Waited for this review for so long because you're the only APS-C lens reviewer I truly trust. The other reviews raved about it so much it felt like they were biased/sponsored. Now I know for sure it's a really great lens!
Tamron 17-70mm F2.8 - my favorite APSC lens. For me, this is the best lens for the 6000 series without stabilization. Worth every cent.Thanks for the great review Arthur.
I sold my sigma 30mm & sigma 16mm primes and bought this one as a travel lens. I do not regret it at all, it is amazing. No more constant changing of lenses, VC is amazing on a6400 I can get usable shots up to ~1/4. Plus more range, just the ideal travel lens for me. Of course, Sigma 16mm & 30mm were razor sharp, this has good sharpness but not excellent like sigma primes(as expected tho). It is a bit front heavy and does not feel as agile as sigma 16/30 due to size, but the lens itself is a more practical carry than both sigma primes.
I've recently taken up photography and I'm always excited to use my Sony a6400. I've been watching your videos for quite some time and because of them I have purchased the Sony a6400 as well as the Tamron 17-70mm F2.8 I also wanted to say that I appreciate all of your honest reviews.
Just wanted you to know how much I appreciate your channel. Great to have someone producing quality content for Sony APSC users. Keep up the good work.
You should compare this lens with a lot of other lenses (the kid lens 16-50, 18-135 and also 18-105) This lens is THE lens for all. You can earn easy clicks with this one lense.
Thank you! I think next comparison should be the Tamron 17-70 vs the Sony 18-105 f4. Tamron's price is in between the price of the two Sony lenses! It would be interesting!
I am probably going to get the Tamron eventually, but I just have to say on behalf of the Sony 18-105 that having the long end of equivalent 157mm at f4 (and plenty sharp in the center at f5) when needed isn't something I have in any other lens, and the power zoom really enables some long super smooth "live" video zooms when you are using just one camera that just isn't practical to pull-off without power zoom. So for a day-time even outdoors especially when you will be taking video of a scene and then zooming in to see a speaker or performer, the 18-105 is amazing even if it isn't quite as critically sharp at this new great Tamron. I think as often happens unfortunately, the solution still might be to have both if possible. I agree however that the 70/equiv 105 will be enough reach for many situations, but from other reviews I've seen, you will want to stop the Tamron to f4 to get good sharpness at 70/105. I guess I would like to see specifically what the Tamron looks like at 70 at f4 vs the Sony at 70 at f4. If the Tamron has sharpened up great, but the Sony hasn't yet because it is still wide open, that's another point for Tamron because it means even if it isn't a great 70 at 2.8 option, it would be a better option than Sony at 70 at 4, but I would have to see comparison.
@@markfleming9253 I thought that too but I’ll NEVER take it out of the bag with the Tamron handy. I have an 85 1.8 and the Sigma 100-400 DG DN OS so that’s my full bag. Sigma Trio stays at home. I may bring the Laowa 9 2.8 because it’s so damn small!
My photos at 70 2.8 were tack sharp even pixel peeping. I’ve seen a few people say it was soft but I don’t have any issue.Corner to corner, 17-70 @2.8 I’m amazed! Now let’s look at the new Alpha 1 release today! ($6500!) 8K at 30 FPS 😱
I have to say, since I got the 17-70 it has been on my a6400 a lot more than my beloved Sigma 16 or 56mm. Not having to bother with switching lenses and still getting great quality shots with a stabilized lens is a huge deal. Really love it!
I have the same setup and reckoning with what to do with those Sigma 16 and 56 if I get Tamron. Do you still keep the Sigma lens and what do you use them for then, thanks
did you notice any faster battery consumption when using the Tamron vs the Sony SELP 18-105 or other older lenses from Sony? or is it just my 17-70 that is possibly flawed?
@@YangShengBJ thanks, I think I have found something, it is a mix of the VC engine consuming much more than the OIS on the Sony 18-105 and a replacement battery that does not have the same capacity as the Sony original battery...
After this review, i couldnt resist anymore. I drove to the nearest camerashop and pulled the trigger. oy, this thing make my A6600 feel like a new camera! The sharpness is real, but not only that, the contrast and color matches my taste. Im used to using sigma trio, 18-105 F4. Furthermore i own the Sony 10-18 F4. I will think about selling off the 56 + 30mm sigmas, but before that i will put this thing to the test... I have been watching your Channel for a long time, enjoying the comparisons, you do a very stable job, and i use your channel like a kind of library. Its always possible to compare every available lens somehow, by browsing older stuff. Have a nice weekend. BR Jesper.
I got one the day it came out and I love it. The only reason I didn't get the 16-55 was the price. Kind of happy Sony overpriced that one because I got more for my money with the Tamron. If anybody is wondering about the Tamron vs the 18-105, seriously, the 18-105 has no chance, especially for image quality.
@@RadimOndruska Is it such a huge difference? My only thing and obsession is low light and image stabilization for the 6300. Do not wanna pay almost 1000 Euros more for a 6600 (or future incremental upgrades from Sony) with IBIS or...
Darn you, more of my money spent. Your reviews are always compelling and I appreciate the format. In my decades with Canon DLSR's I had a 17-55m f/2.8 IS USM and I loved it. With the A6300 I was waiting for something similar to come along that didn't break the bank. You and every other PRO reviewer on RUclips have been praising this lens. Finally B&H's got some in stock so there goes the milk money for the kids. Keep up the reviews they are insightful, especially for those of us who are not PRO's but hungry to learn more about the art of photography.
Great review! I've watched a lot of reviews of this lens and yours was the best. * You compared the sharpness between the two lenses both at 50mm, most other reviews compared the 50mm sharpness of the Sony to the 70mm sharpness of the Tamron--not a fair comparison * You showed a comparison with no stabilization, just the lens stabilization, and the lens stabilization combined with IBIS--great to see all three in action in the same scene * You tested it on APS-C bodies, most other reviews were done with FF bodies in crop mode--much more accurate to review a lens on a camera it will actually be used on Thanks!
Bought this lens based in part on your review. I'm blown away by this lenses performance! I have severe tendinitis in my right wrist and I recently had to switch from my big DSLR blaster to the smaller Sony A6400. I'm still getting used to it and it's a challenge for sure. But the fact that I can now run with only two lenses (the Tamron 17-70 & Sigma 56mm) means the weight of my set up is now literally a third of what it was. Now if I can just get used to Sony Menus!
I was surprised to find out that the Sony 16-55 2.8 doesn't have OSS, I thought that would have been inherent for the price tag! Insane performance from the Tamron, thank god I can get something as great as the 16-55 2.8 for so much cheaper.
I kinda went nuts yesterday and bought the 17-70mm and the 70-300mm for my a6000. I'm new and trying to figure it out but I thought having good/decent lenses is the only way to know if I enjoy photography! Thanks for all your videos, they are a great help!!
