helped me a lot!!! I'm searching for a one-for-all lens (i know, such a lens will never exist, but at least for MOST situations) preferably without additional stuff (flash, tripod,...). I prefer handheld too. Weight and size don't really matter so much for me. Using the Sigma primes instead one of these zooms is much heavier and needs much more space and i am strong enough for the Tamron. :-p I shoot in the morning, afternoon.... night (low light), sometimes competitions in sports halls (again low light), sometimes street, seldom portrait, seldom landscape,.... as i said: as possible one lens for "all" situations. ;-) Earlier i thought about the Sony 18-105mm too because of the longer tele, but it's not as sharp as the Sigma or Tamron and with f4 it's not that fast. Anyway.... thanks you a lot!
Thanks for the video. If we have the Sony a 6400 (which does not have IBIS), what settings within the camera do we need to enable in order to take advantage of VC in the Tamron lens or does it automatically turn on? Thank you
I'm not really interested for a very technical review of gears but this video is something. I dont find It boring compared to others and I like the flow. Please keep it up!
What do you think? Is there a better all-around lens for a Sony a6400 out there? I should mention a few details: first, a big THANK YOU to my brother-in-law Kevin for loaning me the a6300 for a couple of weeks to shoot with. As usual, this review is NOT sponsored; it is as unbiased as possible, though the lens was loaned to me by Tamron USA. I have to send it back.
This is one of the most comprehensive videos I've come across on the Tamron 17-70 lens... Fantastic review... Would you recommend this over the Sigma prime trio (for the Sony 6000 series) to a beginner photographer?
@@arfazhoosein6274 Thanks! Regarding the Sigma prime trio: it really depends on your shooting style and artistic preferences. The Tamron can't match the Sigma trio's f/1.4 bokeh/depth of field and light transmission, but the Sigma lenses are not stabilized, so even their two extra stops of light will not match the Tamron's stability in low light. And then, of course, there's the question of convenience... will you miss a shot because you need change lenses? Depends on what kind of photographer you are. For a beginner, I'd probably go with the Tamron... but it's ultimately a matter of personal preference.
Great review. I was concerned that some reviewers said it wasn't very sharp or a little soft at 17mm. Guess they may have a bad sample or just screwed up taking the phots. You proved it is an all around great lens. The only other lens that comes close is the 18-105 f4.0. If this Tamron lens was available at the time I bought the 18-105, I think I would have gone Tamron. Will make a great gift for my son's a6400, which I gave him for Christmas.
As I have been looking at reviews for this lens, yours came up. Really liked your coverage and presentation style. Subscribed. I have several lenses purchased at the time I bought my camera and have barely used any as the camera was an impulse purchase. I consider myself a major beginner and am thinking to buy this as I will have most all conditions covered while getting a bit more serious. Thank you.
Hey Jim, glad you found it useful! It's not a cheap lens, but it's a really excellent one. Hope you get some good use out of your new lens, and you know where to find me if you have any questions.
I'm waiting for Tamron to send me a sample to review ... might be a long wait. I like the lens and plan to buy it as soon as it becomes available and accessible here in SE Asia. Good review
Great review! As a Sony full frame shooter who moved to Seattle for school during the shutdown, your video gave me a few good ideas for picture opportunities. I think I’m going to take my Tamron 28-200 F2.8-5.6 all in one to Cape Disappointment this weekend, weather permitting!
It's funny... I've lived in the Seattle area for most of the past 30 years, and this was the first time that I'd ever been to Cape Disappointment! There's a good collection of lighthouses around the Puget Sound and a few out on the coast, so there are plenty to choose from. Good luck with the weather (I think we're expected to have another clear day sometime in August) and prepare for some wind out at the coast... the Cape is known for constant wind.
Matthew, I am thinking about upgrading my kit lens for my Sony camera. I've watched a lot of RUclips reviews on the Tamron and Sigma options. Yours is by far the best review on the topic.
Thanks for the review ! I am seriously considering getting this for my a6000. However, I feel the 2nd half of your review wasn't about this lens specifically; it was just about the advantages of a lens with a wider aperture (for beginners to photography, it was a nice overview of why people spend a lot more money to have wider aperture lenses).
Great video! It gives an interestingly different perspective on the Tamron compared to the other reviews I saw. I was struggling between the Tamron 17-70 2.8 and the Sony 16-55 2.8 but the more I see about it the more I want the Tamron :-)
They're both great lenses, of course... and if you have an a6600, a big draw of the Tamron disappears. But if you don't have IBIS, the VC on the Tamron is a such a huge factor that , for me, it would outweigh just about anything else.
@@ReptiVilla The main attraction of the Tamron 17-70 (compared to the Sony 16-55 f/2.8) is that the Tamron lens has image stabilization built in, while the Sony lens does not. If you have a Sony a6400 or below, then the camera body does not have image stabilization built in, so that stabilization is important to have in the lens. On the other hand, the Sony a6600 DOES have in-body image stabilization, so the stabilization in the Tamron lens is not so important... you get the same benefit just from owning the more expensive camera. However, the Tamron lens remains a great choice, and remarkably sharp, for a good price. But if you prefer the slightly wider end of the Sony lens, then it's also a good choice for the a6600.
Great review! I've been thinking about getting one mostly for filming. I also use a Sony a6300, which is a bit of an old model. How does the autofocus works while shooting video? Are there any problems? VC works really great. I wonder what is the lowest shutter speed at 17 mm that you can still get sharp photo. Thanks!
When it comes to image stabilization, it really depends on what you're willing to accept. Even at a 1/250th of a second, a photo isn't going to be as sharp as it would be from a tripod, and my images here in this video are nice and sharp, but they are not as sharp as they could be under ideal conditions from a tripod. So, an experienced photographer with good shooting form (shooting bursts) could probably hand hold 1/4 ... maybe even a half... of a second with this lens at 17mm and get something that would be acceptable for Instagram certainly, or even 4K display, but maybe not for a wall print. Unfortunately, I don't really do video work... or at least, I'm enough of a novice that my opinion in that regard won't be helpful. I've been a photographer for 25 years, though, and the AF is fast and accurate for photos.
There's the Sony 24-105mm f4, which is a full-frame equivalent. A 17-70mm f2.8 lens on full-frame would be awesome, but it would also be massive and massively expensive.
@@jeroenvdw There is something called a crop factor that applies when converting a full-frame lens to an APS-C body and vice versa. The Tamron lens as seen in the video would be equivalent to using a 25.5-105mm f4.2 (crop factor of 1.5) lens on a full-frame camera. See how this conversion also includes the f-stop number, meaning the lens would provide a depth of field that is equivalent to a lens at an aperture of f4.2, which means slightly more (not less) DOF than f4. However, since aperture numbers are universal in terms of light transmission, the Tamron lens would provide around a stop more of light (depending on transmission lost due to coatings, etc) than the Sony 24-105mm f4 lens at all focal lengths (when wide open).
