Spot on Dustin! I am loving this lens so far, I love the versatility it offers, I am now selling my Rokinon 24mm 1.4 which I mostly only used on wide field astro. The performance of the 17-28 @ 2.8 is respectable out to the corners and compares with the Rokinon in sharpness and better on CA on stars. Now I have some zoom, altho limited, and auto focus to use in more areas of my photography.
I'm _really_ excited to see how this compares to the other options. May not always know what to do with something so wide, but it'd be a godsend for interior shots of just about anything. That and I have nothing wider than 35mm at the moment.
Not a lens for me, as it's only for DSLM, but I have the very much comparable 17-35mm. I absolutely love the balance that Tamron strikes with these lenses - small, lightweight, weather sealed and still great optical performance and great aperture values. Alright, there's a little shorter zoom range, but if that saves about 50% of the size AND weight compared to similar lenses, I'm ok with it!
always look fwd to your honest and precise reviews of lenses. looking fwd to the continuation of the reviews for this particualr lens which is what im looking for to use on my Travel setup for video as well using the new ronin SC. thanks again! Cheers!
Dustin, I notice a lack of reviews on Tokina lenses. Back in the day (1975-1997) when I worked in a pro camera store you had three choices for good to pro optics, the manufacturer's line, Tokina and Tamron. Sigma was decent, if you liked a green tinge to all your photos, but they were prone to early failures, and Rokinon/Samyang were a joke. (How times changed those three companies) Since 1970 I've owned Canon, Nikon and both Tokina and Tamron lenses with the Pro line of Tokina lenses being built a bit more like the manufacturer's lenses but even the cheaper lines had some good optics. Back when I was a journalist writing articles on photo gear Tamron was easier to get lenses to test, Tokina more difficult but I managed it eventually. Maybe you can get samples for testing through one of the big NYC camera stores like other reviewers?
Times have changed. Sigma came a LONG way. The Sigmas had better primes for a while but Tokina had excellent zooms, particularly UWAs. They should have hit the Sony FE market harder and they might be reaping the benefits now.
I've tried starting a dialogue with Tokina, but didn't get much of anywhere. I have a very full plate as it is, so if companies aren't accommodating, I feel like that is on them. I don't see many people doing Tokina reviews, so that's something they need to work on.
Dustin, I have the voigtlander 15, f4.5, and the 21, 3.5. I am thinking of selling the voigt 21 and buying the tamron 17-28. Make sense? How does the IQ and rendering of the tammy compare to the voigtlanders?
I'd be interested in a comparison with the new 14-24mm Sigma Art lens. Or also a separate review of the new Sigma Art lenses that came to the Sony line up.
The Tamron website shows what looks like 7 weather seals used throughout the lens. www.tamron-usa.com/assets/img/product/lens/a046/additionalFeatures/img02.jpg
Do you feel like it would be better to go with this or the Sony 16-35 f4 with OSS. I do a lot of video and wasn't sure if I'd miss the extra stabilization from the 16-35
I haven't tested that lens, but, frankly, if your priority is getting smooth video footage, investing in a gimbal is going to give you far better results than any OSS I've ever seen. How important is F2.8 to you? The Tamron is super sharp and performs well, but it's got to meet your needs.
@@DustinAbbottTWI with the type of video I do it's not really gimbal friendly unfortunately most of the time. I would pay crazy money for a wide Zoom that's also 2.8 lol. Sharpness isn't too big of an issue because delivery is typically a projector or phone screen after compression.
Can you please explain what engineered plastic is? Also, in many of your reviews you mention "micro contrast". What is this and how does it compare to normal contrast?
Engineered plastics are high grade plastic composites that are often used in the shells of lenses. They are tough and durable and not to be confused with cheaper plastics. Microcontrast refers to the ability of a lens to not only resolve texture but also render distinct contrast at a 1:1 level (not just globally). I illustrate this in the middle of this video: ruclips.net/video/La036dB-x_M/видео.html
When (if) I upgrade to full frame the Tamron 17-28 is very interresting. I don't need 2,8 but the Tamron is cheaper than the Sony 16-35 f/4. I am not so sure about Tamron 28-75, the Sony 24-105 f/4 is more versatile.