I love your comparison reviews...they really are better than anyone else's. This is one of the two comparisons I've been waiting for and it certainly didn't disappoint. Now, if you could compare the Sony 70-350 vs the Sigma 100-400 on the Sony crop bodies, I could die a happy man!...
You won't notice the difference much if you're comparing it side by side with the G lens. If you have a non IBIS body, it's a no brainer. The value you will get from the Tamron compared to the G lens is a no brainer. It's going to be the most popular APSC lens for Sony.
Mine has been ordered. The Tamron will be replacing my 18-135mm. Any deficiencies with the lens can be corrected in processing. Enjoyed the review and I have watched a lot before deciding to purchase the Tamron.
Im a beginner for choosing new camera and lens. Watching this makes me feels like wow.. this is what I want one lens covers all! Thanks Arthur for the video! Regards from Malaysia!
Finally, something that I have been waiting for weeks.. as for lenses review, I only take note from you Arthur R and Christopher Frost.. This lens is amazing, its tempting me to switch from my 16-55g f2.8 bcoz of the VC and 70mm.. but bcoz I got the 16-55g f2.8 at around 900 usd, and the fact that my nearest tamron retailer want me to add another 150 usd if i want to trade in the 16-55g f2.8 if i want to order this tamron 17-70 f2.8, it really got me stucked in here.. i use it on a6600 and I do appreciate extra focal length and stabilization on lens.. but then, its really the image quality that I prioritize all the time.. since this 17-70 f2.8 came out, its really hard to sell back 16-55g f2.8 to people outside.. do u think I should keep the 16-55g f2.8, or do u think I should go for 17-70mm f2.8? thanks and best regards from Malaysia ✌🏼
No, I just sold my 16-55 f2.8 for this lens since it has further reach. This lens has closer focus distance which is better than 16-55. At 70 it will give better bokeh
Great review Arthur and one a lot of us were waiting for. My copy of this lens should be arriving soon 😊 The Sony does look a tad sharper in the corners when you punch in and it does have the extra switch and button, but the fact the Tamron is $500 - $600 cheaper, with that extra reach and vibration control makes it a great all round lens. I think I prefer the slightly warmer color tone from the Tamron too.
I've been waiting for this review since the 17-70mm was announced and now I can't wait for it to come in the mail now! Thank you again Arthur for another awesome review!
@@Outcasts3 Hi unfortunately the Tamron was out of stock at the retailer when I ordered it and never came back in stock. My order was ultimately cancelled. I ordered the lens at a very good price, maybe that's why, I have no clue. Sorry I am unable to help you here.
Thanks for this. My 17-70 arrived yesterday. Its sooooo sharp. I dont need anything wider than 2.8 and hate swapping prime lenses. Anyway its not that big or heavy. I drink too much coffee so the stabilisation for mounting on 6400 is great. Well pleased.
Sony has a lot of lenses in this general range, but all of them seem to have one (or more) issues. No OSS, or no weather sealing, or slow, or sketchy performance, or really high price. The 16-55 is probably the best lens, but no OSS and high price. I've tried all of them, and prefer this Tamron for all around performance. I might wish it were a little smaller but it's so good I can live with the size. (And more recently I bought the tiny Sigma 18-50, so I can have a really small set-up ; or if I want more reach, I have that too, both with great performance and f2.8!) Given the alternatives, I don't want to encourage Sony's pricing practices.
I think I'm going to sell my 16-55mm and make some money and put it to this lens. The image stabilization is sort of a huge deal for me. Awesome comparison. Been looking forward to this.
The Sony 24-105 is pretty equivalent because the amount of Bokeh you get from f4 on a FF is about what you get with f2.8 on the APSC. And the 24-105 is a fantastic lens for a zoom. The Tamron is about $200 cheaper.
I watched many of your videos in the last several days for camera and lenses review as a beginner for my first camera. I went from Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 -> Tamron 28-200 F/2.8-5.6 -> Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 -> overwhelmed then finally found this Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8. I think I'm gonna pull the trigger on this lense as you recommended for my Sony ZV-E10. Thank you sir
The difference in shutter speed are due to light transmission rate. Sony let in bit more light, hence faster shutter speed. I personally think only deal breaker between those two is smooth bokeh ball.
Bokeh balls? . . . You people have an obsession with the bokeh :)) I mean, I know to appreciate some nice bokeh (Voigtländer on Sony full-frame etc.), but sometimes it does not matter. And the "best" bokeh is just in our heads. What you like, someone will hate and so on. So, what is the best thing to do? Just let that be the very LAST thing to make this lens a "deal breaker" for you, just because of bokeh balls...
Thanks for the detailed image comparisons! Nice review...I think I´m gonna pick up the Sigma 56mm 1.4 because I just love the 85mm look and then this Tamron will arrive after....
Thanks Arthur! Great review! I want to sold my Sony 18-105 f4!!! This Tamron is very, very interesting lens, and the price is a great thinks... Thank for all your "peacefully" reviews. God bless your family
Very comprehensive review without being too "dry" with numbers and stats. Like Sigma with their "trio", Tamron really seem to have hit on something good with this single zoom lens. I have to say I'm interested in getting one of these! Very nice work Arthur R. :)
The fact, that the two lenses result in different shutterpeeds at the same ISO and the same apertutre has to do with the Transmission values. Great Review. I think, I would go with the tamron, because of that extra range and the VC... Did you notice a difference how the camera corrects both of the lenses?
Nice lens, great to see that there are more lenses coming for Sony APS-C. But I prefer my 16-55G, the smaller size plus noticeably more wide angle is more important for me than the slightly longer range of the Tamron. Main use case for these kind of normal zoom (or travel zoom) lenses is when you are on the go or travelling. That means it should be small/ lightweight and it must have enough wide angle for landscape photos. 16mm vs. 17mm definitely makes a difference (9:06). Much more difference than 55mm vs. 70mm in my opinion.
I’ve been waiting to see this! I couldn’t wait for the video to order one from my local camera shop. I actually traded in my Sony 18-105 G as a deposit on this Tamron. I should be picking it up this weekend. I’m super excited after seeing this video!
I’m new to your channel but I love your honest review and practical explanation. I’m so new to the channel that I have been looking only old videos, and I just realized you both have a kid now. CONGRATULATIONS!!! P.s. I also live in Japan
Thank you for including pictures in your review. Keep up the good work! I already have the sigma 16, now I have to debate whether to keep it once I get the tamron.
I received my Tamron on Thursday and did a comparison of the two lenses at night since I mostly shoot Astro. The Sigma has slightly better stars at 16/17 and 2.8. Stop down to f4 and they are really really close with the sigma slightly better. In the end I thought they were within 5% and so I sold the sigma. Got $300 for it. Ps... the day time shots are almost identical. I was just being critical of the Star shapes.
