Hi from Kyiv Ukraine. I actually own the the Tamron 17 to 28, 28 to 75 and now the 70 to 180 along with many Sony lenses and 4 Sony bodies. With all 3 you have extensive reach at the same cost of the 70 to 200 Sony F2.8. The other thing you said is that you had a problem with the 28 to 75. This is true as there were problems with the first releases and I am happy to report that my copy which I purchased a few months after release had no problems because Tamron did a firmware update. This lens is now supreme. When doing non professional work and taking photos for myself or going for a walk I found having the 17 to 28 and the 28 to 75 in my bag is great. I can go from 17 to 75 with light weight high quality optics quickly with little fuss. The same reason why I waited for the 70 to 180. Weight and size. I shoot fashion models and make up the portfolios and I borrowed the Sony 70 to 200 F2.8 many times. After a days shooting I hated it. The 70 to 180 is the same weight approx to my Sony 135 F1.8 prime. So carrying all 3 is great and having the reach from 17 to 180 is amazing. You should revisit the 28 to 75mm. It is problem free now Chris.
@@acesauce_media the 28-75 is much more versatile i think. It can do 3 types of photography: a little bit of landscape, street, and portraits. While the 17-28 only does landscape and street if you think about it. Kinda depends on what u do
Hi Chris, I now own the Tamron 17-28 and am amazed at how sharp it is but I have to agree with you, the biggest weakness is the limited zoom range. It will suit my purposes for now but I could see wanting more in a wide angle zoom down the line. I didn't feel that way about the Tamron 28-75 but did use that lack of the 24mm focal length on it as my "justification " for picking up the amazing Sony 24 GM lens.
Note that the Sony lens is not very sharp at 35mm, so in fact you're not losing a lot of reach with the Tamron, and if you add the 28-200mm, you've got à GREAT duo.
Great. Im going to buy this for my real estate business, actually i like the 16mm angle of view but 16-35 is too expensive because im not a full-time pro photographer, i'd save the dollars for the business. But the 17 is just fine, 1mm different shouldnt be a problem, maybe 1 step back if the place is big enough.
Thumbs up for the drone intro! The 17-28 is a banger lens. Been using it since release and I mirror your sentiments on image quality. My copy was significantly sharper than my 16-35 though. But I found the build quality to be decent. It's not on par with GM lenses by any means but the matte black plastic and weather sealing has held up great in my experience. I have taken it under waterfalls, in downpours, and across the world. For anyone else on the fence about build quality, I would say not to worry about it if you take care of your gear!
I love this lens lives on my camera. This lens with the 28-75mm.....Not sure what else I need. I want that 24 1.4 but man hard to justify it for one more stop of light....We shall see.
@@Namii7 Depends on how wide you need it. I shoot real Estate stuff so I need the widest I can get so I figure 17mm would do me well. If I had the 24 GM it would live on my camera.......I would say if you don't need super wide the 24 is wide enough for vlogging, and will really shine for some nice b-roll and other footage. My favorite lens for sure, but I don't own it lol.......If you get the Tamron 17-28, it will be even harder to purchase it because you would have a great quality 24mm range, but not as low of F stop. I still think I will get one one day.
The 24 is so much more than one stop of light. Until you have it on your camera it’s really hard to describe, blows away everything else I own.. especially the tamrons
You should add a this video as suggested during your Sony a7iii best lenses video when you mentioned this Tamron 17-28! I totally looked up a review for it when you mentioned it! Edit: For a first lens that will mostly be used at 24mm in my office for RUclips videos, but will also be used for vlogging occasionally, would you recommend this over the Sony 24mm F1.4 GM Prime lens? Maybe the extra versatility zoom offers is worth downgrading to f2.8?
Love the video! I appreciate that you compared this to the f4 version because they're in the same price point. So many others are comparing it to the GM but who can afford that? Thank you! And ideas if you'll have a video about the sigma 14-24? I actually think I might pick that up over this... Thanks again!
Have been waiting so long for this review, definitely keen to try this out! Keep up the amazing work, as a small youtuber struggling to get my first 500 subs, channels like yours are hugely inspiring!
Chris Brockhurst appreciate that so much! It’s just keeping making content I like hoping that one of them takes off to build that audience, no quick fixes though haha
Thanks so much for this review Chris. It's helped me narrow down my decision. I've been struggling between the T-17-28, Sony 24 1.4 or Sony 16-35 (probably F4). Now I know it's either the Tamron or Sony GM 24 MM.
I ended up buying a near mint 16-35 GM from eBay. I tried out the Tamron 17-28. I didn’t care much for the range and the copy I used had a lot of purple fringing.
I have both the Tamron and the Sony. I feel the Tamron definitely controls flair better than the Sony. I also prefer the color and contrast with the Tamron. The two big pluses for me is how close you can focus with the Tamron and on a gimbal it’s lightweightness and internal zoom makes life so much easier. I don’t really miss the wider and longer focal length of the Sony at all and I shoot real estate. However I did try the 14-24 Sigma f2.8 in NYC at PhotoExpo Plus and wow that ART zoom is pretty incredible. You may want to review that one as well.
Thanks for last finger snap switch to studio use. It's exactly what I needed to see for my live streaming studio lens decision. Ordered this lens to match up with my new Sony A7 IV, primarily for studio live streaming, but also for vlogging, and general use! Cheers!
Thanks for the review Chris! Just picked up this lens last week and have been contemplating returning it if I find a used Sony 16-35 F4. This helps me make my decision! Thanks again!
I compared the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 with the Sony 16-35 f2.8 and did a really close comparison over about a week. The nutshell result was the Sony was a bit sharper than the Tamron wide open in the FF corners (on the Sony a7Riv). Elsewhere in the image the difference was negligible to nonexistent wide open. Stopped down past f5.6 or at most f8 the difference in the corners essentially evaporated, with the Tamron actually seeming even sharper (!) in the corners from about f9. The Sony tended to have just a a tad more contrast or pop in general, but the Tamron handled flare better (that was a surprise for me). There is better (smoother) bokeh on the Sony - the Tamron has a bit of onion ring. I shoot landscape and bokeh is pretty much never a priority for me. I kept the Tamron without much hesitation given its price point. Enjoyed the video - thanks.