Great video, thank you so much! Unfortunately I won't be able to watch the entire series before purchasing this lens tomorrow. It seems like at 06:00 the focus is a bit off - don't you use the AF?
MF is still the golden standard for video work, despite the many improvements to AF. Focus breathing/slight changes to plane of focus can be very distracting.
Because of the damage to my face at the moment I stayed more in profile for this video, which the AF system of the camera doesn't like as well as facing it.
Hi Dustin, can you give me a little advise, that i have tamron 70 200 F2.8 HSM DX Macro (Non IS, and mark 1), i have shot with this lens but some time it is not righ focus althouth the camera is right focus, so should i sell it and buy canon 70 200 f2.8 non is or 70 200 f.28 IS mark 1 ?
Are you shooting on Canon or adapting to Sony? If shooting professionally or just high action, Abbott will recommend that you hold out for Tamron's offering like he suggested to me on Monday.
Thanks for this first look review Dustin! I'm curious your thoughts vs the Tamron 15-30 2.8 G2. I went from the G1 to the Sigma 20 1.4 and now looking to go to this Tamron. Cheers!
I’ve had mine for roughly a week now and have been having some pretty bad issues with autofocus. When it does focus it’s fantastic, when it decides not to I have to disconnect the lens and reconnect to reset it.
It has happend to me to one time last week on the 17-28, I just turned off and on power on camera and it focused as normal. The focus icon in the bottom left only showed (( )) but no dot in the middle. It was in the middle of a sunny day and i tried again and again to press shutter and pointed the camera at different directions. It never happend on my 28-75.
Sort of. So I’ll mount the lens and it will focus fine for a bit, then it will flash white and stop focusing. If I disconnect and reconnect it works fine but it’s pretty annoying
Well, it directly compares in resolving power to the 16-35GM and you can see Tony Northrup's images with the A7RIV and 16-35GM and he demonstrates superior sharpness compared to the A7RIII. I have the RIII and this new 17-28 and I can attest, it is very sharp from the limited use I've had with it.
PKmode it wouldn’t be sharper on A7riii vs. A7riv. The difference is more pixels in same area and glass ability to resolve more pixels within that same area.
That's a reasonable question. Some of these new lenses are putting pressure on the Batis lenses in terms of price to performance ratio. Batis lenses often do have slightly nice microcontrast and color, but the nuance is small enough to probably be wasted on many buyers.
I wouldnt do that , after having my Tamron more than 3 months ! The compromises with the overall picture quality gonna make you dissapointed ! I have been there ..
@@cinialvespow1054 I own it brooo... and had it before my GM ! Trust me I tested my Tamron enough ! I wouldnt compare it with the GM directly even if its sometimes sharper in the center...! The overall image isnt that balanced ! Yeah it has character, it has that dreamy look but still trust me I have both of them and testing every time I go out and shoot.... as I said before the Tamron is fantastic for its prise and compact as well... just the results and the overall image quality of the GM are simply better thats all pluss I like the heavy bulky feel of it 2, not to mention the af mf switch on it matches with my sigma art lenses.. Just saying that if you want the top the GM is definetly better. Dont fool yourself use them both for a week or so !!!
@@cinialvespow1054 I agree of course but we all know when irs about perfection, even the slight differences can make you sell one of your kidney... haha. Off course its not 3 times better! I would say its rather 1,35 times better but that 0,35 makes the difference for me !
@@cinialvespow1054 By the way I just sold my Tamy with the A7 ii for my friend and I am so glad t he could get a steel lens from me...! And Im really fine with the GM 24-70 alone ;)!
i hate that you cannot set the focus by wire from non-linear to linear like on fuji cameras. if you want to quickly want to do focus pull you end up all over the place instead of the point you wanted to focus on.
I feel the same. I'll probably end up sticking with my 16-35 f4 just for the extra overlap. For such a wide lens and how good high ISOs are these days, it's not like I really need the extra light even for shooting weddings.
Thanks Dustin!
Dustin Abbott you always have them clutch videos!
Thank you!