IMO 1.4 vs 2.8 is a huge deal. I have 16-55 and it feels so dark compared to sigma 16/1.4. but if you control the lights and don't need that shallow DoF then not sure it is worth keeping the sigma
Tamron to my mind is a no brainier. Ok, would have preferred wider view for landscape, cramped shots. Life , for many of us is a compromise. Yes, the Sony 2.8 speed appeals, however not at the very, very, significant cost differential. Tamron is excellent quality and great value for money. Have no doubt the lens will be a winner for Tamron.
Wow, that Tamron is incredible! Nice that it's not overly corrected. Impressive it's a decent size for the aperture & focal range. The photo of your wife where it slightly missed focus is beautiful.
Thanks Arthur, i’ve been waiting this review for a long time. I got the Tamron eventually , even though in my area I can get a pretty close price for both lens, I mainly shoot video, and it’s amazing.
Greetings from Italy Arthur! Another great review. I'm glad to see there is another valuable 2.8 zoom lens for A6x00 series (in addition to the very expensive 16-55 G). This is a must to have (as soon as I found the budget...)
Had mine a couple of days and it is definitely a winner. I look forward to your comparisons with the Sigma trio. As always a straightforward cut to the chase review that tells us what we need to know. The close focussing is impressive and should make for interesting shots.... thanks Arthur
Finally. Thanks Arthur. I was waiting for your review of this lens for almost a month already. Ordered it for my birthday mid January and about to get it. So if you see fellow clueless Austinite trying to use it, please don't be mad
In a lot of these examples I think the color looks better on the Tamron! I've been excited for this but I'm also curious about comparisons between this one and the Sony 18-135.
I'm getting the tamron 17-70mm f2.8 to add to my trio of aps-c zoom lenses... My other lenses in the trio are the Sony 70-350mm G oss and the Sony 10-18mm f4 oss. I'm using a Sony a6300 camera so now I do get image stabilization with all three lenses in the trio (in future I will upgrade to a Sony a6600) ✌☺
Great review - been following you for some time and you always nail the queries I have. I am due to go to Turkey and now have the answer on what to take! I have the Sigma ‘three’ which are great but will buy the Tamron which will allow me to leave behind my much heavier Sigma’s. Hope you agree!
I finally decided to break down and buy this lens, and I have to say that I am so happy with it. The stabilization really does make a huge difference when using it with the a 6400. I have been using nothing but primes for a very long time, I did use the 18 to 105 for a while, but I sold that one pretty quickly, this lens, in my opinion, is the best available for the 6000 series. And again, I think the stabilization is key, it really makes a big difference. I decided I needed at least one quality zoom lens, and this one is awesome
@@andreagallo70 I definitely didn’t see anything like that, and I’ve never heard of anything like that, but I guess anything is possible. I did have to send my first 17-70 back and get a replacement, but that’s because the auto focus was not working at all when I first got it. But I didn’t see it affected my battery at all to be honest. I actually wound up selling that lens. :-)
@@RockWILK I think I have found something interesting. If I switch the optical image stabilization off on the camera menu, then the battery does not go from 100% down to 94% in few minutes as in my earlier tests, just down to 98%. So I was right, a massive heavy lens consumes some power with a very good Vibration Control engine... surely more that Sony OIS in the 18-105. I have also done another test. I was using a compatible Li-Ion battery instead of the original SONY one. I charged the original one back (I use both actually) and found that with the SONY one taking the same shots the battery goes down from 100% to 98% with VC on instead of down to 94%. So my understanding is that the Tamron VC consumes a lot more power and the compatible battery does not have the same capacity as the original SONY so it goes down much faster.
Lens shopping in here in Saigon is a bit tough, the lenses are always late to arrive. I did buy the Viltrox 23mm f1.4 after watching your review and couldn't be happier. This one will be in my bag as soon as I can budget for it. I think my RUclips channel will benefit from having this lens, I can carry less stuff around. Good review as always!
@@MrRicksinger Yep. I'm gonna keep the 16mm, cause it's really useful for capturing the night sky. But the 56? Idk. I tried the tamron in a dim indoor environment, and it performed well enough for me to not miss the sigma 56.
Thank you for the awesome review! It‘s now definitly on my wishlist, especially because of the VC. At the moment i own the Sigma 30mm and 56mm prime lenses and love them. Greetings from Germany!
Thank you, Arthur, for another great review! Could you please check noise of autofocus motor - is it absolutely silent, while recording video in quiet environment?
Throughout the portraits I was left with the impression that that Tamron was the ‘kinder’ lens. Not a scientific assessment but a valid opinion perhaps . I would be very happy with such results. Would also like to pas on my appreciation of your first class review - one really worth listening to .
Greetings from Japan! Arthur, can you confirm on your copy, when in AF-S and aperture priority mode and the lens is stopped down higher than f5.6 all the way to f22 and when you focus, the aperture opens and closes really fast for the AF to lock, you can hear a mechanical noise from the aperture assembly like a grindy/rapid clicking noise for every aperture notch change. Its also noticeable when you turn the camera on and off as the aperture opens and closes. It is not noticeable when camera is set to AF-C as the aperture does not open up when focusing. I had this on 2 copies and i had a Tamron rep confirm this noise issue but never saw it on any reviews. Sadly, the Tamron rep said that it would not be likely resolved by a firmware update since it is mechanical in nature and that they have no plans of any recall at the moment since it is within spec design, but the noise is really annoying considering the AF motor is very silent.
Arthur great video! Keen on your channel since you are in nearby Austin. You sir from gadgets & tech, you can produce pleasing videos to watch and I would love to watch more a6400 content from your channel 🤙🏼
Ah, damn you, I was about to pickup the 18-105mm as I really wanted a zoom to add to my Sigma 16mm and Sony 50mm!! (3) IS IT BETTER THAN THE SONY 18-105mm G? Yes. Now I feel I gotta hang tight til Amazon or some other retailer gets this in Europe!! Keep up the good stuff, big fan of yours since I got my Sony mirrorless!
I have been waiting for your take on this lens I was wondering when it was going to finally come lol. I preordred it as soon as I heard about it and have had it a few weeks, it is great to use and pairs perfectly with the Tamron 70-180 f2.8. I still have the 18-105 and pondering selling it but still love it as a gimbal lens and works with the RM-VPR1 remote to control the power zoom, so i have been holding onto it for now
Hey Arthur, thanks for the awesome review! I've got a sony a6000 and am looking to buy my second lens. From watching your videos I was convinced on getting the sigma 56mm but I've found that I really enjoy taking more close up photos and think that a zoom lens will be more useful at the moment. So I was wondering between the tamron 17-70 and the 28-75, which one would you suggest?
I’ve got both the Tamron 17-70, and the Sony kit 18-135 - which is a very good lens that I use for “rough duty” scenarios. I am extremely pleased with the Tamron, which does 95% of what I need from a lens. I’ve heard elsewhere that Tamron has access to Sony’s lens build algorithms, which is why they’ve “nailed” the performance. There’s zero reason to purchase the Sony 16-55.
