I have the Sony 20-70 and it has become one of my favorite lenses ever. (I mainly use it for photography) Together with the 70-200 GM II it covers like 90% I need, so it´s a really lightweight kit. Sometimes I bring the 14mm 1.8 GM as well, which is also really light, so cover the ultra wide shots.
Great review as always Jake, thanks! All Tamron guy here currently (LOVE the 50-400). What caught me by surprise in this review was how much more I liked the initial overall hues from the Sony lens… more blue by default than green… just cooler to my eyes. All easily changed in post of course. Interesting difference with the Active Stabilization. I had planned on getting the 17-50 to pair with my 50-400… 2 lens solution :D.
I have the 50-400 too and pairing it with my 17-28. I am thinking about letting go of the 17-28 in favor of the 17-50. I had a chance to shoot with the 17-50 at a Tamron seminar. I loved the lens. It does flare more than I would like but it is only when you shoot against strong light source. I shot some sunrise images like Jake did but my images have a lot of flare. I am torn which way too go. The fact that the Sony is sharper is compelling. I do landscapes and print big so the sharpness difference might be the deciding factor. In practical every day use, the Tamron did really well. Although I had my lenses and access to the entire Tamron lens line, the 17-50 stayed on my A7RIV for most of the two day seminar.
@@JakeSloanI know I watched that review as well. I'll have to revisit it. Always wanted to live in Alaska. Our Submarine pulled into Ketchikan (sp?) for sonic testing once... loved it. Have many friends in Anchorage. Tried to get stationed at the Pave Paws station while an USAF Officer but was sent to Cape Cod instead (I know... rough life lol). Love your channel Jake, thanks again! When I switched from Nikon to Sony, I really missed some of the more Nikon focused users out there (Hudson Henry, etc.). Was excited to find you and Dustin Abbott, amongst others.
Thanks for the comprehensive comparison Jake and I am surprised to see the active stab performing so much different between lenses. Good to know! While I still have it I'm going to test the Tamron 20-40mm vs the new Sony 24-50mm and see if I can see a significant difference on my A7C2.
I had a chance to shoot with the 20-40 and My A7RIV for a few weeks and loved it. I would be curious to know what you think for the two lenses. Please post comments if you can. Thanks.
@@bizpixvegas7651 The Tamron 20-40mm is an excellent lens optically for sure! I made a comparison video, but I don't want to link in Jake's comments...
@@JakeSloan It's really excellent Jake and I would say very similar in performance to the 20-70mm you are testing here and I am now testing myself. Although the 24-50mm suffers from distortion at 24mm with no lens profile correction, but that is normal for Sony lenses and with the lens corrections looks great, so for me that is not a big deal. Some people that really bothers though, so worth noting... Keep up the great work Jake 💪👊
Thanks for an excellent review of two similar lenses at dramatically different costs. As you hit the field to evaluate a product, I applaud you. I have the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 lens. It is first generation and the design of the body says so. But it is a very nice, lightweight and very sharp lens. What is fascinating is that as the costs of 3rd party lenses drop way below native lenses, it's getting harder to push for the cheaper aps-c system. Yes, aps-c is great and is all people need for casual to semi-pro work, but what we see coming from the likes of Tamron and the many other companies makes it compelling to stick with or go to FF camera. With Sony coming out with their A7C compact line, it's getting difficult to push the smaller sensor cameras. What makes it so much nicer is that cameras like the A7CR with its 61mp sensor, we can use the much lighter and cheaper Chinese aps-c lenses and still get excellent results. Keep it up. Show us the wonderful pictures you produce in Alaska.
The colors are definitely different. Great review. I still don't know which I'd get. I think you have longer arms similar to me. So the 20mm with activate worked for you while vlogging.
Cool Review I was looking for a comparison like this. The 20-70mm is almost perfect. A higher aperture would make it perfect. But it would also definitely be heavier and bigger and of course much more expensive. I rented the lens for my A7SIII for my vacation and was absolutely happy. I waited a long time for a lens from Sony with this range. If you are a content creator and you travel a lot and want to take only the bare minimum with you, then this lens is a must.