Matthew. Thanks for this vid. Having trouble getting solid answer --- Do you know what adapter I need to fit Tamron 17-70 to Canon M50... and still preserve the electronics of course? Thanks much,
hello i use sony 85mm f1.8 to shoot basketball came here for the review, do you still have this Tamron lens? have you tested it now on indoor basketball? how was it?
I currently do have a Sony 85mm 1.8 that I have used to shoot basketball, and while the autofocus speed is fine and the larger aperture is great, the lack of zoom isn't ideal for the way that I shoot, and I'm able to get the 1/1000th sec. shutter speed that I need with an f/2.8 lens, usually. I do still have one of these lenses, but I have not actually shot basketball with it... I normally shoot with a full frame camera in low light... and I've been testing the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 on full frame with basketball. This is a good reminder to try out the 17-70, just to see if the image quality is significantly different, but I have done enough shooting with it in general that I know the autofocus is great for basketball, and low light noise hasn't been an issue so far on the a6300 that I've been testing with.
@@MatthewGore thank you so much for that input, and yes i agree with all you said about the 85mm the tamron 17-70 wouldve been better if priced a bit lower that what it is today one last question, which is better for sports, tamron 17-70 or the 28-75?
@@rjnakamura1385 Assuming that you're you're talking about shooting with an APS-C sensor, the 17-70 is the better lens; it covers everything that the 28-75 does plus a much wider range at the wide-angle end (the 5mm at the long end is negligible) and the 17-70 has image stabilization for when you need it (if you're doing slow-shutter panning, for example). If you're shooting full frame, the 28-75mm G2 is excellent.
@@MatthewGore oh yes I think i forgot to mention that i use Sony A6000 I usually shoot basketball, semi indoors, like its covered at the top by a roof and when at night, even if theres lights, still awful and have to crank up ISO since you have both sony 86 and tamron 17-70, is the native lens still faster to AF?
@@rjnakamura1385 The two lenses feel the same to me when it comes to AF speed. There may be a laboratory difference, but for me, they're both fast enough for shooting sports, and that's as much attention as I give it. If I were going to say one is faster than the other, I'd lean towards the Tamron, but that may just be because the 85mm at f/1.8 has shallower depth of field and has to work a little harder to maintain focus.
Thanks! Unfortunately, I'm pretty much only a photographer... I very rarely dabble in video, and I certainly am no expert, so I'll leave those aspects to people who are more experienced. When I was making this video, the lens for Sony had not even reached the market yet... I had a pre-release version, so of course the X-mount version wasn't available for testing. I still haven't had a chance to use the Fuji version of the lens, unfortunately.
Great video. How does it work with the distortion when recording a video? I know with photos you can correct them in lightroom, or as you mentioned, in camera correction for jpgs. Does it work the se for videos, as in, they get corrected in camera?
Hey Alex, The same correction that applies to JPGs in camera is also applied to video, if you turn it on. This is the "Lens Compensation" setting, which you can control separately for Vignetting, Chromatic Aberration, and Distortion. This is, of course, only with compatible lenses... but the Tamron 17-70 is compatible :-)
@@MatthewGore Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. makes sense. It's just that I use a Sigma 16mm for some videos in the office, which I'm quite happy with, and I also have the 18-105 for other stuff, and now Im planning to replace both, with just one lens, this Tamron, so I'm hoping the distortion won't be much different than the Sigma
I probably won't make another video about it, but I could add some test images to my website review if I can borrow the 18-105 . I can tell you now, though, that the Tamron is sharper and lets in twice as much light :-)
I think it's likely to be released for Fuji first, and then Nikon. Canon has the problem that their mirrorless APS-C cameras use the M-mount, but their full-frame use the RF, and I doubt that Tamron will develop for both.
Good question. Of course, the 17-70 f/2.8 will allow twice as much light in at f/2.8, even if the angle of view and depth of field are similar, so it will be better for shooting low light action in particular. Keep in mind that the depth of field will only decrease on the APS-C is a consequence of increasing your distance from the subject... it's not something inherent in the lens or sensor size. Otherwise, it would be a lot like a 24-105 on full frame, but I don't have a 24-105 handy to compare the image quality. I'd be very surprised if any 24-105 would match this Tamron in resolution... it's pretty remarkable.
@@MatthewGore Shouldn't the larger sensor of full frame allow for higher ISO compared to APS-C with the same level of noise? This would mean that low light performance of f/4 on full frame and f/2.8 on APS-C are equal. (when ISO on full frame = 2 x ISO on APS-C)
@@JL88JL Actually, the full-frame vs APS-C difference is often misunderstood (and is unfortunately perpetuated by some pretty big youtubers out there). An APS-C sensor with the same pixel density as a full-frame sensor will have the same level of noise when displayed at the same level of magnification (though the APS-C image will be a little smaller). That is, if I shoot an image from a tripod at full frame on a Sony A7R4 camera, and then crop the image in Lightroom to APS-C size, the cropped image will (unsurprisingly) have the same level of noise: it's the same image. Or, if I shoot a second shot from the same tripod location on the Sony in APS-C mode, the resulting 26 megapixel image will of course also be identical (again, it's the same sensor, cropped in camera instead of in Lightroom). Similarly, if I shoot the same shot on an APS-C 24 megapixel camera with the same lens and same exposure settings, the APS-C camera's image will be about equivalent to the full-frame (maybe slightly better)... the difference will depend on which sensor is using the newest generation technology. If you're shooting APS-C and shoot with a different pixel density sensor, different lens and then enlarge a different amount, then you'll likely end up with a different amount of noise, but it's not a simple 1.5x or 2x factor. It depends on pixel density, framing, and enlargement as well as the technological generation of the sensor.
This lens is designed for APS-C cameras, so it won't cover a full frame sensor. It will work in APS-C mode on the A7RIII, but then you lose the advantages of owning a full-frame sensor camera. You're better off using a Tamron 28-75mm on full frame, or another brand like a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
I haven't used the new Sigma 18-50, so I can't compare sharpness, but having image stabilization with this Tamron makes a huge difference in low light when you're shooting anything but action. If I didn't have IBIS, I wouldn't consider a non stabilized lens for general use.
I’m buying a Sony a6400.. what you recommend I get Tamron 17-70 f2.8 or Tamron 28-75 f2.8?? Thanks in advance. I’m looking for a lense to be able to do all in one portrait/ scenery/etc.
Definitely go with the Tamron 17-70. amzn.to/3ly6PYW It covers a wider zoom range, and more importantly, has image stabilization (28-75 does not), and it's wonderfully sharp.
I haven't shot much in the way of video with it, but I would expect it to perform as well as any other Tamron lens of the same price range, which is to say that it should be pretty good. I've tested most of the recent Tamron lenses and they've all been excellent for video, at least for my limited needs. About the most taxing thing that I shoot with video is high-school basketball, and no problems there.