I am one of those who sold off my 16-35GM for the Tamron 17-28. Now the bag is lighter and used some of them $ and got another lens🙊 shhhh don’t tell the wifey😝 No regrets changing it 😉
Yea, Chris for doing this review! I haven't got my hands on the Tamron 17-28 yet but do have the Sony 24 f1.4 waiting for me when I get home. I know you are a big fan of that lens so could you do a little compare/ comment on of those two? I really like the OOC colours that I am getting from the Tamron 28-75 on my a7iii . Did you notice any difference in the colours compared to your Sony 16-35? Thanks!
The colours are really nice out of the Tamron, any different from the 16-35 though.. probably not in all honesty. The 24 is a completely different ballgame though, once you have it on your camera it will stay there and you will forget about the Tamron if you use 24 a lot. I just put my 24 back on after weeks of using the Tamron and I’m in love all over again. Just such a nice lens. Once you turn on the camera with it you will see what I mean.. 👌🏼
@@chrisbrockhurst Oh, no Chris! Finally home and have now just received my 24 f1.4. So far, I am really impressed and that is just after doing some test shots. It's a gorgeous lens, no doubt, and may have just have spoiled me for lesser builds from now on. Why doesn't every lens have an aperture ring included, I wonder! I can't wait to try it out on the street and shoot some architecture. Chris, do you think that this lens could perhaps supplant the need for a wide angle zoom like the Tamron 17-28 f 2.8 for coastal seascapes, etc? I have the Tamron 28-75 which has been my widest lens until now.
@@CedricRachmad Hi Cedric, I ended up buying the Tamron as well. IQ is great but I do think the zoom range is limited and a 16-35mm is a more versatile range.I find that I often want to go just beyond 28mm when using it. If I wanted wider, I would be checking out the Sigma 14-24 f2.8. The 24 GM is a forever lens, though......
Great review, I just got this lens yesterday. Really looking forward to getting some shots with it. Have been using a Canon 17-40 adapted on my A7ii but sharpness wasn't great and contrast not fantastic either so hopefully this lens will impress me!
As always a great video, thanks Chris. Insightful. I was 80% already mindful of buying it, I think this video just made is 90%. Although..... I am interested in the next video - astrophotography with this lens!! Intriguing, it'll be great to see how you got on with it :). Thanks again, keep up the great videos :). Sanj
I've owned the Tamron 28-75mm for 9 months and not a mark on it. The plastics are of a strong robust composite and don't.mark as easily as the Sony's metal and paint coating. All my Sony lenses have scratches revealing the metal underneath...
Great review. I have the Sony 16-35 f4 for my a7iii and have been using it for a year now. I was happy with it until I purchased the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 recently, it is way sharper than the 16-35 f4 in my opinion. It is also great for my a6500 because it is really light weight and the focal length is almost similar to my sigma 16mm and sigma 30mm, although the Tamron is only f2.8, the sharpness is very identical to those f1.4 lenses wide open. Now I can sell those 3 lenses and keep the Tamron 17-28.
I think there's alot of copies of the 16-35 F4 out there with different sharpness, lots of people seem to have different opinions. I'm glad you like the Tamron though!
I understand 28mm is not far enough but pair the 28-75 mm (which is why they did 28mm) you get 17mm - 75mm under the cost of one G-Master and they are as good on the level of perforamce. The developlement and marketing behind this is cutting edge.
My first copy was a little bit decentered, not much, not bad, but maybe it was the reason why I had also autofocus problems with the lens. Second copy is perfect and I'm so much in love with it.
Hey chris!! awesome channel... Quick question.. If you had a chance to pick a perfect condition ziess 16-35f4 for 750.00 vs a brand new tamron 17-28 2.8... which would you go with...?? thanks!!
I'm sure this is an amazing lens, but I will stick with my Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 I use on my Sony a6000 with the Sigma MC-11 adapter and i have no issues with the performance with the lens.
Great review, as always! I rented this lens for the first time this last weekend and absolutely loved it...which is kind of a problem because I don’t know that it fits at the moment with my needs (probably don’t need it at the moment) or my budget (was planning on some other lenses first). Wasn’t planning on loving this lens this much, ugh!
I am shooting also Infra-Red, and apparently many of the Sony lenses have substatial hot spot issue. I tried it this week in a store with my A7 III converted camera, and it looked just great from f/2.8 to f/22. Normally Sony lenses have an issue aparent from f/7.1 and smaller apperatures. Thanks for the video!
I have the sony 16-35GM, bought it when the tamron 17-28 is not released yet, I'm thinking of selling my GM then get the 17-28 + 28-75 tamron, is it worth it? I'm only a hobbyist. I would gladly appreciate your recommendations. thanks
I had to choose the 16-35 GM. Too many compromises with the 17-28 F2.8 and 16-35 F4. The key things are that I love the 35mm focal length, and secondly I needed to have something for Astro/Low light. I could have bought the 17-28mm, but that would require me to have pack another lens for astro, and have to switch lenses (or buy / pack another lens) to get my 35mm FOV. Shame really. I can see the appeal.
Just a heads up, if anyone’s thinking of getting this lens, don’t buy from jessops. Since lockdown all there customer service options are down (even though they are claiming they’re are still fully operational) and my order is still pending after a week. They don’t even email you with an order confirmation. So I’ve just handed over £800 with no information as to the status of my order. I also payed for next day shipping which obviously didn’t happen, so I’ll be getting that refunded when they start replying to emails again.
Good stuff! I do think that the f2.8 vs 4 is enough reason to keep the Tamron vs the Sony. Try using it in real world low light work situations and then decide.
Really appreciate this video. In addition thank you for all these types of videos. I(we) truly appreciate it and they are extremely helpful. I can’t wait to start posting my shorts on here again. Also, quick question, if you know of any good de-noising software that you would recommend that would be super helpful. I use mainly the adobe suite for my edits
Chris Brockhurst it shows in the quality of these videos. It’s all good. I appreciate the response. Enjoy the 17-28. I’m still on the hunt for mines ahah. Wish me luck.
Trying to decide between the tamron 17-28 or the Sony 24 mm 1.4. I like the 24 but might like the versatility of the zoom more..anyone have any advice?
It's not really an internal zoom. The front doesn't come out of the barrel but it moves in out. If you use a uv filter then it can be kinda called internal zoom assuming there's no dust going through the filter. Off course it's a weather resistant.