I'm not a vlogger so what do I know, but I'm surprised that either of these lenses would be in the running, given the weight of a zoom and the relatively slow f-4 max aperture. Wouldn't a fast fixed focal length be optimal? Thanks for the review - I always enjoy your insights. 🤘
im in the same situation here , i personally think that the stabilization difference is a big deal ( you can see it better in the comparision with the tamron 20-40) . it really depends on how often you use tripod shot :)
Hi Jake, thank you for the great review. I had a chance to shoot with the Tamron 17-50 and it flared more than what I see in your images. I shot mostly around f8-f11 and had great sharpness throughout the range and better results on the shorter focal lengths. I just noticed that you were shooting at f18-f20. I am wondering if the softness in the Tamron may be due to refraction kicking in. Just a thought.
You might be right about diffraction kicking in. I haven’t noticed a ton of flaring on either to be honest but I’ve really only had the 17-50 to play with most the time. The 20-70 I’ve rented 2x now lol
@@JakeSloan Thank you Jake. I love your practical in the field reviews. One of these days I am going to come up there and hang out with you! Between Tamron, Sony and Sigma we have so many choices. I own five Tamron zoom lenses and I am constantly reassessing my needs as to what works best for the projects I come across. I love Sony and Sigma offerings too but for zoom lenses and value proposition Tamron seems to rule the day!!!
I shoot much older Canon DSLR now about 12 & 13 years old. My everyday lens is a Tamron 18-270 f3.5 and a Canon 18-135 f3.5 w/ macro. The macro gets the call when a lot of video is shot as it's better & faster at autofocus with video or if I know I'm not going to shoot many 'up close' images from the vantage point when 8 might rely upon better autofocus that I can't plan when I'm guessing focus do to depth of field that snaps into focus (you know where wider apertures have a shallower depth of field than the narrower apertures long/dep depth of field) field
Oh man, every time I feel tempted to get back into Sony because of a cool new lens or body… then I see the IBIS test and 😖. The LUMIX S5II is just soooo good in that field, is worth some other compromises
Yeah the lumix S5II is just AMAZING with stabilization. The one thing Sony has done better in newer cameras is the dynamic active stabilization. I just don’t have one of the newest bodies.
I had the Tamron 17-50mm but I replaced it with the Sony 20-70mm for 4 reasons which are all linked to the limitations Sony imposes on other optical manufacturers: - The reliability of the autofocus with my three Sony bodies; - The reliability of the exposure which is more uncertain with the Tamron; - The colorimetry of the Tamron which is different from my other Sony optics; - Performance in video mode, especially with my ZV-E1: better handheld stabilization and above all better correction possibilities with Catalyst. In the end, I always choose Sony lenses even if they are more expensive because it allows me to save a lot of time in post-processing. And it's the same for Flash and microphones. It's a shame and I think it's the limitations imposed by Sony and not necessarily the quality of other manufacturers. 🤔
I'd lean toward the 17-50 for the wider focal length for the architecture there but honestly the 20-70 would do well too, you'll just have to back away more to get the whole building in the shot
That 50-70 is a big junp capared to the 17-20 (3mm difference). Id rather stay native as much as possible. Tamron makes some awesome lenses but the Sony has the edge here.
@@JakeSloan great to know, a new discovery by me then. I have only been on Sony for 2yrs, was previously using Canon and it looks like my choice to move over might not have been a good one.
I have the Sony 20-70 and it has become one of my favorite lenses ever. (I mainly use it for photography)
Together with the 70-200 GM II it covers like 90% I need, so it´s a really lightweight kit.
Sometimes I bring the 14mm 1.8 GM as well, which is also really light, so cover the ultra wide shots.
Nice that sounds like a fantastic combo!
That Active IS is quite a big difference!
Yeah it’s a big difference
Great review as always Jake, thanks! All Tamron guy here currently (LOVE the 50-400). What caught me by surprise in this review was how much more I liked the initial overall hues from the Sony lens… more blue by default than green… just cooler to my eyes. All easily changed in post of course. Interesting difference with the Active Stabilization. I had planned on getting the 17-50 to pair with my 50-400… 2 lens solution :D.
I have the 50-400 too and pairing it with my 17-28. I am thinking about letting go of the 17-28 in favor of the 17-50. I had a chance to shoot with the 17-50 at a Tamron seminar. I loved the lens. It does flare more than I would like but it is only when you shoot against strong light source. I shot some sunrise images like Jake did but my images have a lot of flare. I am torn which way too go. The fact that the Sony is sharper is compelling. I do landscapes and print big so the sharpness difference might be the deciding factor. In practical every day use, the Tamron did really well. Although I had my lenses and access to the entire Tamron lens line, the 17-50 stayed on my A7RIV for most of the two day seminar.