Thanks for the video Mathew very nice. I have a question for you I just bought ZV E10 and I need to buy 3 lenses for a holiday in Europe, I am struggling with the choosing, since I want to take photos of landscape and cities, also on people, day and night. So between tamron 11-20 f 2.8, Sony 11 mm f1.8, Sigma 16 mm f1.4, Sigma 18-50 f 2,8, Tmron 17-70 f2.8 and Tamron 18-300 F3.5 -6.3, which 3 lenses would you pick for the trips( theses are my first lenses) Thanks a lot for your help
I would take the Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 first and foremost. It has image stabilization, which is very important, since your camera does not have it built in, and as you've seen from the video, it has excellent image quality and covers and excellent range. If you have the 17-70, then you don't need the 18-300 (which will have worse image quality than a 70-300), so I'd opt for a lens that has a more modest zoom range like a 70-300, but that's up to you... and at the wide end, it depends on how you like to shoot. If you're looking for a fast, 24mm lens equivalent and don't mind working with a prime lens (some people get frustrated when they can't zoom!), then the Sigma 16 f/1.4 is an excellent option. I'd probably opt for the Tamron 11-20, since I like the versatility when I'm traveling. Good luck!
@@MatthewGore Thanks a lot, yes is difficult to cover everything if I dont have experience, and maybe the telephotos are rare in practice. I think with the Tamron 17-70, Tamron 11-20 you cover all the range and the sigma for low light and studio.Great thanks for your help and for your channel
@@MatthewGore I wanted your opinion in two other things, do you think the sony 70-350 mm could be a good complement to the Tamron 17-70mm? And on the wide angle in your opinión is better to have tamron 11-20, than Sony 11mm plus the Sigma 16 mm? Thanks again
@@plgl76 The Sony 70-350 is a great option; great image quality and more importantly, it has optical image stabilization built in. On the wide end, it's a matter of personal opinion... you can either have the convenience and flexibility of having access to all of the range between 11 and 20 mm, OR you can have the extra light from an f/1.8 and f/1.4 lens and (potentially) slightly better optics. I haven't done a side by side test. I'd opt for the single zoom lens (more likely to have the best lens on the camera when I need it), but there's no "best" choice... just what's best for you.
Not here, but I did include one in my review on my website. Still, this isn't really an ideal portrait lens, and APS-C shooters have much better options for portraits. My mention here was only to show the general difference, while keeping the video from growing too long.
@@olivierjean-baptiste5294 The Sigma 56mm f/1.4 would be a good choice... or really any large aperture prime for APS-C or Full frame beyond 50mm. Or a 70-200 f/2.8, which is my preference for just about everything.
Hi Ravi! Yes, I'd definitely recommend this lens. You'll probably still want to use the Sigma sometimes, but you'll probably never put the kit lens on your camera again unless you absolutely need the most lightweight kit. You'll see a strong improvement in image quality.
@@ravicholachagudda5912 Understood. I assume that you're talking about the 16-50mm kit lens, and the 17-70mm will give you much better image quality all around, but especially in lower light.
@@MatthewGorethanks lot Matthew. I might buy soon Tamron. My delima is in future I might upgrade to full frame soo that's only reason am kind of worrying 🙂
Please, I need a lens all - around and I think about tamron 17-70mm or 18-300mm for Sony A 6400 . I searched and searched and I didn't found anything .
I'd recommend the 17-70 f/2.8 to anybody. The 18-300 has a much longer zoom range, but also transmits DRAMATICALLY less light, so you'll have to shoot in much brighter light, use high ISO, or you'll get blurry images. If you need the reach of a 300mm lens, then great... choose what you need, but be aware of the trade-offs.
Hey Mike, Unfortunately, this lens is designed for APS-C cameras, not full-frame ones like your A7II. So, it would technically work on the camera, but you'd lose the benefit of having a full frame camera (and a lot of megapixels). You'd be better off with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, and luckily, your camera has image stabilization built in, unlike the a6300 tested here.
I have two videos about the Tamron 28-75, incidentally, compared against the Sony and Sigma equivalents, here ruclips.net/video/BSkpNVWXdoE/видео.html and here ruclips.net/video/_ARBI0osR34/видео.html.
This is actually one of the biggest problems that Canon is still facing with mirrorless: Tamron would have to make this for M-mount, since it's APS-C. I think it's likely that Tamron will start making RF mount lenses soon, but I don't know if they'll be able to put the resources into TWO Canon mounts. I hope that Canon drops their M-mount cameras and replaces them with APS-C RF-S Mount (like their EF-S mount), though there are enough EOS M users out there (especially in Japan), that it will be a hard move to make.
Yes, it might be a good one to test, too... although it does let in half the light that the Tamron does, and it seems to have an unfortunately high percentage of lenses with serious de-centering issues. I understand that if you can get a good one, it's a great lens. Maybe I'll order one and see.
The hand-held long exposure? Sure :-) There I had the lens zoomed out to its wide end, as you can see, and then I set the camera to ISO 100 and Shutter Priority ("S" on my Sony) and manually set the shutterspeed to 1/15th or 1/10th of a second, and let the camera automatically set the correct aperture, which in this case, was f/22.
This is not a fair competition for the SEL1650 kit lens. They are not in the same league and the competition is a mismatch. You should compare the Tamron with the Sony SEL 1655G.
Unfortunately, the Sigma lens didn't exist yet back when I reviewed this Tamron. Since I don't normally shoot APS-C, I haven't used the Sigma (and I sent the Tamron back to them after my couple of months reviewing it). However, if you take a look at the photos on my website, you'll see that in terms of sharpness, the Tamron is very impressive, even compared to primes like my 70mm Sigma Macro. The Sigma would be a good choice if you didn't think that a 17mm would be wide enough for you.
Broken bokeh or brokeh is the only problem I have with this lens. I was so close to buying this lens, but I borrowed it from a friend for a day and I was really dissappointed with the bokeh. Especially in night shots it's really really bad, the onion rings.
Yes, I agree that the bokeh that this lens produces is not my ideal, though it's better in some situations than others, and much better than f/5.6 lenses. For shots where it's really important, a large aperture prime is always going to be better anyway. Luckily, the Sigma 56 f/1.4 is nice and small, too.
Hey Adam. Keep in mind that the A7C is a full-frame camera, but this 17-70 is only for APS-C! Of course, you can use it on the A7C, but that would defeat the purpose of getting a full frame camera :-) But the Tamron 28-75 is also a great lens, and since your A7C has IBIS, you'll get the same benefits as the 17-70.
@@MatthewGore Whew luckily I haven't bought it yet! lol Thanks for this comment. I love the A7C but getting a different lens would be preferable for sure.
Yes, it's good but not perfect, depending on what you're looking for. Ultimately "good for portraits" is a matter of personal taste, and the Tamron is really nice and sharp if that's what you need. I like how it renders when it's corrected. It has better shallow depth of field than most variable max-aperture lenses, but not as good as some prime lenses that can reach f/1.4.