I was considering this lens (along with the Sony 16-35's) because I was so happy with the Tammy 28-75, but then I got the 24GM and all of that went away. I'm done spending money this year, haha. Right now as a stills shooter the 24 seems plenty wide for me, however I may get something wider next year, but I may be more inclined to look at the Sony 12-24 or the Sigma 14-24 instead, rather than one of the 16-35's.
Great review! I have had this lens for a few weeks now and I love it! Didn’t realize you are located in Toronto!! Can I ask where the forest photos were taken? I’m always looking for new places to get outside and hike.
@@chrisbrockhurst Watching from Peterborough! Great shots of the lift-locks. I love my 28-75mm + A7III combo and I've been considering this lens so your video was helpful. Keep up the good work.
i cant help but think the rendering on the sony has more depth, more 3d looking? the 17-28 looks sharp but flat, maybe this is due to some optical design choice but ive seen several comparison videos and noticed it on all of them. is this what you found too?
Really nice test, really want to buy it right now. But what if you could find the Zeiss 16-35 f4 for less money then the tamron? Considering that I already have a prime 35mm. The extra 1mm worse more then the f2.8?
I set mine free back into the wild. I never had the af issues with the 28-75, probably because I was late to the party and got my hands on one well after the patch came out for it. 5:40 was the 2nd largest factor in me returning the 17-28.. even though it didn't seem like it was a widespread problem, according to my camera guy... maybe I just got a crappy copy of the lens... or maybe I just made any excuse I could to justify returning it for something else :x GM or go home :x [edit] sell the GM to get the Tamron? are you on drugs? telling people not to buy the GM in the first place is one thing... but to take a depreciation hit, to buy the Tamron seems stupid. I don't know how much you can sell the GM for to stores like B&H or adorama (id be willing to bet they're not even gonna give you a reasonable offer), and I have seen GMs being offered on places like ebay for around 3-400 less than retail... but yea, im not buying something as expensive as a camera lens from a private party, especially over the internet. id rather sell the zeiss, if I had it, and pay a little bit on top to pay the difference, if there is one. yea so if you haven't bought a GM, consider the Tamron. if you have the GM already or are cross shopping the Tamron with the GM, why the fck u lookin at a Walmart knock off u clown ass? If you're cross shopping it with the zeiss, that's another story. the Tamron is decent, but its pretty overrated, the new sigma 14-24 is only a bit more expensive than the Tamron, a bit cheaper than sonys 12-24, and basically the same price as the zeiss. like the Tamron, you get a limited focal range, but the sigma goes as wide as 14, if you're into that, and only goes to 24, but personally id take the sigma with its long end stopping at 24 over the Tamron. plus it has image stabilization which "doesn't matter for a lens so wide", according to some, but it might matter to some people. the sigmas also not huge, as sigma lenses for E mount tend to be. good luck getting your hands on that one.
You’re getting a red card for that comment 🛑 2nd offence is a channel ban! keep it positive and constructive, all points I talked about come from experience and talking to people first hand
@@chrisbrockhurst euros are a lot more sensitive than I thought.. beyond the "are you on drugs you clown ass" part... I see nothing offensive about anything I said. and even that 1 part that could be taken as offensive... well 1) this is the internet 2) I talk to my guy friends like that all the time. whatevz bruh. ill take my ball and go home (basketball... football... baseball... any ball but a soccer ball)
looking into getting one of these lenses and amazon priced the 16-35 f4 as much as the Tamron and im tore between them :/ currently have the 28-75 Tamron and the sony 85 ( might sell for the 70-200 f4) and may get a very nice fast prime ie 35 f1.8 or something like that
@@chrisbrockhurst Are you saying the OSS is more noticeable at full res than the Tamron? Because I've watched both your and Peter Lindgren's videos side-by-sideing the two, and they loook very very similar as far as I can tell. Like @Chaotime, it's almost like the Sony doesn't have any more stability. Not true?
I have the Tamron 28-75 and ill probably pick up the 17-28 too, but for some weird reason I just don't love these lenses. They are great and objective they're the best bang for buck you could possibly get. There is just the lack of excitement when getting these lenses, it is simply not comparable to working with the better built lenses like the Sonys for example. Can anyone relate to what im saying or am I just weird?
Just watched this back, was thinking to purchase this lens, but you mention you have only owed Sony lenses before this, but you reviewed the Tamron 28-75mm before the 17-28mm? 1 yr prior to this
Hi Chris, First of all thank you for a great video. I have Tamron 28-75 and now I'm looking at Tamron 17-28 or Sony 16-35 (f4). In Australia I found Sony for $100 cheaper than Tamron. I'm torn. Which one would you buy for some landscape and general walk about lens? Thank you.
I know that quality lenses demand $$$ but damn..1000 bucks ain't budget for me (sadface) :D. Still saving for a 7III. Trying to figure out if I'll wait for fall when (probably) the IV is being released.
Thanks Chris, I was fortunate to find this lens a while ago and really like it. What gimbal are you using now? Thought I saw that you were running with the Ronin? I have this lens and the 28-75 and wondered if the AirCross2 is a good fit for it. I've heard some conflicting reviews on the motor strength being at 100% all the time, etc. Just wondered about your thoughts on that gimbal. Thanks for the great content!
Cheers Mike. I’d say avoid the Aircross 2, it can’t handle bigger setups despite being way under the weight threshold. I’m using the Ronin S, got it for a great price at Walmart of all places, i love it. Hands down my favourite of all gimbals
@@chrisbrockhurst Hi Chris, just wondered if the weight of that gimbal is a problem! I know everyone loves it but it is big. Trying to determine if the Ronin S is a better fit or something like the Weebill S. Thanks in advance!
Hey do you train jiujitsu and Muay Thai ? I’m a brown belt at silver fox and I train Muay at NJMT keep up the great work on the video I always look forward to them
I used to train in Muay Thai pretty intensively, since having a little one earlier in the year I have calmed it down a bit. But I miss it! Thanks Peter
Thanks for the video! I haven’t heard anyone talk about this on crop yet. I plan to fly this on a gimbal in conjunction with the 10-18 crop lens. Going to sell my 16 and 30 sigma primes. Gives you FF of 15-42. Great video range. Add in the electronic zoom and you’re all the way out to 60+mm. Very versatile lens!