I really like my sony apsc. Had it for years. Tried my friend’s a7siii and while I do mainly video and the a7siii is miles above my a6600, I still prefer the more compact size of the a6600
I had the Sigma 18-50 first, then bought the Tamron but sold it and kept the Sigma due to size and weight although it was excellent. Now I have to scratch the Sony 16-55 itch. I'm hoping this will stay on my A6700 along with the Sony 20mm 1.8 and 70-350.
I was really confused by the statement "a 24-105mm F2.8 does not exist on full frame at the moment". Well, if it did it would be really big (like Canon RF 28-70mm F2 big...) You have to convert the aperture as well when talking about equivalency. This Tamron 17-70mm lens on a crop body will perform very similar to a 24-105mm F4 full frame setup. That's what they were trying to emulate.
Aperture is a physical characteristic of the lens, F2.8 is F2.8. If you are talking about equivalent depth of field, you are right, a slower lens on a full frame would give you equivalent field of view.
you're right. but most reviewer dont convert the apertures because most viewers dont understand the concept that well. i blame the manufacturers really rather than the reviewer for confusing their customers lol.
@@ArthurR I mean you are not wrong as the f-number is the ratio between the front pupil and the focal length. Nevertheless, the important characteristics when talking about the f-number are depth of field and light gathering ability and for both of those you have to convert the aperture by multiplying with the crop factor. A F2.8 lens on a crop camera is not comparable to a F2.8 on a full frame. It gathers less light and has less shallow depth of field (exactly by the factor 1.5). I know it is a bit abstract, but this kinda bugs me whenever I hear people talk half-truths about it and I am the same opinion as my Wamo Shaz, the manufactures are a bit misleading here. They always will convert focal length for you and tell you the equivalent focal lenght when buying a crop or mft lens, but never tell you about the aperture. The RX100 from Sony for example, they market that thing with a 24-70mm equivalent lens, but still say it's F1.8-F2.8 which is technically true but hella misleading as it looks and performs like a F8-F11 or something on full frame (don't quote me on the exact conversion). Edit: There is a pretty good Tony Northrup video on the topic, but he also focuses on the depth of field and not the brightness/light transmission aspect. ruclips.net/video/f5zN6NVx-hY/видео.html The light transmission of a F2.8 is always the same, but the sensor behind the lens dictates how much total light the exposure gets, so the crop sensor will always be worse than a full frame in every aspect by exactly the crop factor (technically you even have to multiply the ISO by the crop factor to compare different sensor sizes, but I will stop this discussion here and go to bed). Thanks for your videos, you are my number one source for lens reviews about crop lenses for my a6500 and I really appreciate the work you put into it :)
Arthur, it would be great if you can run a comparison between Tamron 17-70mm F2.8 and the Sigma Trio. Excellent work, with the existing reviews and comparisons.
@@GunnarTiger Thanks for highlighting this for me. I see he's highlighting the convenience vs. the f1.4. However, disregarding the convenience and aperture, which are also observable from the specifications, I would be curious regarding sharpness and focus, especially as the sigma 30 seems to fall behind.
Another excellent lens by Tamron. Can't wait for the 11-20 Tamron review too. Btw your B-roll often has a huge magenta cast. Might need to white balance it with grey cards.
![Sony A6400 POV City Street Photography | Tamron 17-70mm F2.8 [London]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/s0nJvBvqm5A/mqdefault.jpg)
I've already seen a lot of comparison with these two lens, but Arthur's review is THE review I've been waiting for.
Me too
Me too!
me too, he is the reason I buy an a6400 👍🏻
Same here. Wait for the lens on sale
same here
Waited for this review for so long because you're the only APS-C lens reviewer I truly trust. The other reviews raved about it so much it felt like they were biased/sponsored. Now I know for sure it's a really great lens!
Me too my friend this guy is very honest!
+1
WTF RUclips - Only 18.5k views!? This is the most comprehensive Sony APS-C channel reviewing the most significant new lens in ages !!
165k now…good things take time to build. This video was excellent though!
@@RyanKirbyArt 185k :/
Tamron 17-70mm F2.8 - my favorite APSC lens. For me, this is the best lens for the 6000 series without stabilization. Worth every cent.Thanks for the great review Arthur.
I sold my sigma 30mm & sigma 16mm primes and bought this one as a travel lens. I do not regret it at all, it is amazing. No more constant changing of lenses, VC is amazing on a6400 I can get usable shots up to ~1/4. Plus more range, just the ideal travel lens for me.
Of course, Sigma 16mm & 30mm were razor sharp, this has good sharpness but not excellent like sigma primes(as expected tho).
It is a bit front heavy and does not feel as agile as sigma 16/30 due to size, but the lens itself is a more practical carry than both sigma primes.
I bought this lens one day after official release and I can tell, it is the best all-around lens I ever tried for my a6400.
I've recently taken up photography and I'm always excited to use my Sony a6400. I've been watching your videos for quite some time and because of them I have purchased the Sony a6400 as well as the Tamron 17-70mm F2.8 I also wanted to say that I appreciate all of your honest reviews.
Just wanted you to know how much I appreciate your channel. Great to have someone producing quality content for Sony APSC users. Keep up the good work.
You should compare this lens with a lot of other lenses (the kid lens 16-50, 18-135 and also 18-105)
This lens is THE lens for all. You can earn easy clicks with this one lense.
The 16-50 kit lens is crap compared to this lol. No comparison.
@@spdcrzy of course it is. But the difference would be interesting.
You’re right, Arthur. This IS the video I was waiting for. You’re doing great work my dude.
Thank you! I think next comparison should be the Tamron 17-70 vs the Sony 18-105 f4. Tamron's price is in between the price of the two Sony lenses! It would be interesting!
He said in the video to sell the 18-105 and get the Tamron. So I doubt he will do a comparison test. haha
I sold my 18-105 for $400 before the market gets flooded. You’ll never look back with the 17-70.
I am probably going to get the Tamron eventually, but I just have to say on behalf of the Sony 18-105 that having the long end of equivalent 157mm at f4 (and plenty sharp in the center at f5) when needed isn't something I have in any other lens, and the power zoom really enables some long super smooth "live" video zooms when you are using just one camera that just isn't practical to pull-off without power zoom. So for a day-time even outdoors especially when you will be taking video of a scene and then zooming in to see a speaker or performer, the 18-105 is amazing even if it isn't quite as critically sharp at this new great Tamron. I think as often happens unfortunately, the solution still might be to have both if possible. I agree however that the 70/equiv 105 will be enough reach for many situations, but from other reviews I've seen, you will want to stop the Tamron to f4 to get good sharpness at 70/105. I guess I would like to see specifically what the Tamron looks like at 70 at f4 vs the Sony at 70 at f4. If the Tamron has sharpened up great, but the Sony hasn't yet because it is still wide open, that's another point for Tamron because it means even if it isn't a great 70 at 2.8 option, it would be a better option than Sony at 70 at 4, but I would have to see comparison.