@@rajeshvelappan8396 Yes, it's an excellent 85mm equivalent portrait lens for Sony APS-C cameras, and it's not too expensive, either: amzn.to/3jsZ5IY Unfortunately, I don't have a video about that lens!
A very late comment. There was never going to be any doubt about the outcome. The Tamron will doubtless , in time, be regarded as a landmark lens. However, I do really tire of reviewers, and pixel peepers endlessly canning "kit lens""- in general. I would have thought you would have been aware that Sony has built in software to take into account the major shortcomings of the lens that is frequently bundled with its early, and many later, apsc bodies. Sony is simply seeking to make a cheap lens to attract potential purchasers away from, at the worst, phone cameras. Also, I know quite a few people who are what the photographic snobs would simply refer to as ""happy snappers" . The aim of such people is not to enter photographic competitions and the like, but simply to obtain images of family events, holidays and the like. Often, I advise them to use full auto ( I hear the purists groan, well at least there people are actually using a camera) or , if the light is good, set the aperture at F6/8 to hit the lens sweet spot. Also, although I no longer use the lens supplied with my a6000, now have a 6400 solely due to IAF, and some more upmarket primes, thanks Sigma and , now maybe Tamron. However, have seen some excellent images taken with a6000's and the kit lens, you should have too.
Yes, as I stated in the video regarding the kit lens, "This is not a fair comparison (0:48)". And to be clear, there are plenty of good kit lenses out there (though this particular Sony is not one of them). My old Nikon 18-135 zoom was excellent, and the Canon 24-105 was a great all-around shooter for years, although neither was a "perfect" lens. Sony does have software fixes for some of their lens's design flaws... so does the Tamron. They fix distortion, chromatic aberration, and vignetting, and they do a good job with it. They don't (and can't) fix the sorts of serious resolution problems that we see in this sample of the 16-50mm (though many are not this bad). It will serve it's purpose for casual shooters and "happy snappers", and those are exactly the people who are never going to watch this video. I got interested in photography about 35 years ago, and a lot of my favorite photographs have been taken on less than optimal equipment. A great photograph doesn't need to be taken with a great lens. But for people who are looking for their camera to perform a certain task, and do it better than a point and shoot or phone (I'm constantly talking to parents who want to photograph their kids at games or other performances), using a lens like this Tamron can make a huge difference compared to a kit lens. It sounds like we're on the same page, there.
I don't own a Tamron lens. But from what I understand, Tamron lenses are the best aftermarket brand. If you find genuine Nikon lens which is made in China - then steer clear of them, because Nikon won't let China construct / assemble their very best lenses, only because China counterfeits everything they get their hands on, whether or not it's camera equipment. I own one such Nikon lens. Very affordable, and also very cheap quality in the extreme, but it's fair to say worth every one of the very few dollars you might pay for it. Just DON'T depend on such Nikon lenses for professional work, if you plan to move in the direction of professional photography some day down the road.
Oh snap. Portland disrespect! Very helpful review and images are great as usual. Have you photographed the Oregon lighthouses? They are lovely as are the superior beaches on the Oregon coast. Washington beaches ARE TRASH. I kid.
I haven't photographed the lighthouses down there (at least, not seriously... maybe when I was in high school), but I have spent quite a bit of time on Oregon beaches, and they are pretty nice. Looks like a road trip is in order.
Goes to show you that this lens is hit or miss. It's basically one or two steps above junk, useable, tiny and if, like you, get a good sample, you are in luck. You and I know that there are much better lens that are much sharper. I love my 18-105 asp-c zoom lens, it's f4.0, has a toggle to zoom and has OSS. For around $600, it is an incredible lens. It also serves as an excellent video lens with its zoom toggle.
WOW THIS LENS IS SHARP! My video here doesn't do it justice, in that regard... the full review is better on my site. It has better resolution than my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 in the center, and at the edge at f/2.8, though the "sweet spot effect" helps the full frame lens at the edge of the frame when stopped down. And it's as sharp as my Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro in the center, and about the same at the edge at until f/5.6. But really, it's the flexibility and low light capabilities that set this lens apart from the other options out there.
it better is sharper than a full frame lens on apsc… there’s no sweet spot effect
@Matthew Gore Great review! But at that time there didn't exist the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8. I'd like to know your oppinion about it, compared to this Tamron. I can't decide what i should buy for my A6000 (no IBIS!). Both lenses are great... sharp and much cheaper than the Sony lens. Compared Sigma vs. Tamron: Sigma's advantages are size, weight and price (~500€). Tamron's advantages are more wide angle, more tele and stabilization. But are they worth the higher price (~750€, but i'll get it for 650€)? What are your thougts?
@@SenseiFritz For me, the image stabilization of the Tamron is worth every penny on an a6000, but it all depends on how you shoot. If you always shoot from a tripod, or shoot in good light, etc, then it doesn't matter so much, but I almost always shoot hand held, and my favorite shots are usually when light is low. I do like the lighter weight of the Sigma, but it's not a huge difference, and for me, the extra zoom range of the Tamron is worth the weight. I haven't done side by side comparisons of the two, but image quality seems comparable. Good luck!
@@MatthewGore Thank you VERY much, you helped me a lot!!! I'm searching for a one-for-all lens (i know, such a lens will never exist, but at least for MOST situations) preferably without additional stuff (flash, tripod,...). I prefer handheld too. Weight and size don't really matter so much for me. Using the Sigma primes instead one of these zooms is much heavier and needs much more space and i am strong enough for the Tamron. :-p I shoot in the morning, afternoon.... night (low light), sometimes competitions in sports halls (again low light), sometimes street, seldom portrait, seldom landscape,.... as i said: as possible one lens for "all" situations. ;-) Earlier i thought about the Sony 18-105mm too because of the longer tele, but it's not as sharp as the Sigma or Tamron and with f4 it's not that fast.
Anyway.... thanks you a lot!
Thanks for the video. If we have the Sony a 6400 (which does not have IBIS), what settings within the camera do we need to enable in order to take advantage of VC in the Tamron lens or does it automatically turn on? Thank you
I'm not really interested for a very technical review of gears but this video is something. I dont find It boring compared to others and I like the flow. Please keep it up!
Thanks, Dave! Glad you found it useful.
What do you think? Is there a better all-around lens for a Sony a6400 out there? I should mention a few details: first, a big THANK YOU to my brother-in-law Kevin for loaning me the a6300 for a couple of weeks to shoot with. As usual, this review is NOT sponsored; it is as unbiased as possible, though the lens was loaned to me by Tamron USA. I have to send it back.
This is one of the most comprehensive videos I've come across on the Tamron 17-70 lens... Fantastic review... Would you recommend this over the Sigma prime trio (for the Sony 6000 series) to a beginner photographer?
@@arfazhoosein6274 Thanks! Regarding the Sigma prime trio: it really depends on your shooting style and artistic preferences. The Tamron can't match the Sigma trio's f/1.4 bokeh/depth of field and light transmission, but the Sigma lenses are not stabilized, so even their two extra stops of light will not match the Tamron's stability in low light. And then, of course, there's the question of convenience... will you miss a shot because you need change lenses? Depends on what kind of photographer you are.