Spot on Dustin! I am loving this lens so far, I love the versatility it offers, I am now selling my Rokinon 24mm 1.4 which I mostly only used on wide field astro. The performance of the 17-28 @ 2.8 is respectable out to the corners and compares with the Rokinon in sharpness and better on CA on stars. Now I have some zoom, altho limited, and auto focus to use in more areas of my photography.
Sounds about right to me.
I'm _really_ excited to see how this compares to the other options. May not always know what to do with something so wide, but it'd be a godsend for interior shots of just about anything.
That and I have nothing wider than 35mm at the moment.
It seems very strong optically.
Dustin, looking forward to your review of its image quality, especially sharpness and coma in the corners wide open at 2.8. Cheers
Definitely all in the cards.
Don't own a Sony. Don't plan on buying this lens. I just feel satisfied by hearing you explain things. Great preview!
Well that's flattering ;)
Very useful video, as always. Thanks Dustin.
My pleasure.
Thank you Mr Abbott. Hope you get to feeling better. I know how that feels. :(
I've got a crack in my jaw, unfortunately.
Thanks for the review Dustin!
My pleasure.
Not a lens for me, as it's only for DSLM, but I have the very much comparable 17-35mm.
I absolutely love the balance that Tamron strikes with these lenses - small, lightweight, weather sealed and still great optical performance and great aperture values.
Alright, there's a little shorter zoom range, but if that saves about 50% of the size AND weight compared to similar lenses, I'm ok with it!
They definitely seem to have made solid decisions about where to compromise in order to produce a balanced end result.
always look fwd to your honest and precise reviews of lenses. looking fwd to the continuation of the reviews for this particualr lens which is what im looking for to use on my Travel setup for video as well using the new ronin SC. thanks again! Cheers!
It seems like it would be a good travel option.
Got mine pre ordered hopefully it comes soon
The preorder is smart, as they will certainly be backordered
Awesome lens ! Thanks for the video. You Have to show how It works for milkiway pictures.
You can find that in the image quality episode
A good clean review.
Thank you
nice shirt! great review as usual
thanks
Dustin, I notice a lack of reviews on Tokina lenses. Back in the day (1975-1997) when I worked in a pro camera store you had three choices for good to pro optics, the manufacturer's line, Tokina and Tamron. Sigma was decent, if you liked a green tinge to all your photos, but they were prone to early failures, and Rokinon/Samyang were a joke. (How times changed those three companies)
Since 1970 I've owned Canon, Nikon and both Tokina and Tamron lenses with the Pro line of Tokina lenses being built a bit more like the manufacturer's lenses but even the cheaper lines had some good optics. Back when I was a journalist writing articles on photo gear Tamron was easier to get lenses to test, Tokina more difficult but I managed it eventually. Maybe you can get samples for testing through one of the big NYC camera stores like other reviewers?
Times have changed. Sigma came a LONG way. The Sigmas had better primes for a while but Tokina had excellent zooms, particularly UWAs. They should have hit the Sony FE market harder and they might be reaping the benefits now.
I've tried starting a dialogue with Tokina, but didn't get much of anywhere. I have a very full plate as it is, so if companies aren't accommodating, I feel like that is on them. I don't see many people doing Tokina reviews, so that's something they need to work on.
Is 17mm wide angle enough for creating HDRI maps for 3D modelling?
I'm sorry, but this is not my area of expertise.
Dustin, I have the voigtlander 15, f4.5, and the 21, 3.5. I am thinking of selling the voigt 21 and buying the tamron 17-28. Make sense? How does the IQ and rendering of the tammy compare to the voigtlanders?
While the Voigtlanders do have great color and contrast, the Tamron is surprisingly high end in those areas, so I think you'll be happy.
I'd be interested in a comparison with the new 14-24mm Sigma Art lens. Or also a separate review of the new Sigma Art lenses that came to the Sony line up.
I've covered a number of the FE versions along the way, and I'll definitely review the actual new lenses.
Dustin Abbott Great!
Dustin, would you think Sigma 24-70 is much better than Tamron 24-75?