@@markfleming9253
I thought that too but I’ll NEVER take it out of the bag with the Tamron handy. I have an 85 1.8 and the Sigma 100-400 DG DN OS so that’s my full bag. Sigma Trio stays at home. I may bring the Laowa 9 2.8 because it’s so damn small!
My photos at 70 2.8 were tack sharp even pixel peeping. I’ve seen a few people say it was soft but I don’t have any issue.Corner to corner, 17-70 @2.8 I’m amazed!
Now let’s look at the new Alpha 1 release today! ($6500!)
8K at 30 FPS
😱
I have to say, since I got the 17-70 it has been on my a6400 a lot more than my beloved Sigma 16 or 56mm. Not having to bother with switching lenses and still getting great quality shots with a stabilized lens is a huge deal. Really love it!
I have the same setup and reckoning with what to do with those Sigma 16 and 56 if I get Tamron. Do you still keep the Sigma lens and what do you use them for then, thanks
did you notice any faster battery consumption when using the Tamron vs the Sony SELP 18-105 or other older lenses from Sony? or is it just my 17-70 that is possibly flawed?
@@andreagallo70 I didn't notice any significant battery drain
@@YangShengBJ thanks, I think I have found something, it is a mix of the VC engine consuming much more than the OIS on the Sony 18-105 and a replacement battery that does not have the same capacity as the Sony original battery...
Good review as always! Definitely getting the lens. Thanks for buying the lens for the review and making it attractive.
Ordered immediately, it really is a complete package especially with the weather sealing. Matches my a6400 perfect for this pacific NW climate!
Going to pick mine up today even my wallet is screaming 🥸💁♂️😂
@@matic2601 Hahah, I am going to do the same 🤣
After this review, i couldnt resist anymore. I drove to the nearest camerashop and pulled the trigger. oy, this thing make my A6600 feel like a new camera! The sharpness is real, but not only that, the contrast and color matches my taste. Im used to using sigma trio, 18-105 F4. Furthermore i own the Sony 10-18 F4. I will think about selling off the 56 + 30mm sigmas, but before that i will put this thing to the test... I have been watching your Channel for a long time, enjoying the comparisons, you do a very stable job, and i use your channel like a kind of library. Its always possible to compare every available lens somehow, by browsing older stuff. Have a nice weekend. BR Jesper.
So out of the Sigma trio you’re keeping the 16? I have the exact same lineup and am wondering which 2 I would replace with the Tamron
How is Tamron compared to Sony 18-105 ? Focus and sharpness ? Thanks a lot !
I got one the day it came out and I love it. The only reason I didn't get the 16-55 was the price. Kind of happy Sony overpriced that one because I got more for my money with the Tamron. If anybody is wondering about the Tamron vs the 18-105, seriously, the 18-105 has no chance, especially for image quality.
Absolutely agree! I sold my 18-105 f4 to get this Tamron 17-70 and it was the best choice I made from the day I started with photography
Where I live tamron 17-70 is basically the same price as Sony 16-55
@@RadimOndruska My 16-55 and 18-105 are both up for grabs now. I have a Sigma 16 and 56 to tie me over in the meantime until the 17-70 comes in.
@@oatmeal9164 Where do you live?
@@RadimOndruska Is it such a huge difference?
My only thing and obsession is low light and image stabilization for the 6300.
Do not wanna pay almost 1000 Euros more for a 6600 (or future incremental upgrades from Sony) with IBIS or...
Darn you, more of my money spent. Your reviews are always compelling and I appreciate the format. In my decades with Canon DLSR's I had a 17-55m f/2.8 IS USM and I loved it. With the A6300 I was waiting for something similar to come along that didn't break the bank. You and every other PRO reviewer on RUclips have been praising this lens. Finally B&H's got some in stock so there goes the milk money for the kids. Keep up the reviews they are insightful, especially for those of us who are not PRO's but hungry to learn more about the art of photography.
Great review! I've watched a lot of reviews of this lens and yours was the best.
* You compared the sharpness between the two lenses both at 50mm, most other reviews compared the 50mm sharpness of the Sony to the 70mm sharpness of the Tamron--not a fair comparison
* You showed a comparison with no stabilization, just the lens stabilization, and the lens stabilization combined with IBIS--great to see all three in action in the same scene
* You tested it on APS-C bodies, most other reviews were done with FF bodies in crop mode--much more accurate to review a lens on a camera it will actually be used on
Thanks!
Blind like :-) Finally, someone who tests it with APS-C camera!
So many people did it
@@freedom5842 I have also seen low of FX camera review, he is right as well
awesome comparison! could you do a tamron 17-70 vs sigma trio 😍
Bought this lens based in part on your review. I'm blown away by this lenses performance! I have severe tendinitis in my right wrist and I recently had to switch from my big DSLR blaster to the smaller Sony A6400. I'm still getting used to it and it's a challenge for sure. But the fact that I can now run with only two lenses (the Tamron 17-70 & Sigma 56mm) means the weight of my set up is now literally a third of what it was. Now if I can just get used to Sony Menus!
I was surprised to find out that the Sony 16-55 2.8 doesn't have OSS, I thought that would have been inherent for the price tag! Insane performance from the Tamron, thank god I can get something as great as the 16-55 2.8 for so much cheaper.
I kinda went nuts yesterday and bought the 17-70mm and the 70-300mm for my a6000. I'm new and trying to figure it out but I thought having good/decent lenses is the only way to know if I enjoy photography!
Thanks for all your videos, they are a great help!!
I have the Tamron 70-300 and thinking of getting the 17-70 like you. You're covering an effective focal range of 25mm to 450mm!
I love your comparison reviews...they really are better than anyone else's. This is one of the two comparisons I've been waiting for and it certainly didn't disappoint. Now, if you could compare the Sony 70-350 vs the Sigma 100-400 on the Sony crop bodies, I could die a happy man!...
You won't notice the difference much if you're comparing it side by side with the G lens. If you have a non IBIS body, it's a no brainer. The value you will get from the Tamron compared to the G lens is a no brainer. It's going to be the most popular APSC lens for Sony.
Mine has been ordered. The Tamron will be replacing my 18-135mm. Any deficiencies with the lens can be corrected in processing. Enjoyed the review and I have watched a lot before deciding to purchase the Tamron.
18-135 is a fine lens with 65mm extra range and much smaller and lighter. This one will be good for low light.
Im a beginner for choosing new camera and lens. Watching this makes me feels like wow.. this is what I want one lens covers all! Thanks Arthur for the video! Regards from Malaysia!