For a beginner, I'd probably go with the Tamron... but it's ultimately a matter of personal preference.
@@MatthewGore Thank you so much for the reply Matthew... This will most definitely influence my purchase... Keep up the good work 👍🤘
It is! When I got it for my Sony a 6400, it was like a feeling why I didn't get it earlier. I think this lens is as good as it gets for the apsc.
Best review I've seen!
Great to see the comparisons with other lenses, it's great to actually see what you actually get for your money!
Great review. I was concerned that some reviewers said it wasn't very sharp or a little soft at 17mm. Guess they may have a bad sample or just screwed up taking the phots. You proved it is an all around great lens. The only other lens that comes close is the 18-105 f4.0. If this Tamron lens was available at the time I bought the 18-105, I think I would have gone Tamron. Will make a great gift for my son's a6400, which I gave him for Christmas.
As I have been looking at reviews for this lens, yours came up. Really liked your coverage and presentation style. Subscribed. I have several lenses purchased at the time I bought my camera and have barely used any as the camera was an impulse purchase. I consider myself a major beginner and am thinking to buy this as I will have most all conditions covered while getting a bit more serious. Thank you.
Hey Jim, glad you found it useful! It's not a cheap lens, but it's a really excellent one. Hope you get some good use out of your new lens, and you know where to find me if you have any questions.
The Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 is everything that the Sony 16-55 f/2.8 should have been.
Agreed. As I said, I like the Sony lens... but I was really surprised that it didn't have OSS, considering the cameras it's intended for.
You nailed it. Thanks for the excellent review.
I'm waiting for Tamron to send me a sample to review ... might be a long wait. I like the lens and plan to buy it as soon as it becomes available and accessible here in SE Asia. Good review
Beautiful photos and a pretty complete review, thank you!
Great review! As a Sony full frame shooter who moved to Seattle for school during the shutdown, your video gave me a few good ideas for picture opportunities. I think I’m going to take my Tamron 28-200 F2.8-5.6 all in one to Cape Disappointment this weekend, weather permitting!
It's funny... I've lived in the Seattle area for most of the past 30 years, and this was the first time that I'd ever been to Cape Disappointment! There's a good collection of lighthouses around the Puget Sound and a few out on the coast, so there are plenty to choose from. Good luck with the weather (I think we're expected to have another clear day sometime in August) and prepare for some wind out at the coast... the Cape is known for constant wind.
Matthew, I am thinking about upgrading my kit lens for my Sony camera. I've watched a lot of RUclips reviews on the Tamron and Sigma options. Yours is by far the best review on the topic.
Thanks for the review ! I am seriously considering getting this for my a6000. However, I feel the 2nd half of your review wasn't about this lens specifically; it was just about the advantages of a lens with a wider aperture (for beginners to photography, it was a nice overview of why people spend a lot more money to have wider aperture lenses).
Yes, that's probably true :-)
Great useful vid man
Thanks!
Great video! It gives an interestingly different perspective on the Tamron compared to the other reviews I saw. I was struggling between the Tamron 17-70 2.8 and the Sony 16-55 2.8 but the more I see about it the more I want the Tamron :-)
They're both great lenses, of course... and if you have an a6600, a big draw of the Tamron disappears. But if you don't have IBIS, the VC on the Tamron is a such a huge factor that , for me, it would outweigh just about anything else.
@@MatthewGore what do you mean by big draw of the tamron disappears? I just got the A6600
@@ReptiVilla The main attraction of the Tamron 17-70 (compared to the Sony 16-55 f/2.8) is that the Tamron lens has image stabilization built in, while the Sony lens does not. If you have a Sony a6400 or below, then the camera body does not have image stabilization built in, so that stabilization is important to have in the lens.
On the other hand, the Sony a6600 DOES have in-body image stabilization, so the stabilization in the Tamron lens is not so important... you get the same benefit just from owning the more expensive camera. However, the Tamron lens remains a great choice, and remarkably sharp, for a good price. But if you prefer the slightly wider end of the Sony lens, then it's also a good choice for the a6600.
Great review, I was in between this and sigma 18 50 but those extra 20mm makes differwnce to me, thanks for make it clear!
Fantastic review. Enjoyed your flow and presentation, immensely.
Great review! I've been thinking about getting one mostly for filming. I also use a Sony a6300, which is a bit of an old model. How does the autofocus works while shooting video? Are there any problems? VC works really great. I wonder what is the lowest shutter speed at 17 mm that you can still get sharp photo. Thanks!
When it comes to image stabilization, it really depends on what you're willing to accept. Even at a 1/250th of a second, a photo isn't going to be as sharp as it would be from a tripod, and my images here in this video are nice and sharp, but they are not as sharp as they could be under ideal conditions from a tripod. So, an experienced photographer with good shooting form (shooting bursts) could probably hand hold 1/4 ... maybe even a half... of a second with this lens at 17mm and get something that would be acceptable for Instagram certainly, or even 4K display, but maybe not for a wall print.
Unfortunately, I don't really do video work... or at least, I'm enough of a novice that my opinion in that regard won't be helpful. I've been a photographer for 25 years, though, and the AF is fast and accurate for photos.
Wow, an actual photographer who provides no bs reviews!
Would love this to be made for a full frame camera!
There's the Sony 24-105mm f4, which is a full-frame equivalent. A 17-70mm f2.8 lens on full-frame would be awesome, but it would also be massive and massively expensive.
@@tr3vis324 oh absolutely. A guy can dream though can't he?
@@Phillyo118 You certainly can! :)
@@tr3vis324 f4 though, no DoF.
@@jeroenvdw There is something called a crop factor that applies when converting a full-frame lens to an APS-C body and vice versa. The Tamron lens as seen in the video would be equivalent to using a 25.5-105mm f4.2 (crop factor of 1.5) lens on a full-frame camera. See how this conversion also includes the f-stop number, meaning the lens would provide a depth of field that is equivalent to a lens at an aperture of f4.2, which means slightly more (not less) DOF than f4. However, since aperture numbers are universal in terms of light transmission, the Tamron lens would provide around a stop more of light (depending on transmission lost due to coatings, etc) than the Sony 24-105mm f4 lens at all focal lengths (when wide open).
Best review I ever seen. Thank you!
Hellow, maybe a dumb question.. but im new in this :D
So the Tamron has a f/2.8.. ONLY f2.8 or can you go higher.. to f8.0 or so? o:
Matthew. Thanks for this vid. Having trouble getting solid answer --- Do you know what adapter I need to fit Tamron 17-70 to Canon M50... and still preserve the electronics of course? Thanks much,
Any long term updates on the weather/dust sealing on this lens?
Can I use for A7iii Camera best results?
Great review! Thanks!
Good review as usual. This lens will be available in FX mount soon.
hello
i use sony 85mm f1.8 to shoot basketball
came here for the review, do you still have this Tamron lens?
have you tested it now on indoor basketball?
how was it?