I'm in the process of reviewing the Sigma right now, so watch for my comments on that soon as I will be comparing with the 28-75mm
Vs the Laowa 15mm f2 how does it perform at 17mm? Which is sharper?
Watch the image quality episode to see that. I show a direct comparison.
The Tamron website shows what looks like 7 weather seals used throughout the lens. www.tamron-usa.com/assets/img/product/lens/a046/additionalFeatures/img02.jpg
For real estate photo/video would you recommend the laowa 15 or tamron 17-28?
Both have different strengths. Choose the focal length that works for you
Do you feel like it would be better to go with this or the Sony 16-35 f4 with OSS. I do a lot of video and wasn't sure if I'd miss the extra stabilization from the 16-35
I haven't tested that lens, but, frankly, if your priority is getting smooth video footage, investing in a gimbal is going to give you far better results than any OSS I've ever seen. How important is F2.8 to you? The Tamron is super sharp and performs well, but it's got to meet your needs.
@@DustinAbbottTWI with the type of video I do it's not really gimbal friendly unfortunately most of the time. I would pay crazy money for a wide Zoom that's also 2.8 lol. Sharpness isn't too big of an issue because delivery is typically a projector or phone screen after compression.
Then I would go for the Tamron...as long as you have a camera body with IBIS.
Can you please explain what engineered plastic is? Also, in many of your reviews you mention "micro contrast". What is this and how does it compare to normal contrast?
Engineered plastics are high grade plastic composites that are often used in the shells of lenses. They are tough and durable and not to be confused with cheaper plastics. Microcontrast refers to the ability of a lens to not only resolve texture but also render distinct contrast at a 1:1 level (not just globally). I illustrate this in the middle of this video: ruclips.net/video/La036dB-x_M/видео.html
Yesssssss!
When (if) I upgrade to full frame the Tamron 17-28 is very interresting. I don't need 2,8 but the Tamron is cheaper than the Sony 16-35 f/4. I am not so sure about Tamron 28-75, the Sony 24-105 f/4 is more versatile.
There's two sides to the versatility argument: focal length vs aperture. Both provide versatility, but photographers tend to value one or the other.
impressive review dustin...curious to know what lense you are shooting this video with.......beyond amazing
The new little Samyang AF 45mm F1.8 for Sony
@@DustinAbbottTWI are you shooting with mirrorless?
Hey Dustin, do the Tamron lenses get a correction(distortion, vignetting....) in the camera just like sony lenses do or not?
Yes, for JPEGs, though a RAW correction profile hasn't shown up in Lightroom yet.
Great video, thank you so much! Unfortunately I won't be able to watch the entire series before purchasing this lens tomorrow. It seems like at 06:00 the focus is a bit off - don't you use the AF?
MF is still the golden standard for video work, despite the many improvements to AF. Focus breathing/slight changes to plane of focus can be very distracting.
Because of the damage to my face at the moment I stayed more in profile for this video, which the AF system of the camera doesn't like as well as facing it.
@@DustinAbbottTWI But at 06:00 only your hands were in frame. :) Sorry for your face, hope you'll recover quickly.
Hi Dustin, can you give me a little advise, that i have tamron 70 200 F2.8 HSM DX Macro (Non IS, and mark 1), i have shot with this lens but some time it is not righ focus althouth the camera is right focus, so should i sell it and buy canon 70 200 f2.8 non is or 70 200 f.28 IS mark 1 ?
Are you shooting on Canon or adapting to Sony?
If shooting professionally or just high action, Abbott will recommend that you hold out for Tamron's offering like he suggested to me on Monday.
Thanks for this first look review Dustin! I'm curious your thoughts vs the Tamron 15-30 2.8 G2. I went from the G1 to the Sigma 20 1.4 and now looking to go to this Tamron. Cheers!
I've got extensive reviews of the 15-30 G2 already. Just search on my channel or website.
I’ve had mine for roughly a week now and have been having some pretty bad issues with autofocus. When it does focus it’s fantastic, when it decides not to I have to disconnect the lens and reconnect to reset it.
Do you mean that you actually get a freezing up? I haven't seen anything like that at all on my a7RIII
@@DustinAbbottTWIAbbott sounds like he's experiencing the same issue people had with the 28-75 in its initial release.