Finally, something that I have been waiting for weeks.. as for lenses review, I only take note from you Arthur R and Christopher Frost..
This lens is amazing, its tempting me to switch from my 16-55g f2.8 bcoz of the VC and 70mm..
but bcoz I got the 16-55g f2.8 at around 900 usd, and the fact that my nearest tamron retailer want me to add another 150 usd if i want to trade in the 16-55g f2.8 if i want to order this tamron 17-70 f2.8, it really got me stucked in here..
i use it on a6600 and I do appreciate extra focal length and stabilization on lens.. but then, its really the image quality that I prioritize all the time..
since this 17-70 f2.8 came out, its really hard to sell back 16-55g f2.8 to people outside..
do u think I should keep the 16-55g f2.8, or do u think I should go for 17-70mm f2.8?
thanks and best regards from Malaysia ✌🏼
Pretty obvious choice, just keep the G-lens since you already have it in your hands.
No, I just sold my 16-55 f2.8 for this lens since it has further reach. This lens has closer focus distance which is better than 16-55. At 70 it will give better bokeh
Thanks for another fantastic review Arthur. I'm stunned that the Tamron is that good. Time to buy it!
Great review Arthur and one a lot of us were waiting for. My copy of this lens should be arriving soon 😊
The Sony does look a tad sharper in the corners when you punch in and it does have the extra switch and button, but the fact the Tamron is $500 - $600 cheaper, with that extra reach and vibration control makes it a great all round lens. I think I prefer the slightly warmer color tone from the Tamron too.
I've been waiting for this review since the 17-70mm was announced and now I can't wait for it to come in the mail now! Thank you again Arthur for another awesome review!
Just ordered my Tamron 17-70 after this video. No one knows Sony APS-C like Arthur. Only person I look too for reccomenedations! 📸
I appreciate it!
This is no brainer, definitely the one to get for me to replace the kit lens.
Thanks for the review Arthur ! Just ordered my Tamron 17-70 for my ZV-E10. Can't wait to start playing with it !
Hey i was looking for that comment, since i’m filming with a Zv-e10! How is it working for you? Would you recommend?
@@Outcasts3 Hi unfortunately the Tamron was out of stock at the retailer when I ordered it and never came back in stock. My order was ultimately cancelled. I ordered the lens at a very good price, maybe that's why, I have no clue. Sorry I am unable to help you here.
Thanks for this. My 17-70 arrived yesterday. Its sooooo sharp. I dont need anything wider than 2.8 and hate swapping prime lenses. Anyway its not that big or heavy. I drink too much coffee so the stabilisation for mounting on 6400 is great. Well pleased.
Sony has a lot of lenses in this general range, but all of them seem to have one (or more) issues. No OSS, or no weather sealing, or slow, or sketchy performance, or really high price. The 16-55 is probably the best lens, but no OSS and high price.
I've tried all of them, and prefer this Tamron for all around performance. I might wish it were a little smaller but it's so good I can live with the size.
(And more recently I bought the tiny Sigma 18-50, so I can have a really small set-up ; or if I want more reach, I have that too, both with great performance and f2.8!)
Given the alternatives, I don't want to encourage Sony's pricing practices.
I think I'm going to sell my 16-55mm and make some money and put it to this lens. The image stabilization is sort of a huge deal for me. Awesome comparison. Been looking forward to this.
The Sony 24-105 is pretty equivalent because the amount of Bokeh you get from f4 on a FF is about what you get with f2.8 on the APSC. And the 24-105 is a fantastic lens for a zoom. The Tamron is about $200 cheaper.
I watched many of your videos in the last several days for camera and lenses review as a beginner for my first camera. I went from Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 -> Tamron 28-200 F/2.8-5.6 -> Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 -> overwhelmed then finally found this Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8. I think I'm gonna pull the trigger on this lense as you recommended for my Sony ZV-E10. Thank you sir
The difference in shutter speed are due to light transmission rate. Sony let in bit more light, hence faster shutter speed. I personally think only deal breaker between those two is smooth bokeh ball.
Tamron is faster, not sony
AND you get stabilization with the Tamron.
Bokeh balls?
. . .
You people have an obsession with the bokeh :))
I mean, I know to appreciate some nice bokeh (Voigtländer on Sony full-frame etc.), but sometimes it does not matter.
And the "best" bokeh is just in our heads. What you like, someone will hate and so on.
So, what is the best thing to do?
Just let that be the very LAST thing to make this lens a "deal breaker" for you, just because of bokeh balls...
Thanks for the detailed image comparisons! Nice review...I think I´m gonna pick up the Sigma 56mm 1.4 because I just love the 85mm look and then this Tamron will arrive after....
Same here
Comparing with 3 Sigma would be a great challenge :) Waiting for it!
Arthur already compare the Sony 16-55mm to the 3 Sigmas.
I am really sorry there is no LOVE button under youtube videos. Amazing job Arthur, I am hardly waiting for this lens to receive my order!
Just waiting on mine to come in the mail... thanks for helping me feel good about my decision! Lol
Thanks Arthur! Great review! I want to sold my Sony 18-105 f4!!! This Tamron is very, very interesting lens, and the price is a great thinks... Thank for all your "peacefully" reviews. God bless your family
Very comprehensive review without being too "dry" with numbers and stats. Like Sigma with their "trio", Tamron really seem to have hit on something good with this single zoom lens. I have to say I'm interested in getting one of these! Very nice work Arthur R. :)
The fact, that the two lenses result in different shutterpeeds at the same ISO and the same apertutre has to do with the Transmission values.
Great Review.
I think, I would go with the tamron, because of that extra range and the VC...
Did you notice a difference how the camera corrects both of the lenses?
Such an anticipated video!
Please compare it with the sigma 16mm.
I am so very curious of how the f-stop of 1.4 would compare to the tamron!
Nice lens, great to see that there are more lenses coming for Sony APS-C. But I prefer my 16-55G, the smaller size plus noticeably more wide angle is more important for me than the slightly longer range of the Tamron. Main use case for these kind of normal zoom (or travel zoom) lenses is when you are on the go or travelling. That means it should be small/ lightweight and it must have enough wide angle for landscape photos. 16mm vs. 17mm definitely makes a difference (9:06). Much more difference than 55mm vs. 70mm in my opinion.
I’ve been waiting to see this! I couldn’t wait for the video to order one from my local camera shop. I actually traded in my Sony 18-105 G as a deposit on this Tamron. I should be picking it up this weekend. I’m super excited after seeing this video!
I’m new to your channel but I love your honest review and practical explanation. I’m so new to the channel that I have been looking only old videos, and I just realized you both have a kid now. CONGRATULATIONS!!!
P.s. I also live in Japan
Arthur, Thank you for your excellent review and trusted commentary.