I currently do have a Sony 85mm 1.8 that I have used to shoot basketball, and while the autofocus speed is fine and the larger aperture is great, the lack of zoom isn't ideal for the way that I shoot, and I'm able to get the 1/1000th sec. shutter speed that I need with an f/2.8 lens, usually. I do still have one of these lenses, but I have not actually shot basketball with it... I normally shoot with a full frame camera in low light... and I've been testing the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 on full frame with basketball. This is a good reminder to try out the 17-70, just to see if the image quality is significantly different, but I have done enough shooting with it in general that I know the autofocus is great for basketball, and low light noise hasn't been an issue so far on the a6300 that I've been testing with.
@@MatthewGore thank you so much for that input, and yes i agree with all you said about the 85mm
the tamron 17-70 wouldve been better if priced a bit lower that what it is today
one last question, which is better for sports, tamron 17-70 or the 28-75?
@@rjnakamura1385 Assuming that you're you're talking about shooting with an APS-C sensor, the 17-70 is the better lens; it covers everything that the 28-75 does plus a much wider range at the wide-angle end (the 5mm at the long end is negligible) and the 17-70 has image stabilization for when you need it (if you're doing slow-shutter panning, for example). If you're shooting full frame, the 28-75mm G2 is excellent.
@@MatthewGore oh yes I think i forgot to mention that i use Sony A6000
I usually shoot basketball, semi indoors, like its covered at the top by a roof and when at night, even if theres lights, still awful and have to crank up ISO
since you have both sony 86 and tamron 17-70, is the native lens still faster to AF?
@@rjnakamura1385 The two lenses feel the same to me when it comes to AF speed. There may be a laboratory difference, but for me, they're both fast enough for shooting sports, and that's as much attention as I give it. If I were going to say one is faster than the other, I'd lean towards the Tamron, but that may just be because the 85mm at f/1.8 has shallower depth of field and has to work a little harder to maintain focus.
Thanks for your nice review
nice review, clear explanation Thanks 📸🧐
Very well presented.
Thanks John!
Great review but sadly no reference to video making. Also there’s a Fuji X mount option - is performance same as the Sony version?
Thanks! Unfortunately, I'm pretty much only a photographer... I very rarely dabble in video, and I certainly am no expert, so I'll leave those aspects to people who are more experienced. When I was making this video, the lens for Sony had not even reached the market yet... I had a pre-release version, so of course the X-mount version wasn't available for testing. I still haven't had a chance to use the Fuji version of the lens, unfortunately.
Great video. How does it work with the distortion when recording a video? I know with photos you can correct them in lightroom, or as you mentioned, in camera correction for jpgs. Does it work the se for videos, as in, they get corrected in camera?
Hey Alex, The same correction that applies to JPGs in camera is also applied to video, if you turn it on. This is the "Lens Compensation" setting, which you can control separately for Vignetting, Chromatic Aberration, and Distortion. This is, of course, only with compatible lenses... but the Tamron 17-70 is compatible :-)
@@MatthewGore Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. makes sense. It's just that I use a Sigma 16mm for some videos in the office, which I'm quite happy with, and I also have the 18-105 for other stuff, and now Im planning to replace both, with just one lens, this Tamron, so I'm hoping the distortion won't be much different than the Sigma
Very nice review, liked it a lot. Is it possible to compare this Tamron with the Sony 18-105 f4 OSS. More the same lenses tha the kit lens.
I probably won't make another video about it, but I could add some test images to my website review if I can borrow the 18-105 . I can tell you now, though, that the Tamron is sharper and lets in twice as much light :-)
I do hope it will be released also for canon and nikon
I think it's likely to be released for Fuji first, and then Nikon. Canon has the problem that their mirrorless APS-C cameras use the M-mount, but their full-frame use the RF, and I doubt that Tamron will develop for both.
How would this lens compare vs the sony 24 - 105 f4 shot on a full frame camera? Theoratically they should have similar focal length and bokeh.
Good question. Of course, the 17-70 f/2.8 will allow twice as much light in at f/2.8, even if the angle of view and depth of field are similar, so it will be better for shooting low light action in particular. Keep in mind that the depth of field will only decrease on the APS-C is a consequence of increasing your distance from the subject... it's not something inherent in the lens or sensor size. Otherwise, it would be a lot like a 24-105 on full frame, but I don't have a 24-105 handy to compare the image quality. I'd be very surprised if any 24-105 would match this Tamron in resolution... it's pretty remarkable.
@@MatthewGore Shouldn't the larger sensor of full frame allow for higher ISO compared to APS-C with the same level of noise?
This would mean that low light performance of f/4 on full frame and f/2.8 on APS-C are equal. (when ISO on full frame = 2 x ISO on APS-C)
@@JL88JL Actually, the full-frame vs APS-C difference is often misunderstood (and is unfortunately perpetuated by some pretty big youtubers out there). An APS-C sensor with the same pixel density as a full-frame sensor will have the same level of noise when displayed at the same level of magnification (though the APS-C image will be a little smaller). That is, if I shoot an image from a tripod at full frame on a Sony A7R4 camera, and then crop the image in Lightroom to APS-C size, the cropped image will (unsurprisingly) have the same level of noise: it's the same image. Or, if I shoot a second shot from the same tripod location on the Sony in APS-C mode, the resulting 26 megapixel image will of course also be identical (again, it's the same sensor, cropped in camera instead of in Lightroom). Similarly, if I shoot the same shot on an APS-C 24 megapixel camera with the same lens and same exposure settings, the APS-C camera's image will be about equivalent to the full-frame (maybe slightly better)... the difference will depend on which sensor is using the newest generation technology.
If you're shooting APS-C and shoot with a different pixel density sensor, different lens and then enlarge a different amount, then you'll likely end up with a different amount of noise, but it's not a simple 1.5x or 2x factor. It depends on pixel density, framing, and enlargement as well as the technological generation of the sensor.
Does vibration control of this 17-70 works well in 6400 while hand helding ?
Yes it does, for photography. I haven't tested it thoroughly for video, but it seemed just fine there, too.
Hmm is good to use with a sony a7r3? For video 🤔
This lens is designed for APS-C cameras, so it won't cover a full frame sensor. It will work in APS-C mode on the A7RIII, but then you lose the advantages of owning a full-frame sensor camera. You're better off using a Tamron 28-75mm on full frame, or another brand like a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
How would you compare the sharpness to new sigma 18-50mm on sony 6000 no ibis
I haven't used the new Sigma 18-50, so I can't compare sharpness, but having image stabilization with this Tamron makes a huge difference in low light when you're shooting anything but action. If I didn't have IBIS, I wouldn't consider a non stabilized lens for general use.
Great. Thanks
I’m buying a Sony a6400.. what you recommend I get Tamron 17-70 f2.8 or Tamron 28-75 f2.8?? Thanks in advance. I’m looking for a lense to be able to do all in one portrait/ scenery/etc.