I've used this lens on the a6000 and it gives roughly 25-42mm. While the range isn't that great, the focal lengths are still usable and versatile on an apsc camera.
Alex Zhang I mean most of my gimbal and vlogging shots are wide to super wide. Pair this with the 10-18 and maybe a 55 Zeiss and that’s all I’ll ever need. Plus, I can use them both on my R3 when I need. Just more versatile as a whole, not necessarily by itself.
I got mine a few months ago pretty easy. I like it, but (unless it's been solved recently and I didn't hear in the vid somewhere mid comment) no profile corrections =/ I mean it still works, that would be my only thing
I think the “only” thing concerning me with this lens is how wide it is. I definitely don’t shoot a lot of real estate or architecture. But it would be nice to dabble into that at some point. Would this lens be wide enough for that?
17mm is a fair difference to 16mm, sometimes you need everything you can get in small rooms or rooms with odd angles. I'm actually using a 14mm now and its my preference. It will work, just not for everything
Coma is what you want to pay attention to if you’re doing Astro. The coma on the Tamron isn’t great, it’s slow for that application as well. For weddings it’s a good option. You’re asking one lens to do many things and there will be compromises involved due to that. Personally, I’d do the 24mm for an all-round lens for what you want to accomplish.
Thanks for the your replay guys, I will buy the A7 III in about a month with the kit lens. I want to buy a lens for weddings, astro and landscape with the importance in this order.
another question, do you think i can take this lense out in -10 celsius degrees? I was thinking of taking photo of the northern light but does it handle that cold temperature? I did sended a email to tamron with that question but i never got an answer,lol.
Here we go! A hugely requested video. It’s a long one, timestamps in the description if you’re after something specific ✌🏻
Hi from Kyiv Ukraine. I actually own the the Tamron 17 to 28, 28 to 75 and now the 70 to 180 along with many Sony lenses and 4 Sony bodies. With all 3 you have extensive reach at the same cost of the 70 to 200 Sony F2.8. The other thing you said is that you had a problem with the 28 to 75. This is true as there were problems with the first releases and I am happy to report that my copy which I purchased a few months after release had no problems because Tamron did a firmware update. This lens is now supreme. When doing non professional work and taking photos for myself or going for a walk I found having the 17 to 28 and the 28 to 75 in my bag is great. I can go from 17 to 75 with light weight high quality optics quickly with little fuss. The same reason why I waited for the 70 to 180. Weight and size. I shoot fashion models and make up the portfolios and I borrowed the Sony 70 to 200 F2.8 many times. After a days shooting I hated it. The 70 to 180 is the same weight approx to my Sony 135 F1.8 prime. So carrying all 3 is great and having the reach from 17 to 180 is amazing. You should revisit the 28 to 75mm. It is problem free now Chris.
Review actually starts at 3:34
Red card 🛑
Let's gooo just purchased a Sony a7 iii
Yessssss!! How do you like it?
I'm so excited that you're finally reviewing this lens! This is my next lens after the tamron 28-75 :) good work!
Took some time, but I got there 😂
IDK what lens I should get first this or the 28-75 Lord help wish I could get both
@@acesauce_media the 28-75 is much more versatile i think. It can do 3 types of photography: a little bit of landscape, street, and portraits. While the 17-28 only does landscape and street if you think about it. Kinda depends on what u do
@@acesauce_media 24-105, ive been watching videos and that is preferred over the 28-75 lens
Hi Chris, I now own the Tamron 17-28 and am amazed at how sharp it is but I have to agree with you, the biggest weakness is the limited zoom range. It will suit my purposes for now but I could see wanting more in a wide angle zoom down the line. I didn't feel that way about the Tamron 28-75 but did use that lack of the 24mm focal length on it as my "justification " for picking up the amazing Sony 24 GM lens.
Note that the Sony lens is not very sharp at 35mm, so in fact you're not losing a lot of reach with the Tamron, and if you add the 28-200mm, you've got à GREAT duo.
Great. Im going to buy this for my real estate business, actually i like the 16mm angle of view but 16-35 is too expensive because im not a full-time pro photographer, i'd save the dollars for the business. But the 17 is just fine, 1mm different shouldnt be a problem, maybe 1 step back if the place is big enough.
yep, makes sense!
Thumbs up for the drone intro! The 17-28 is a banger lens. Been using it since release and I mirror your sentiments on image quality. My copy was significantly sharper than my 16-35 though. But I found the build quality to be decent. It's not on par with GM lenses by any means but the matte black plastic and weather sealing has held up great in my experience. I have taken it under waterfalls, in downpours, and across the world. For anyone else on the fence about build quality, I would say not to worry about it if you take care of your gear!
good to hear another opinion on it Alex, yours must have been even sharper than mine!
@@chrisbrockhurst Or my 16-35 was just a dud hahaa
I love this lens lives on my camera. This lens with the 28-75mm.....Not sure what else I need. I want that 24 1.4 but man hard to justify it for one more stop of light....We shall see.
i am also still deciding between the tamron 17-28 and the sony 24mm 1.4....
@@Namii7 Depends on how wide you need it. I shoot real Estate stuff so I need the widest I can get so I figure 17mm would do me well. If I had the 24 GM it would live on my camera.......I would say if you don't need super wide the 24 is wide enough for vlogging, and will really shine for some nice b-roll and other footage. My favorite lens for sure, but I don't own it lol.......If you get the Tamron 17-28, it will be even harder to purchase it because you would have a great quality 24mm range, but not as low of F stop. I still think I will get one one day.
The 24 is so much more than one stop of light. Until you have it on your camera it’s really hard to describe, blows away everything else I own.. especially the tamrons
@@chrisbrockhurst Yea, I kinda wish I just got the 24mm 1.4. I fell like I would never use my 17-28mm and the 24mm would live on my camera lol
You should add a this video as suggested during your Sony a7iii best lenses video when you mentioned this Tamron 17-28! I totally looked up a review for it when you mentioned it!
Edit: For a first lens that will mostly be used at 24mm in my office for RUclips videos, but will also be used for vlogging occasionally, would you recommend this over the Sony 24mm F1.4 GM Prime lens? Maybe the extra versatility zoom offers is worth downgrading to f2.8?