@@bizpixvegas7651Thanks for lending your thoughts! One of the reasons I bought into Sony was purely for Tamron's E offerings. :D.
thats a fantastic combo, I showed what it's capable of in my original 17-50 review, thats quite a lot of zoom in a two lens combo!
@@JakeSloanI know I watched that review as well. I'll have to revisit it. Always wanted to live in Alaska. Our Submarine pulled into Ketchikan (sp?) for sonic testing once... loved it. Have many friends in Anchorage. Tried to get stationed at the Pave Paws station while an USAF Officer but was sent to Cape Cod instead (I know... rough life lol).
Love your channel Jake, thanks again! When I switched from Nikon to Sony, I really missed some of the more Nikon focused users out there (Hudson Henry, etc.). Was excited to find you and Dustin Abbott, amongst others.
Thanks! Ketchikan is beautiful, I hope you make it back up this way some day!
Thanks for the comprehensive comparison Jake and I am surprised to see the active stab performing so much different between lenses. Good to know! While I still have it I'm going to test the Tamron 20-40mm vs the new Sony 24-50mm and see if I can see a significant difference on my A7C2.
yeah I really want to try out the new 24-50 because it looks so good!
I had a chance to shoot with the 20-40 and My A7RIV for a few weeks and loved it. I would be curious to know what you think for the two lenses. Please post comments if you can. Thanks.
@@bizpixvegas7651 The Tamron 20-40mm is an excellent lens optically for sure! I made a comparison video, but I don't want to link in Jake's comments...
@@JakeSloan It's really excellent Jake and I would say very similar in performance to the 20-70mm you are testing here and I am now testing myself. Although the 24-50mm suffers from distortion at 24mm with no lens profile correction, but that is normal for Sony lenses and with the lens corrections looks great, so for me that is not a big deal. Some people that really bothers though, so worth noting... Keep up the great work Jake 💪👊
Thanks for an excellent review of two similar lenses at dramatically different costs. As you hit the field to evaluate a product, I applaud you. I have the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 lens. It is first generation and the design of the body says so. But it is a very nice, lightweight and very sharp lens. What is fascinating is that as the costs of 3rd party lenses drop way below native lenses, it's getting harder to push for the cheaper aps-c system. Yes, aps-c is great and is all people need for casual to semi-pro work, but what we see coming from the likes of Tamron and the many other companies makes it compelling to stick with or go to FF camera. With Sony coming out with their A7C compact line, it's getting difficult to push the smaller sensor cameras. What makes it so much nicer is that cameras like the A7CR with its 61mp sensor, we can use the much lighter and cheaper Chinese aps-c lenses and still get excellent results.
Keep it up. Show us the wonderful pictures you produce in Alaska.
Thank you and you are welcome!
The colors are definitely different. Great review. I still don't know which I'd get. I think you have longer arms similar to me. So the 20mm with activate worked for you while vlogging.
It definitely will until you get into the dynamic active stabilization on the newer Sony bodies then you end up more at about 28 or 30 mm
Cool Review
I was looking for a comparison like this.
The 20-70mm is almost perfect. A higher aperture would make it perfect. But it would also definitely be heavier and bigger and of course much more expensive.
I rented the lens for my A7SIII for my vacation and was absolutely happy. I waited a long time for a lens from Sony with this range.
If you are a content creator and you travel a lot and want to take only the bare minimum with you, then this lens is a must.
Totally agree
I'm not a vlogger so what do I know, but I'm surprised that either of these lenses would be in the running, given the weight of a zoom and the relatively slow f-4 max aperture. Wouldn't a fast fixed focal length be optimal? Thanks for the review - I always enjoy your insights. 🤘
Thanks, most the faster zooms get larger and heavier quick. These are both small and light but give a good focal length for vlogging.
Been waiting on more people to cover this topic. I’ve been so torn on these two. Mainly want to use for travel vlogging
I was surprised when no one else had done it yet
im in the same situation here , i personally think that the stabilization difference is a big deal ( you can see it better in the comparision with the tamron 20-40) . it really depends on how often you use tripod shot :)
Hi Jake, thank you for the great review. I had a chance to shoot with the Tamron 17-50 and it flared more than what I see in your images. I shot mostly around f8-f11 and had great sharpness throughout the range and better results on the shorter focal lengths. I just noticed that you were shooting at f18-f20. I am wondering if the softness in the Tamron may be due to refraction kicking in. Just a thought.