Definitely go with the Tamron 17-70. amzn.to/3ly6PYW It covers a wider zoom range, and more importantly, has image stabilization (28-75 does not), and it's wonderfully sharp.
@@MatthewGore thanks so much for the reply
I'm interested in a comparison with a Sigma Trio! Especcialy with Sigma 30mm f/1.4)
Same for me! I recently purchased the Sigma 30mm 1.4, so remind me when some kind of video like that is out. :)
Great video, Matt! Have you tested the performance of the lens for video? Any feedback? Thank you
I haven't shot much in the way of video with it, but I would expect it to perform as well as any other Tamron lens of the same price range, which is to say that it should be pretty good. I've tested most of the recent Tamron lenses and they've all been excellent for video, at least for my limited needs. About the most taxing thing that I shoot with video is high-school basketball, and no problems there.
@@MatthewGore, thank you so much. This sounds great. My work mostly involves indoor with lights or pics/videos of my highly energetic 2 year old
Thanks for the video Mathew very nice. I have a question for you I just bought ZV E10 and I need to buy 3 lenses for a holiday in Europe, I am struggling with the choosing, since I want to take photos of landscape and cities, also on people, day and night. So between tamron 11-20 f 2.8, Sony 11 mm f1.8, Sigma 16 mm f1.4, Sigma 18-50 f 2,8, Tmron 17-70 f2.8 and Tamron 18-300 F3.5 -6.3, which 3 lenses would you pick for the trips( theses are my first lenses) Thanks a lot for your help
I would take the Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 first and foremost. It has image stabilization, which is very important, since your camera does not have it built in, and as you've seen from the video, it has excellent image quality and covers and excellent range. If you have the 17-70, then you don't need the 18-300 (which will have worse image quality than a 70-300), so I'd opt for a lens that has a more modest zoom range like a 70-300, but that's up to you... and at the wide end, it depends on how you like to shoot. If you're looking for a fast, 24mm lens equivalent and don't mind working with a prime lens (some people get frustrated when they can't zoom!), then the Sigma 16 f/1.4 is an excellent option. I'd probably opt for the Tamron 11-20, since I like the versatility when I'm traveling. Good luck!
@@MatthewGore Thanks a lot, yes is difficult to cover everything if I dont have experience, and maybe the telephotos are rare in practice. I think with the Tamron 17-70, Tamron 11-20 you cover all the range and the sigma for low light and studio.Great thanks for your help and for your channel
@@MatthewGore I wanted your opinion in two other things, do you think the sony 70-350 mm could be a good complement to the Tamron 17-70mm? And on the wide angle in your opinión is better to have tamron 11-20, than Sony 11mm plus the Sigma 16 mm? Thanks again
@@plgl76 The Sony 70-350 is a great option; great image quality and more importantly, it has optical image stabilization built in. On the wide end, it's a matter of personal opinion... you can either have the convenience and flexibility of having access to all of the range between 11 and 20 mm, OR you can have the extra light from an f/1.8 and f/1.4 lens and (potentially) slightly better optics. I haven't done a side by side test. I'd opt for the single zoom lens (more likely to have the best lens on the camera when I need it), but there's no "best" choice... just what's best for you.
Thumb up from me, I really enjoyed your presentation, thank you.
mine is shipping now :) this lens really makes the choice between a6600 and a6400 much easier, since there were no great stabilized zoom lenses before
which one should we choose, a6400 or a6600?
@@smileofdean depends on your budget, but if you plan on having this lens, then the a6400 is a better deal.
No portrait sample photos at 70mm f/2.8?
Not here, but I did include one in my review on my website. Still, this isn't really an ideal portrait lens, and APS-C shooters have much better options for portraits. My mention here was only to show the general difference, while keeping the video from growing too long.
@@MatthewGore which one do you recommend for portraits for A6600 ? Sigma 56 1.4 ?
@@olivierjean-baptiste5294 The Sigma 56mm f/1.4 would be a good choice... or really any large aperture prime for APS-C or Full frame beyond 50mm. Or a 70-200 f/2.8, which is my preference for just about everything.
Hello Matthew great video. I have Sony kit lens and sigma 30mm will you suggest this lens ?
Hi Ravi! Yes, I'd definitely recommend this lens. You'll probably still want to use the Sigma sometimes, but you'll probably never put the kit lens on your camera again unless you absolutely need the most lightweight kit. You'll see a strong improvement in image quality.
@@MatthewGore you mean still it's worth to buy Tamron 17 70 sir ?
@@ravicholachagudda5912 Understood. I assume that you're talking about the 16-50mm kit lens, and the 17-70mm will give you much better image quality all around, but especially in lower light.
@@MatthewGorethanks lot Matthew. I might buy soon Tamron. My delima is in future I might upgrade to full frame soo that's only reason am kind of worrying 🙂
6:33 Just beautiful!
GO STORM! Great review. Thanks for the quick photo lesson.
Glad you liked it! Looks like Sue Bird and Jewell Lloyd will be back this year, and I wasn't sure about either of them :-)
Please, I need a lens all - around and I think about tamron 17-70mm or 18-300mm for Sony A 6400 . I searched and searched and I didn't found anything .
I'd recommend the 17-70 f/2.8 to anybody. The 18-300 has a much longer zoom range, but also transmits DRAMATICALLY less light, so you'll have to shoot in much brighter light, use high ISO, or you'll get blurry images. If you need the reach of a 300mm lens, then great... choose what you need, but be aware of the trade-offs.
@@MatthewGore Gracias, hombre! Thanks!!
New sub here I have a Sony a7ii would this lens be better than my kit lens?
Hey Mike,
Unfortunately, this lens is designed for APS-C cameras, not full-frame ones like your A7II. So, it would technically work on the camera, but you'd lose the benefit of having a full frame camera (and a lot of megapixels). You'd be better off with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, and luckily, your camera has image stabilization built in, unlike the a6300 tested here.
I have two videos about the Tamron 28-75, incidentally, compared against the Sony and Sigma equivalents, here ruclips.net/video/BSkpNVWXdoE/видео.html and here ruclips.net/video/_ARBI0osR34/видео.html.
it will be perfect when they make it for canon mount
This is actually one of the biggest problems that Canon is still facing with mirrorless: Tamron would have to make this for M-mount, since it's APS-C. I think it's likely that Tamron will start making RF mount lenses soon, but I don't know if they'll be able to put the resources into TWO Canon mounts. I hope that Canon drops their M-mount cameras and replaces them with APS-C RF-S Mount (like their EF-S mount), though there are enough EOS M users out there (especially in Japan), that it will be a hard move to make.
What about the ziess 16-70 f4, a very light and small lens with oss, i think it's THE lens to compare against this Tamron
Yes, it might be a good one to test, too... although it does let in half the light that the Tamron does, and it seems to have an unfortunately high percentage of lenses with serious de-centering issues. I understand that if you can get a good one, it's a great lens. Maybe I'll order one and see.