Superb idea, thanks for that. done and done!!
I wonder the same question posed in the edit..
I'm 30 seconds in but I gotta say that's the funniest intro I've ever seen. Mavic Pro (Amazon Prime) edition
haha trying to keep it entertaining :)
Love the video! I appreciate that you compared this to the f4 version because they're in the same price point. So many others are comparing it to the GM but who can afford that? Thank you!
And ideas if you'll have a video about the sigma 14-24? I actually think I might pick that up over this... Thanks again!
Hey! yes its next on my list to review, should have it early Jan.
Have been waiting so long for this review, definitely keen to try this out! Keep up the amazing work, as a small youtuber struggling to get my first 500 subs, channels like yours are hugely inspiring!
Thanks Andrew! And...No such thing as a small RUclipsr, we all do the same thing you just grow over time. You got this!!
Chris Brockhurst appreciate that so much! It’s just keeping making content I like hoping that one of them takes off to build that audience, no quick fixes though haha
Thanks so much for this review Chris. It's helped me narrow down my decision. I've been struggling between the T-17-28, Sony 24 1.4 or Sony 16-35 (probably F4). Now I know it's either the Tamron or Sony GM 24 MM.
The 24GM is so nice, probably my current fav lens
Which one did you buy? I’m considering replacing the 17-28 with the 24GM. But I’m afraid to miss the wider focal length.....
I ended up buying a near mint 16-35 GM from eBay. I tried out the Tamron 17-28. I didn’t care much for the range and the copy I used had a lot of purple fringing.
@@rmclark339 I swapped it for the 24 GM. Great lens but I sometimes wish for wider. So maybe you made the better choice...
I have both the Tamron and the Sony. I feel the Tamron definitely controls flair better than the Sony. I also prefer the color and contrast with the Tamron. The two big pluses for me is how close you can focus with the Tamron and on a gimbal it’s lightweightness and internal zoom makes life so much easier. I don’t really miss the wider and longer focal length of the Sony at all and I shoot real estate. However I did try the 14-24 Sigma f2.8 in NYC at PhotoExpo Plus and wow that ART zoom is pretty incredible. You may want to review that one as well.
Thank you so much for reviewing this lens! Saved me money by going with this lens instead of the the GM 16-35 lens
No worries Ariel! glad it helped
Thanks for last finger snap switch to studio use. It's exactly what I needed to see for my live streaming studio lens decision. Ordered this lens to match up with my new Sony A7 IV, primarily for studio live streaming, but also for vlogging, and general use! Cheers!
Thanks Chris for a well balanced review of these lens. I really like the images of the Peterborough Lift Locks. Cheers, Keith
Thanks for the review Chris! Just picked up this lens last week and have been contemplating returning it if I find a used Sony 16-35 F4. This helps me make my decision! Thanks again!
No worries! Think I’ll be keeping my Sony. They are so similar!
I compared the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 with the Sony 16-35 f2.8 and did a really close comparison over about a week. The nutshell result was the Sony was a bit sharper than the Tamron wide open in the FF corners (on the Sony a7Riv). Elsewhere in the image the difference was negligible to nonexistent wide open. Stopped down past f5.6 or at most f8 the difference in the corners essentially evaporated, with the Tamron actually seeming even sharper (!) in the corners from about f9. The Sony tended to have just a a tad more contrast or pop in general, but the Tamron handled flare better (that was a surprise for me). There is better (smoother) bokeh on the Sony - the Tamron has a bit of onion ring. I shoot landscape and bokeh is pretty much never a priority for me. I kept the Tamron without much hesitation given its price point.
Enjoyed the video - thanks.
this is great to hear Martin and echos somewhat what I discussed, thanks for sharing!
I just bought this lens! Pumped to see this review. Thank you!!
Great review. Informative with plenty of examples. I already have this lens and you nailed it.
YES, do an astrophotography video, and please take some photos of the milkyway, want to see how it looks in the UK. And btw, great video!
I am one of those who sold off my 16-35GM for the Tamron 17-28. Now the bag is lighter and used some of them $ and got another lens🙊 shhhh don’t tell the wifey😝
No regrets changing it 😉
Amazing! good to hear. How do you find the sharpness?
Neil Nicholas which other lens did you end up getting?
@@DEXTVHD I bought the 28-75. Waiting to see if I want to get the next one and finish the trinity of Tamron lens.
Yea, Chris for doing this review! I haven't got my hands on the Tamron 17-28 yet but do have the Sony 24 f1.4 waiting for me when I get home. I know you are a big fan of that lens so could you do a little compare/ comment on of those two? I really like the OOC colours that I am getting from the Tamron 28-75 on my a7iii . Did you notice any difference in the colours compared to your Sony 16-35? Thanks!
The colours are really nice out of the Tamron, any different from the 16-35 though.. probably not in all honesty. The 24 is a completely different ballgame though, once you have it on your camera it will stay there and you will forget about the Tamron if you use 24 a lot. I just put my 24 back on after weeks of using the Tamron and I’m in love all over again. Just such a nice lens. Once you turn on the camera with it you will see what I mean.. 👌🏼
@@chrisbrockhurst Thanks Chris, I will just have to be a bit more patient until I can try it for myself!
@@chrisbrockhurst Oh, no Chris! Finally home and have now just received my 24 f1.4. So far, I am really impressed and that is just after doing some test shots. It's a gorgeous lens, no doubt, and may have just have spoiled me for lesser builds from now on. Why doesn't every lens have an aperture ring included, I wonder! I can't wait to try it out on the street and shoot some architecture. Chris, do you think that this lens could perhaps supplant the need for a wide angle zoom like the Tamron 17-28 f 2.8 for coastal seascapes, etc? I have the Tamron 28-75 which has been my widest lens until now.
@@chryseass.5143 I have the same question. Already have the 24gm. For photos I guess you can stitch with the 24mm, but for video however....
@@CedricRachmad Hi Cedric, I ended up buying the Tamron as well. IQ is great but I do think the zoom range is limited and a 16-35mm is a more versatile range.I find that I often want to go just beyond 28mm when using it. If I wanted wider, I would be checking out the Sigma 14-24 f2.8. The 24 GM is a forever lens, though......