You might be right about diffraction kicking in. I haven’t noticed a ton of flaring on either to be honest but I’ve really only had the 17-50 to play with most the time. The 20-70 I’ve rented 2x now lol
@@JakeSloan Thank you Jake. I love your practical in the field reviews. One of these days I am going to come up there and hang out with you!
Between Tamron, Sony and Sigma we have so many choices. I own five Tamron zoom lenses and I am constantly reassessing my needs as to what works best for the projects I come across. I love Sony and Sigma offerings too but for zoom lenses and value proposition Tamron seems to rule the day!!!
I shoot much older Canon DSLR now about 12 & 13 years old. My everyday lens is a Tamron 18-270 f3.5 and a Canon 18-135 f3.5 w/ macro. The macro gets the call when a lot of video is shot as it's better & faster at autofocus with video or if I know I'm not going to shoot many 'up close' images from the vantage point when 8 might rely upon better autofocus that I can't plan when I'm guessing focus do to depth of field that snaps into focus (you know where wider apertures have a shallower depth of field than the narrower apertures long/dep depth of field) field
Very nice!
Oh man, every time I feel tempted to get back into Sony because of a cool new lens or body… then I see the IBIS test and 😖. The LUMIX S5II is just soooo good in that field, is worth some other compromises
Yeah the lumix S5II is just AMAZING with stabilization. The one thing Sony has done better in newer cameras is the dynamic active stabilization. I just don’t have one of the newest bodies.
I had the Tamron 17-50mm but I replaced it with the Sony 20-70mm for 4 reasons which are all linked to the limitations Sony imposes on other optical manufacturers:
- The reliability of the autofocus with my three Sony bodies;
- The reliability of the exposure which is more uncertain with the Tamron;
- The colorimetry of the Tamron which is different from my other Sony optics;
- Performance in video mode, especially with my ZV-E1: better handheld stabilization and above all better correction possibilities with Catalyst.
In the end, I always choose Sony lenses even if they are more expensive because it allows me to save a lot of time in post-processing.
And it's the same for Flash and microphones. It's a shame and I think it's the limitations imposed by Sony and not necessarily the quality of other manufacturers. 🤔
true and very good reasons to get a sony lens over a third party
Good review! I bought the Tamron and so far I love it!! 📸
NICE
which one would be ideal for European in city travel, like Paris or Rome?
I'd lean toward the 17-50 for the wider focal length for the architecture there but honestly the 20-70 would do well too, you'll just have to back away more to get the whole building in the shot
Taken my A6700 and my Tamron to Costa Rico. Wish me luck on my photo journey
good luck and have fun!!
@@JakeSloan thank you
Basically I wish Sony made the 17-50 with the nice build quality and buttons, plus active stab.
That would be nice!
That 50-70 is a big junp capared to the 17-20 (3mm difference). Id rather stay native as much as possible. Tamron makes some awesome lenses but the Sony has the edge here.
agreed
Thx for video
You’re welcome
Moins de fonction, mou et map hésitante je viens de revendre mon 17-50 pour le 20-70 aucun regret
Nice
Man your drone is giving me anxiety hovering over the water like that in the background of some of the shots lol.
lol not my drone, a friend of mine was there with me and he was flying while I was filming
4 hunny difference for a debatable 50 dollar difference. One may sacrifice paper notes for art. Do like that contrast.
I agree. I like the Sony contrast and coloring a bit more
Comparing sharpness at f/18 doesn't make sense. You're diffraction limited on a 50mpx camera way before that.
👍🏻
So Sony has added another "feature" to tip the scales towards its own lenses. Looks like it is time to plan to move to Nikon or Panasonic soon for me.
this has been the case for as long as I have used sony, it's not a "new feature"
@@JakeSloan great to know, a new discovery by me then. I have only been on Sony for 2yrs, was previously using Canon and it looks like my choice to move over might not have been a good one.
It's always stressful when you have so many freaking lens caps in a pocket
lol truth
17mm is overrated
I like it for tight spaces
Not for gimbal work