Can you share us some settings info for this nice picture in 10:41 ? Thanks
The hand-held long exposure? Sure :-) There I had the lens zoomed out to its wide end, as you can see, and then I set the camera to ISO 100 and Shutter Priority ("S" on my Sony) and manually set the shutterspeed to 1/15th or 1/10th of a second, and let the camera automatically set the correct aperture, which in this case, was f/22.
This is not a fair competition for the SEL1650 kit lens. They are not in the same league and the competition is a mismatch. You should compare the Tamron with the Sony SEL 1655G.
0:47 As I said. "This is not a fair comparison."
What about compared with the Sigma 18-50?
Unfortunately, the Sigma lens didn't exist yet back when I reviewed this Tamron. Since I don't normally shoot APS-C, I haven't used the Sigma (and I sent the Tamron back to them after my couple of months reviewing it). However, if you take a look at the photos on my website, you'll see that in terms of sharpness, the Tamron is very impressive, even compared to primes like my 70mm Sigma Macro. The Sigma would be a good choice if you didn't think that a 17mm would be wide enough for you.
Exactly my jump
Just got the 6400
10:58 There's no image stabilization. *AF/MF-switch directly pointing into my face* 😅
and?!
10:47 wtf XD
As always and greatly appreciated, your videos exhibit thoroughness and common sense..! And you are from the Northwest..????????? LOL!
Broken bokeh or brokeh is the only problem I have with this lens. I was so close to buying this lens, but I borrowed it from a friend for a day and I was really dissappointed with the bokeh. Especially in night shots it's really really bad, the onion rings.
Yes, I agree that the bokeh that this lens produces is not my ideal, though it's better in some situations than others, and much better than f/5.6 lenses. For shots where it's really important, a large aperture prime is always going to be better anyway. Luckily, the Sigma 56 f/1.4 is nice and small, too.
I got the Sony A7C and will get this lens to replace the kits lens. Man that kit lens is not that good it comes with!
Hey Adam. Keep in mind that the A7C is a full-frame camera, but this 17-70 is only for APS-C! Of course, you can use it on the A7C, but that would defeat the purpose of getting a full frame camera :-) But the Tamron 28-75 is also a great lens, and since your A7C has IBIS, you'll get the same benefits as the 17-70.
@@MatthewGore Whew luckily I haven't bought it yet! lol Thanks for this comment. I love the A7C but getting a different lens would be preferable for sure.
Is it goof for portrait photography
Yes, it's good but not perfect, depending on what you're looking for. Ultimately "good for portraits" is a matter of personal taste, and the Tamron is really nice and sharp if that's what you need. I like how it renders when it's corrected. It has better shallow depth of field than most variable max-aperture lenses, but not as good as some prime lenses that can reach f/1.4.
@@MatthewGore Sigma 56mm 1.4?
@@rajeshvelappan8396 Yes, it's an excellent 85mm equivalent portrait lens for Sony APS-C cameras, and it's not too expensive, either: amzn.to/3jsZ5IY Unfortunately, I don't have a video about that lens!
A very late comment. There was never going to be any doubt about the outcome.
The Tamron will doubtless , in time, be regarded as a landmark lens.
However, I do really tire of reviewers, and pixel peepers endlessly canning "kit lens""- in general. I would have thought you would have been aware that Sony has built in software to take into account the major shortcomings of the lens that is frequently bundled with its early, and many later, apsc bodies. Sony is simply seeking to make a cheap lens to attract potential purchasers away from, at the worst, phone cameras.
Also, I know quite a few people who are what the photographic snobs would simply refer to as ""happy snappers" . The aim of such people is not to enter photographic competitions and the like, but simply to obtain images of family events, holidays and the like. Often, I advise them to use full auto ( I hear the purists groan, well at least there people are actually using a camera) or , if the light is good, set the aperture at F6/8 to hit the lens sweet spot.
Also, although I no longer use the lens supplied with my a6000, now have a 6400 solely due to IAF, and some more upmarket primes, thanks Sigma and , now maybe Tamron.
However, have seen some excellent images taken with a6000's and the kit lens, you should have too.
Yes, as I stated in the video regarding the kit lens, "This is not a fair comparison (0:48)". And to be clear, there are plenty of good kit lenses out there (though this particular Sony is not one of them). My old Nikon 18-135 zoom was excellent, and the Canon 24-105 was a great all-around shooter for years, although neither was a "perfect" lens.
Sony does have software fixes for some of their lens's design flaws... so does the Tamron. They fix distortion, chromatic aberration, and vignetting, and they do a good job with it. They don't (and can't) fix the sorts of serious resolution problems that we see in this sample of the 16-50mm (though many are not this bad). It will serve it's purpose for casual shooters and "happy snappers", and those are exactly the people who are never going to watch this video.
I got interested in photography about 35 years ago, and a lot of my favorite photographs have been taken on less than optimal equipment. A great photograph doesn't need to be taken with a great lens. But for people who are looking for their camera to perform a certain task, and do it better than a point and shoot or phone (I'm constantly talking to parents who want to photograph their kids at games or other performances), using a lens like this Tamron can make a huge difference compared to a kit lens.
It sounds like we're on the same page, there.
I don't own a Tamron lens.
But from what I understand, Tamron lenses are the best aftermarket brand.
If you find genuine Nikon lens which is made in China - then steer clear of them, because Nikon won't let China construct / assemble their very best lenses, only because China counterfeits everything they get their hands on, whether or not it's camera equipment. I own one such Nikon lens.
Very affordable, and also very cheap quality in the extreme, but it's fair to say worth every one of the very few dollars you might pay for it. Just DON'T depend on such Nikon lenses for professional work, if you plan to move in the direction of professional photography some day down the road.
Im hesitating between that one and the sigma duo 16+56
Tricky. Probably similar resolution. Better bokeh with the primes. More flexibility and convenience with the Tamron... plus image stabilization.
Oh snap. Portland disrespect!
Very helpful review and images are great as usual.
Have you photographed the Oregon lighthouses? They are lovely as are the superior beaches on the Oregon coast. Washington beaches ARE TRASH.
I kid.
I haven't photographed the lighthouses down there (at least, not seriously... maybe when I was in high school), but I have spent quite a bit of time on Oregon beaches, and they are pretty nice. Looks like a road trip is in order.
Sorry, but my kit lens isn't that bad in the corners as shown in this video...
Goes to show you that this lens is hit or miss. It's basically one or two steps above junk, useable, tiny and if, like you, get a good sample, you are in luck. You and I know that there are much better lens that are much sharper. I love my 18-105 asp-c zoom lens, it's f4.0, has a toggle to zoom and has OSS. For around $600, it is an incredible lens. It also serves as an excellent video lens with its zoom toggle.
I think this is a great lens, but it’s too heavy to carry around and travel for me, as a girl😐
you are mad to even compare those lenses
Its liek comparing a honda civic and a porsche
cmon man cant you think of better content ?