Thank you again, Chris! Super helpful video and well-reasoned suggestions for various user needs.
No worries, thanks for watching
Great review, I just got this lens yesterday. Really looking forward to getting some shots with it. Have been using a Canon 17-40 adapted on my A7ii but sharpness wasn't great and contrast not fantastic either so hopefully this lens will impress me!
As always a great video, thanks Chris. Insightful. I was 80% already mindful of buying it, I think this video just made is 90%. Although..... I am interested in the next video - astrophotography with this lens!! Intriguing, it'll be great to see how you got on with it :). Thanks again, keep up the great videos :).
Sanj
cheers Sanjay
Very informative video, will probably get this lens. Thx for the review!
Thanks for watching
Thanks for this! Just ordered one to go with the A7IV
200 views in 30 minutes LETS GOOO Chris
1000 here we come!! (Not happening 😂)
@@chrisbrockhurst cough at 2000 in first day cough
I've owned the Tamron 28-75mm for 9 months and not a mark on it. The plastics are of a strong robust composite and don't.mark as easily as the Sony's metal and paint coating. All my Sony lenses have scratches revealing the metal underneath...
each to their own, I prefer Sony's build
Great review. I have the Sony 16-35 f4 for my a7iii and have been using it for a year now. I was happy with it until I purchased the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 recently, it is way sharper than the 16-35 f4 in my opinion. It is also great for my a6500 because it is really light weight and the focal length is almost similar to my sigma 16mm and sigma 30mm, although the Tamron is only f2.8, the sharpness is very identical to those f1.4 lenses wide open. Now I can sell those 3 lenses and keep the Tamron 17-28.
I think there's alot of copies of the 16-35 F4 out there with different sharpness, lots of people seem to have different opinions. I'm glad you like the Tamron though!
this lens should be arriving today, watching this video right now in anticipation :-)))
Exciting!
I understand 28mm is not far enough but pair the 28-75 mm (which is why they did 28mm) you get 17mm - 75mm under the cost of one G-Master and they are as good on the level of perforamce. The developlement and marketing behind this is cutting edge.
couldn't agree more! just they won't be for everyone
My first copy was a little bit decentered, not much, not bad, but maybe it was the reason why I had also autofocus problems with the lens.
Second copy is perfect and I'm so much in love with it.
good to hear! not so much about issues With the first one though
Hey chris!! awesome channel... Quick question.. If you had a chance to pick a perfect condition ziess 16-35f4 for 750.00 vs a brand new tamron 17-28 2.8... which would you go with...?? thanks!!
Right? I'm interested in this question as well!
I was literally researching on tamaron lenses and today you drop this video.
I knew you were researching, you're welcome :)
@@chrisbrockhurst Thanks man. Really looking forward to that next video.
I'm sure this is an amazing lens, but I will stick with my Sigma 18-35mm 1.8
I use on my Sony a6000 with the Sigma MC-11 adapter and i have no issues with the performance with the lens.
Sigma doesn't make a 18-35mm for Sony?
@@chrisbrockhurst lol I did mention I use the MC-11 adapter
It might be a tiny bit more shaky but when it comes to handling those sun flares it blows the Sony out of the water.
Yeh something was up with that, its not normally like that. I think its the cheap UV filter on the Sony.
Great review, as always! I rented this lens for the first time this last weekend and absolutely loved it...which is kind of a problem because I don’t know that it fits at the moment with my needs (probably don’t need it at the moment) or my budget (was planning on some other lenses first). Wasn’t planning on loving this lens this much, ugh!
Im gonna stick with my Sony 16-35/4.. I even find that 35 is too limiting..
I agree. I think I will too
Thanks Chris for another amazing review!
cheers Ed!
Very good job Chris keep up the good work!!!! Helps a ton on my decision for a ultra wide lens on Sony A7 iii
Awesome review. Extremely objective and informative - earned a subscriber with post notifications! Keep it up Chris.
Thanks Fraser! Welcome to the channel. Youl be getting a notification from the Bell tomorrow...
I am shooting also Infra-Red, and apparently many of the Sony lenses have substatial hot spot issue. I tried it this week in a store with my A7 III converted camera, and it looked just great from f/2.8 to f/22. Normally Sony lenses have an issue aparent from f/7.1 and smaller apperatures. Thanks for the video!
Best pictures I've seen in a review. Good job! And love the bjj video.
Appreciate that
I have the sony 16-35GM, bought it when the tamron 17-28 is not released yet, I'm thinking of selling my GM then get the 17-28 + 28-75 tamron, is it worth it? I'm only a hobbyist. I would gladly appreciate your recommendations. thanks
I had to choose the 16-35 GM. Too many compromises with the 17-28 F2.8 and 16-35 F4. The key things are that I love the 35mm focal length, and secondly I needed to have something for Astro/Low light. I could have bought the 17-28mm, but that would require me to have pack another lens for astro, and have to switch lenses (or buy / pack another lens) to get my 35mm FOV. Shame really. I can see the appeal.
I agree, not going to be for eveyrone
Damn, at 10:10 the image from the Tamron looks so much better. Is that just the light difference?
light and aperture.
Looks like a great lens! Love the amazon delivery lol
haha yeh didn't come out exactly how I wanted but had to include it still :)
Just a heads up, if anyone’s thinking of getting this lens, don’t buy from jessops. Since lockdown all there customer service options are down (even though they are claiming they’re are still fully operational) and my order is still pending after a week. They don’t even email you with an order confirmation. So I’ve just handed over £800 with no information as to the status of my order.
I also payed for next day shipping which obviously didn’t happen, so I’ll be getting that refunded when they start replying to emails again.
Good stuff! I do think that the f2.8 vs 4 is enough reason to keep the Tamron vs the Sony. Try using it in real world low light work situations and then decide.
yep very true, going to be different for everyone
Really appreciate this video. In addition thank you for all these types of videos. I(we) truly appreciate it and they are extremely helpful. I can’t wait to start posting my shorts on here again. Also, quick question, if you know of any good de-noising software that you would recommend that would be super helpful. I use mainly the adobe suite for my edits
Appreciate that!! They take a lot of time so I’m glad they help. As for de-noiser, I have no experience using them unfortunately, sorry!