Thank you for including pictures in your review. Keep up the good work! I already have the sigma 16, now I have to debate whether to keep it once I get the tamron.
I received my Tamron on Thursday and did a comparison of the two lenses at night since I mostly shoot Astro. The Sigma has slightly better stars at 16/17 and 2.8. Stop down to f4 and they are really really close with the sigma slightly better. In the end I thought they were within 5% and so I sold the sigma. Got $300 for it. Ps... the day time shots are almost identical. I was just being critical of the Star shapes.
IMO 1.4 vs 2.8 is a huge deal. I have 16-55 and it feels so dark compared to sigma 16/1.4. but if you control the lights and don't need that shallow DoF then not sure it is worth keeping the sigma
Tamron to my mind is a no brainier.
Ok, would have preferred wider view for landscape, cramped shots.
Life , for many of us is a compromise. Yes, the Sony 2.8 speed appeals, however not at the very, very, significant cost differential.
Tamron is excellent quality and great value for money.
Have no doubt the lens will be a winner for Tamron.
What do you mean "the Sony 2.8 speed appeals"? The Tamron is a constant F2.8 as well, that's not the deciding factor between these two.
Wow, that Tamron is incredible! Nice that it's not overly corrected. Impressive it's a decent size for the aperture & focal range. The photo of your wife where it slightly missed focus is beautiful.
very detailed and thorough comparison! thanks for your work (and your wife for allowing you to really zooming in lol)
Just purchased using your link- thanks for putting up consistently great content!
Thanks Arthur, i’ve been waiting this review for a long time. I got the Tamron eventually , even though in my area I can get a pretty close price for both lens, I mainly shoot video, and it’s amazing.
Great comparison! Thank you for your opinion. I bought the Tamron lens and i am happy with it!
Greetings from Italy Arthur! Another great review. I'm glad to see there is another valuable 2.8 zoom lens for A6x00 series (in addition to the very expensive 16-55 G). This is a must to have (as soon as I found the budget...)
Had mine a couple of days and it is definitely a winner. I look forward to your comparisons with the Sigma trio. As always a straightforward cut to the chase review that tells us what we need to know. The close focussing is impressive and should make for interesting shots.... thanks Arthur
Mine should arrive in the mail today, I’m excited
Yay! Arthur got the best matched lens for the A6xxx series!
A magic lens for my Sony!!!
Finally. Thanks Arthur. I was waiting for your review of this lens for almost a month already. Ordered it for my birthday mid January and about to get it. So if you see fellow clueless Austinite trying to use it, please don't be mad
In a lot of these examples I think the color looks better on the Tamron! I've been excited for this but I'm also curious about comparisons between this one and the Sony 18-135.
The Tamron is on another level of sharpness. The 18-135 is a good lens, but I would say it is closer to the performance of a 16-50 kit lens.
I'm getting the tamron 17-70mm f2.8 to add to my trio of aps-c zoom lenses... My other lenses in the trio are the Sony 70-350mm G oss and the Sony 10-18mm f4 oss. I'm using a Sony a6300 camera so now I do get image stabilization with all three lenses in the trio (in future I will upgrade to a Sony a6600) ✌☺
Great review - been following you for some time and you always nail the queries I have. I am due to go to Turkey and now have the answer on what to take! I have the Sigma ‘three’ which are great but will buy the Tamron which will allow me to leave behind my much heavier Sigma’s. Hope you agree!
Definitely my next lens. I can see it staying on my a6400 about 90% of the time. As always, very nice review of the lens!
I finally decided to break down and buy this lens, and I have to say that I am so happy with it. The stabilization really does make a huge difference when using it with the a 6400. I have been using nothing but primes for a very long time, I did use the 18 to 105 for a while, but I sold that one pretty quickly, this lens, in my opinion, is the best available for the 6000 series. And again, I think the stabilization is key, it really makes a big difference. I decided I needed at least one quality zoom lens, and this one is awesome
did you notice any faster battery consumption when using the Tamron vs the Sony SELP 18-105? or is it just my 17-70 that is possibly flawed?
@@andreagallo70 I definitely didn’t see anything like that, and I’ve never heard of anything like that, but I guess anything is possible. I did have to send my first 17-70 back and get a replacement, but that’s because the auto focus was not working at all when I first got it. But I didn’t see it affected my battery at all to be honest. I actually wound up selling that lens. :-)
@@RockWILK I think I have found something interesting. If I switch the optical image stabilization off on the camera menu, then the battery does not go from 100% down to 94% in few minutes as in my earlier tests, just down to 98%. So I was right, a massive heavy lens consumes some power with a very good Vibration Control engine... surely more that Sony OIS in the 18-105.
I have also done another test. I was using a compatible Li-Ion battery instead of the original SONY one. I charged the original one back (I use both actually) and found that with the SONY one taking the same shots the battery goes down from 100% to 98% with VC on instead of down to 94%.
So my understanding is that the Tamron VC consumes a lot more power and the compatible battery does not have the same capacity as the original SONY so it goes down much faster.
@@andreagallo70 ahh. Very interesting. Good to know. Thanks for sharing.
Lens shopping in here in Saigon is a bit tough, the lenses are always late to arrive. I did buy the Viltrox 23mm f1.4 after watching your review and couldn't be happier. This one will be in my bag as soon as I can budget for it. I think my RUclips channel will benefit from having this lens, I can carry less stuff around. Good review as always!
Got this lens. It is amazing value for money! Need to decide if I should sell my Sigma 56mm!
I'm having the same dilemma! The 30mm I can offload no problem, but my 16mm and 56mm are going to be tough!
@@MrRicksinger Yep. I'm gonna keep the 16mm, cause it's really useful for capturing the night sky. But the 56? Idk. I tried the tamron in a dim indoor environment, and it performed well enough for me to not miss the sigma 56.
Thank you for the awesome review! It‘s now definitly on my wishlist, especially because of the VC. At the moment i own the Sigma 30mm and 56mm prime lenses and love them. Greetings from Germany!
Been waiting for this review. I already own the 16-55mm F2.8, and Tamron will definitely be an addition to my collection.
Now this is what I've been waiting for.
Surprised you didn't touch on the "macro" abilities and the major difference in minimum focus between the 2.
Great informative video as always. Are you planning to review the Sony A7C anytime soon would like to hear your take on that. Thanks
You mentioned it in another video and I started researching it. I've been waiting for this review. I will be buying it.
Thank you, Arthur, for another great review!
Could you please check noise of autofocus motor - is it absolutely silent, while recording video in quiet environment?
Throughout the portraits I was left with the impression that that Tamron was the ‘kinder’ lens. Not a scientific assessment but a valid opinion perhaps . I would be very happy with such results. Would also like to pas on my appreciation of your first class review - one really worth listening to .