Ive had mine for 4 days, no problems
It has happend to me to one time last week on the 17-28, I just turned off and on power on camera and it focused as normal. The focus icon in the bottom left only showed (( )) but no dot in the middle. It was in the middle of a sunny day and i tried again and again to press shutter and pointed the camera at different directions. It never happend on my 28-75.
Sort of. So I’ll mount the lens and it will focus fine for a bit, then it will flash white and stop focusing. If I disconnect and reconnect it works fine but it’s pretty annoying
Lol!! You can hear that there’s nothing to hear “” lol
Still debating. I kinda want to go wider. Any suggestions?
How wide? Sigma has just announced a 14-24mm that could be interesting. It will be a fair bit larger than this lens.
its a winner..
It probably will be.
Wonder how it will do with the a7R4 when that will be available
Well, it directly compares in resolving power to the 16-35GM and you can see Tony Northrup's images with the A7RIV and 16-35GM and he demonstrates superior sharpness compared to the A7RIII. I have the RIII and this new 17-28 and I can attest, it is very sharp from the limited use I've had with it.
PKmode that helps
Thank you
PKmode it wouldn’t be sharper on A7riii vs. A7riv. The difference is more pixels in same area and glass ability to resolve more pixels within that same area.
madmaxx72 I was wondering of the glass’s ability to resolve a higher resolution sensor like the 16-35 GM does
I doubt this will be a problem. A sharp lens is a sharp lens, period. Sony's claims about the GM lenses resolving 100MP is mostly marketing hype.
Tamron, please make a version with aperture ring
I'm never seen an aperture ring on any modern Tamron lens, so I suspect that is unlikely.
Only for sony mirrorless?
That's correct.
About time they gave us Sony folks some love.
Does this lens make a Batis 18mm a stupid buy? :)
That's a reasonable question. Some of these new lenses are putting pressure on the Batis lenses in terms of price to performance ratio. Batis lenses often do have slightly nice microcontrast and color, but the nuance is small enough to probably be wasted on many buyers.
you can buy both tamrons for the price of 1 gm ....
Very true.
I wouldnt do that , after having my Tamron more than 3 months ! The compromises with the overall picture quality gonna make you dissapointed ! I have been there ..
@@cinialvespow1054 I own it brooo... and had it before my GM ! Trust me I tested my Tamron enough ! I wouldnt compare it with the GM directly even if its sometimes sharper in the center...! The overall image isnt that balanced ! Yeah it has character, it has that dreamy look but still trust me I have both of them and testing every time I go out and shoot.... as I said before the Tamron is fantastic for its prise and compact as well... just the results and the overall image quality of the GM are simply better thats all pluss I like the heavy bulky feel of it 2, not to mention the af mf switch on it matches with my sigma art lenses.. Just saying that if you want the top the GM is definetly better. Dont fool yourself use them both for a week or so !!!
@@cinialvespow1054 I agree of course but we all know when irs about perfection, even the slight differences can make you sell one of your kidney... haha. Off course its not 3 times better! I would say its rather 1,35 times better but that 0,35 makes the difference for me !
@@cinialvespow1054 By the way I just sold my Tamy with the A7 ii for my friend and I am so glad t
he could get a steel lens from me...! And Im really fine with the GM 24-70 alone ;)!
😍😍😍😍
i hate that you cannot set the focus by wire from non-linear to linear like on fuji cameras. if you want to quickly want to do focus pull you end up all over the place instead of the point you wanted to focus on.
That's true, though I don't find changing that setting on Fuji makes as big a difference as what I would like.
The zoom range is so limited, couldn't they have gone to at least 30mm on the telephoto end?
Pixel Pav ??? 2 extra mm
I feel the same. I'll probably end up sticking with my 16-35 f4 just for the extra overlap. For such a wide lens and how good high ISOs are these days, it's not like I really need the extra light even for shooting weddings.
They chose that route and to deliver great optical performance (and a small, light package) rather than a bigger zoom range.
Looks promising - can't wait for your IQ tests.
For sure.
Same here!
2nd!
Omg first!