Chris Brockhurst it shows in the quality of these videos. It’s all good. I appreciate the response. Enjoy the 17-28. I’m still on the hunt for mines ahah. Wish me luck.
Great review. Still on the fence considering this lens. But you definitely have me leaning towards it just a bit more.
either choice is a good one
Trying to decide between the tamron 17-28 or the Sony 24 mm 1.4. I like the 24 but might like the versatility of the zoom more..anyone have any advice?
You will NOT regret the 24. I personally prefer it because of that 'prime' look
Thanks!
I would love to see the astro-photography video you mentioned!
Nice review! I got both this one and the 28-75. Love'em :)
good to hear!
I will be swapping my 16-35 f4 for this because of 2.8 for astrophotography, internal zoom, weather sealing.
makes sense for you, Tom. You will like it!
It's not really an internal zoom. The front doesn't come out of the barrel but it moves in out. If you use a uv filter then it can be kinda called internal zoom assuming there's no dust going through the filter. Off course it's a weather resistant.
I was considering this lens (along with the Sony 16-35's) because I was so happy with the Tammy 28-75, but then I got the 24GM and all of that went away. I'm done spending money this year, haha. Right now as a stills shooter the 24 seems plenty wide for me, however I may get something wider next year, but I may be more inclined to look at the Sony 12-24 or the Sigma 14-24 instead, rather than one of the 16-35's.
I agree, the 24GM makes you not want to use any other lens haha
Great review! I have had this lens for a few weeks now and I love it! Didn’t realize you are located in Toronto!! Can I ask where the forest photos were taken? I’m always looking for new places to get outside and hike.
This was a great hike! might be a bit far from you as i'm up in Peterborough.. Petrogylphs provincial park
@@chrisbrockhurst Watching from Peterborough! Great shots of the lift-locks. I love my 28-75mm + A7III combo and I've been considering this lens so your video was helpful. Keep up the good work.
why did the ND give you those dark corners? Did you use a small ND with a step down ring?
Multiple step up rings stacked, looks terrible but gets the point t across.. hopefully 😂
i cant help but think the rendering on the sony has more depth, more 3d looking? the 17-28 looks sharp but flat, maybe this is due to some optical design choice but ive seen several comparison videos and noticed it on all of them. is this what you found too?
Thanks for the review, I will be buying a Tamron for my real estate photography...
nice! it will work good for that
Really nice test, really want to buy it right now. But what if you could find the Zeiss 16-35 f4 for less money then the tamron? Considering that I already have a prime 35mm. The extra 1mm worse more then the f2.8?
The days you could open a box like a man
I think I’ll rent one of these over Christmas... What’s your setup in your office for these? Are you using continuous AF?
I bought this lens because of this review... Everything he said is true.
I set mine free back into the wild. I never had the af issues with the 28-75, probably because I was late to the party and got my hands on one well after the patch came out for it. 5:40 was the 2nd largest factor in me returning the 17-28.. even though it didn't seem like it was a widespread problem, according to my camera guy... maybe I just got a crappy copy of the lens... or maybe I just made any excuse I could to justify returning it for something else :x
GM or go home :x
[edit]
sell the GM to get the Tamron? are you on drugs? telling people not to buy the GM in the first place is one thing... but to take a depreciation hit, to buy the Tamron seems stupid. I don't know how much you can sell the GM for to stores like B&H or adorama (id be willing to bet they're not even gonna give you a reasonable offer), and I have seen GMs being offered on places like ebay for around 3-400 less than retail... but yea, im not buying something as expensive as a camera lens from a private party, especially over the internet. id rather sell the zeiss, if I had it, and pay a little bit on top to pay the difference, if there is one.
yea so if you haven't bought a GM, consider the Tamron. if you have the GM already or are cross shopping the Tamron with the GM, why the fck u lookin at a Walmart knock off u clown ass? If you're cross shopping it with the zeiss, that's another story.
the Tamron is decent, but its pretty overrated, the new sigma 14-24 is only a bit more expensive than the Tamron, a bit cheaper than sonys 12-24, and basically the same price as the zeiss. like the Tamron, you get a limited focal range, but the sigma goes as wide as 14, if you're into that, and only goes to 24, but personally id take the sigma with its long end stopping at 24 over the Tamron. plus it has image stabilization which "doesn't matter for a lens so wide", according to some, but it might matter to some people. the sigmas also not huge, as sigma lenses for E mount tend to be. good luck getting your hands on that one.
You’re getting a red card for that comment 🛑 2nd offence is a channel ban!
keep it positive and constructive, all points I talked about come from experience and talking to people first hand
@@chrisbrockhurst euros are a lot more sensitive than I thought.. beyond the "are you on drugs you clown ass" part... I see nothing offensive about anything I said. and even that 1 part that could be taken as offensive... well 1) this is the internet 2) I talk to my guy friends like that all the time. whatevz bruh. ill take my ball and go home (basketball... football... baseball... any ball but a soccer ball)
I love what I'm seeing from the Tamron, but I'm considering the Sigma 14-24mm.
alot of people are! the 14mm is WIDE
Just bought right now! Nice vid!
nice! how do you like it?
Forget the lens
I want to see more of your Harmonica skills lol
haha more hobby than 'skills' but its great fun!
looking into getting one of these lenses and amazon priced the 16-35 f4 as much as the Tamron and im tore between them :/ currently have the 28-75 Tamron and the sony 85 ( might sell for the 70-200 f4) and may get a very nice fast prime ie 35 f1.8 or something like that
The IBIS + OSS on the Sony lens didn't seem to work at all! Great review nonetheless! I'm gonna order my own Tamron 17-28 now!
It’s really hard to tell on the little screen but I agree. As soon as they are blown up it’s a lot more obvious
@@chrisbrockhurst Are you saying the OSS is more noticeable at full res than the Tamron? Because I've watched both your and Peter Lindgren's videos side-by-sideing the two, and they loook very very similar as far as I can tell. Like @Chaotime, it's almost like the Sony doesn't have any more stability. Not true?
Thanks ! I own the 16-35 F4, wondered if I should bother to upgrade to a F2.8 versino for extra bokehlicious videos/photos. Now I know :). Cheers !