Greetings from Japan! Arthur, can you confirm on your copy, when in AF-S and aperture priority mode and the lens is stopped down higher than f5.6 all the way to f22 and when you focus, the aperture opens and closes really fast for the AF to lock, you can hear a mechanical noise from the aperture assembly like a grindy/rapid clicking noise for every aperture notch change. Its also noticeable when you turn the camera on and off as the aperture opens and closes. It is not noticeable when camera is set to AF-C as the aperture does not open up when focusing. I had this on 2 copies and i had a Tamron rep confirm this noise issue but never saw it on any reviews. Sadly, the Tamron rep said that it would not be likely resolved by a firmware update since it is mechanical in nature and that they have no plans of any recall at the moment since it is within spec design, but the noise is really annoying considering the AF motor is very silent.
Thanks for sharing! The Tamron is definitely one of the most interesting lenses right know. I can hardly wait to get one myself and review it.
Arthur great video! Keen on your channel since you are in nearby Austin. You sir from gadgets & tech, you can produce pleasing videos to watch and I would love to watch more a6400 content from your channel 🤙🏼
Looked far and wide for the Tamron 17-70 lens as it was highly touted and back ordered. Decided to buy online. Can’t wait to get my hands on it!
Ah, damn you, I was about to pickup the 18-105mm as I really wanted a zoom to add to my Sigma 16mm and Sony 50mm!!
(3) IS IT BETTER THAN THE SONY 18-105mm G? Yes.
Now I feel I gotta hang tight til Amazon or some other retailer gets this in Europe!!
Keep up the good stuff, big fan of yours since I got my Sony mirrorless!
Did you keep it? Still would recommend this one all around?
I have been waiting for your take on this lens I was wondering when it was going to finally come lol. I preordred it as soon as I heard about it and have had it a few weeks, it is great to use and pairs perfectly with the Tamron 70-180 f2.8. I still have the 18-105 and pondering selling it but still love it as a gimbal lens and works with the RM-VPR1 remote to control the power zoom, so i have been holding onto it for now
Arthur you should switch back the camera aspect ratio from 16:9 to 3:2 to see the most extreme corner performance of the lenses (any lens)
You have an amazing channel!!! You need way more subs!!!
Hey Arthur, thanks for the awesome review! I've got a sony a6000 and am looking to buy my second lens. From watching your videos I was convinced on getting the sigma 56mm but I've found that I really enjoy taking more close up photos and think that a zoom lens will be more useful at the moment. So I was wondering between the tamron 17-70 and the 28-75, which one would you suggest?
I’ve got both the Tamron 17-70, and the Sony kit 18-135 - which is a very good lens that I use for “rough duty” scenarios.
I am extremely pleased with the Tamron, which does 95% of what I need from a lens. I’ve heard elsewhere that Tamron has access to Sony’s lens build algorithms, which is why they’ve “nailed” the performance.
There’s zero reason to purchase the Sony 16-55.
Sony really needs to show APS-C some love again. A new high-end body + some wide / telephoto lenses with the same quality as this would be amazing.
I really like my sony apsc. Had it for years. Tried my friend’s a7siii and while I do mainly video and the a7siii is miles above my a6600, I still prefer the more compact size of the a6600
Dude are you related to hoovie from hoovies garage??
I'm so happy I pre ordered this and sold my 18-105 ASAP! So far.... I love it.
I had the Sigma 18-50 first, then bought the Tamron but sold it and kept the Sigma due to size and weight although it was excellent. Now I have to scratch the Sony 16-55 itch. I'm hoping this will stay on my A6700 along with the Sony 20mm 1.8 and 70-350.
Awesome review but please compare to the 18-105 and discuss performance at 70mm wide open, I've heard mixed things about the tamron's sharpness
I was really confused by the statement "a 24-105mm F2.8 does not exist on full frame at the moment".
Well, if it did it would be really big (like Canon RF 28-70mm F2 big...)
You have to convert the aperture as well when talking about equivalency.
This Tamron 17-70mm lens on a crop body will perform very similar to a 24-105mm F4 full frame setup. That's what they were trying to emulate.
Aperture is a physical characteristic of the lens, F2.8 is F2.8. If you are talking about equivalent depth of field, you are right, a slower lens on a full frame would give you equivalent field of view.
you're right. but most reviewer dont convert the apertures because most viewers dont understand the concept that well. i blame the manufacturers really rather than the reviewer for confusing their customers lol.
@@ArthurR I mean you are not wrong as the f-number is the ratio between the front pupil and the focal length. Nevertheless, the important characteristics when talking about the f-number are depth of field and light gathering ability and for both of those you have to convert the aperture by multiplying with the crop factor. A F2.8 lens on a crop camera is not comparable to a F2.8 on a full frame. It gathers less light and has less shallow depth of field (exactly by the factor 1.5).
I know it is a bit abstract, but this kinda bugs me whenever I hear people talk half-truths about it and I am the same opinion as my Wamo Shaz, the manufactures are a bit misleading here. They always will convert focal length for you and tell you the equivalent focal lenght when buying a crop or mft lens, but never tell you about the aperture.
The RX100 from Sony for example, they market that thing with a 24-70mm equivalent lens, but still say it's F1.8-F2.8 which is technically true but hella misleading as it looks and performs like a F8-F11 or something on full frame (don't quote me on the exact conversion).
Edit: There is a pretty good Tony Northrup video on the topic, but he also focuses on the depth of field and not the brightness/light transmission aspect.
ruclips.net/video/f5zN6NVx-hY/видео.html
The light transmission of a F2.8 is always the same, but the sensor behind the lens dictates how much total light the exposure gets, so the crop sensor will always be worse than a full frame in every aspect by exactly the crop factor (technically you even have to multiply the ISO by the crop factor to compare different sensor sizes, but I will stop this discussion here and go to bed).
Thanks for your videos, you are my number one source for lens reviews about crop lenses for my a6500 and I really appreciate the work you put into it :)
Arthur, it would be great if you can run a comparison between Tamron 17-70mm F2.8 and the Sigma Trio.
Excellent work, with the existing reviews and comparisons.
He writes something in the Description. Basically the Answer isn't too surprising, the Sigma Trio is better but the Tamron is much more convenient.
@@GunnarTiger Thanks for highlighting this for me.
I see he's highlighting the convenience vs. the f1.4.
However, disregarding the convenience and aperture, which are also observable from the specifications, I would be curious regarding sharpness and focus, especially as the sigma 30 seems to fall behind.
My favorite review.!! Will upgrade my Sony A6100 kit lens to this Tamoron.
*Update*
I got the lens, and love it ever since.!!!
My go to lens.!!!
I think this is the lens I've been searching for! Great review. Did you end up throwing out the others? Would be great to see a follow up sometime
Nice review as always. What an awesome lens for such a low price.
Another excellent lens by Tamron. Can't wait for the 11-20 Tamron review too.
Btw your B-roll often has a huge magenta cast. Might need to white balance it with grey cards.