Don't bother in all honesty :)
I have the Tamron 28-75 and ill probably pick up the 17-28 too, but for some weird reason I just don't love these lenses. They are great and objective they're the best bang for buck you could possibly get. There is just the lack of excitement when getting these lenses, it is simply not comparable to working with the better built lenses like the Sonys for example. Can anyone relate to what im saying or am I just weird?
Sony just fucks your mind with good advertising
Just watched this back, was thinking to purchase this lens, but you mention you have only owed Sony lenses before this, but you reviewed the Tamron 28-75mm before the 17-28mm? 1 yr prior to this
Hi Chris, First of all thank you for a great video. I have Tamron 28-75 and now I'm looking at Tamron 17-28 or Sony 16-35 (f4). In Australia I found Sony for $100 cheaper than Tamron. I'm torn. Which one would you buy for some landscape and general walk about lens? Thank you.
17-28 for landscape and walkabout in my opinion
Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 for £140 as new on Ebay ... works Fab on my EOS M6 with adaptor ... the reason why I moved from Sony ... stupid priced lenses.
Great landscape lens
I am sure you have been asked, but could you do a review or give your opinion on this lens versus the Sigma 14-24 f2.8 for video needs?
The recklessness of risking the string getting wound up in the rotor blade hurt my heart. Good review though.
Can you do a review on the SIGMA 16mm F1.4 for Aps-c
already done :) go back in my videos
I know that quality lenses demand $$$ but damn..1000 bucks ain't budget for me (sadface) :D. Still saving for a 7III. Trying to figure out if I'll wait for fall when (probably) the IV is being released.
If you are going to bother showing sample photos, please include the lens information (focal length!) Nice review though!
Thanks Chris, I was fortunate to find this lens a while ago and really like it. What gimbal are you using now? Thought I saw that you were running with the Ronin? I have this lens and the 28-75 and wondered if the AirCross2 is a good fit for it. I've heard some conflicting reviews on the motor strength being at 100% all the time, etc. Just wondered about your thoughts on that gimbal. Thanks for the great content!
Cheers Mike. I’d say avoid the Aircross 2, it can’t handle bigger setups despite being way under the weight threshold. I’m using the Ronin S, got it for a great price at Walmart of all places, i love it. Hands down my favourite of all gimbals
@@chrisbrockhurst Thanks! I've been looking for a used one. Figured it would handle pretty much anything...but is big!
@@chrisbrockhurst Hi Chris, just wondered if the weight of that gimbal is a problem! I know everyone loves it but it is big. Trying to determine if the Ronin S is a better fit or something like the Weebill S. Thanks in advance!
I’ll buy your copy if you end up selling it! Thx for the review.
Hey do you train jiujitsu and Muay Thai ? I’m a brown belt at silver fox and I train Muay at NJMT keep up the great work on the video I always look forward to them
I used to train in Muay Thai pretty intensively, since having a little one earlier in the year I have calmed it down a bit. But I miss it! Thanks Peter
Thanks for the video! I haven’t heard anyone talk about this on crop yet. I plan to fly this on a gimbal in conjunction with the 10-18 crop lens. Going to sell my 16 and 30 sigma primes. Gives you FF of 15-42. Great video range. Add in the electronic zoom and you’re all the way out to 60+mm. Very versatile lens!
Hmmm on a crop it would be an odd focal range.. I’m sure someone would use it though!
I've used this lens on the a6000 and it gives roughly 25-42mm. While the range isn't that great, the focal lengths are still usable and versatile on an apsc camera.
Alex Zhang I mean most of my gimbal and vlogging shots are wide to super wide. Pair this with the 10-18 and maybe a 55 Zeiss and that’s all I’ll ever need. Plus, I can use them both on my R3 when I need. Just more versatile as a whole, not necessarily by itself.
@@coreytomsrealtor3072 ah I see now. Yes that makes a lot of sense then! Great versitile kit
EXCELLENT, KUDOS. TO YOUR REVIEWS.....
I got mine a few months ago pretty easy. I like it, but (unless it's been solved recently and I didn't hear in the vid somewhere mid comment) no profile corrections =/ I mean it still works, that would be my only thing
yeh I was edited and realized I forgot that.. nothing available in Lightroom yet
Good day, what can you recommend for photo sony 20mm 1.8 or this the tamron 17-28? Thank you, hope you will reply
Hey Chris, what picture profile did you use in your video?
Right now im experimenting with a neutral creative style. No picture profiles, I got no time to color grade haha
Info starts at 2:44... never mind it actually starts at 3:28.
Red card! 🛑 time out for you
@@chrisbrockhurst lol. Great video bud.
@@chrisbrockhurst still can't decide between the Tamron and the Sony G Master.
Arrived 2 week ago in my hand...still mounted on a7iii! x°D
good to hear!
@@chrisbrockhurst waiting for the astro test =)
I think the “only” thing concerning me with this lens is how wide it is. I definitely don’t shoot a lot of real estate or architecture. But it would be nice to dabble into that at some point. Would this lens be wide enough for that?
17mm is a fair difference to 16mm, sometimes you need everything you can get in small rooms or rooms with odd angles. I'm actually using a 14mm now and its my preference. It will work, just not for everything
Chris Brockhurst which 14mm lens do you have?
When you vlog do you use a picture profile or just straight out of camera
Thank you for the video. If you have to choose between sigma 20 f/1.4 and tamron 17-28 f/2.8 for landscape, astro and weddings, what you will choose?
havnt used the Sigma. The Tamron would be more versatile. You likely won't be shooting Landscape at F1.4 unless its astro related
Coma is what you want to pay attention to if you’re doing Astro. The coma on the Tamron isn’t great, it’s slow for that application as well. For weddings it’s a good option. You’re asking one lens to do many things and there will be compromises involved due to that.
Personally, I’d do the 24mm for an all-round lens for what you want to accomplish.
Thanks for the your replay guys, I will buy the A7 III in about a month with the kit lens. I want to buy a lens for weddings, astro and landscape with the importance in this order.
another question, do you think i can take this lense out in -10 celsius degrees? I was thinking of taking photo of the northern light but does it handle that cold temperature? I did sended a email to tamron with that question but i never got an answer,lol.
Yeh I wouldnt see any problem as long as you you let it acclimate to the conditions wrote shooting
@@chrisbrockhurst to a pretty new user, with acclimate, you mean be careful when i get into my home again in warmer condition?