This video is sponsored by Gadget Discovery Club. Visit www.gadgetdiscoveryclub.com/dustinabbott and use code "dustinabbott" to get $20/ £20 / $20 CAD off
I’d take this any day over a 24-70 F4. Having the extra range on the wide end is more useful than 50-70 on the long end. A 17-50 with a 70-200 is a nice 2 lens kit.
This seems like a great "do it all" lens for my use case mainly focusing on landscapes and travel photos. I've been using the Sony 24-105 f4 for some years now as my only lens. Would have loved to see how this Tamron manages photographing night sky. I've taken some nice northern light photos with the 24-105 but have often wished for something wider.
Thank you for the review! I cancelled my preorder, because I wasn’t sure it performed well (some said it was a kit lens kind of performer), but now I see it’s an unbelievable offer. For real estate, Airbnb, interiors especially
They need to drop that 17-28 g2 already, first one is good but it's also nothing more then good, I use that lens for around 30-40% of my wedding videos
Tamron really is giving the sony platform such a variety of zoom ranges. And the functional design combined with software customization really works as workhouse lenses. Combined with the 50-400 one gets such a range & with a high res sensor even more reach. The sony 2 lens version is 20-70 & then 70-200 at a significantly higher price. Earlier Tamron had their 2.8 set but now that the newer cameras have so much better light sensitivity & ibis they have developed slower but with more range quality optics. One can also mix and match with fast primes. Very versatile range!
Thank you for the review! MFT had lenses like this (Oly 8-25) and they are fantastic for lightweight video/photos, landscape or travel and street in a city. It was a big selling point for that system IMHO. f4 makes much more sense on full frame though, not a pro lens but a fun one!
Thank you Dustin. I was waiting for your review. It looks like it is a keeper. I have the 17-28 and was thinking about upgrading to the 20-40 for better focal range. Now I have another contender in the mix!! This and the 50-400 would probably be the only lenses I will need for a two-lens landscape kit.
@@buzzj89 f/2.8 is not necessary for landscapes. And f/4 is not a concern with modern full frame sensors. I still shoot f/5.6 in the dark if I need the DoF.
Another great review, thanks. Other reviewers have said it is quite soft in the corners? Also, it would be great to have an updated video on lens choice for the E mount, as so many interesting lenses since your last ‘my kit bag’ type video. Do you go for the Sony trinity of lenses, should the 35-150 tamron be in the bag & which ultra-wide angle or telephoto to add. Be really interested in your views for this now! Thanks for the amazing reviews….definately a go to channel when a new lens comes out - thanks
Oh diffuicult this one or the sony 16-35 f4 pz. I have the 17-28 and it is great but i am looking for something with a bit more reach, so i have more over lap and having to change a lens a bit less. Sometimes i now use my old beloved canon ef 17-40 but it holds not up that well on more then 24mpix. 20-70 is not wide enough. What would you choose? 16-35 f4 pz or this new tamron? (Ps mostly photography)
same situation: what i'm worried is distorsion (also if corrected) at 16 and 17mm. The 16-35 f4 G cost a lot, considering 7mm more only. I'm more oriented to this tamron or adding a 24-70. But adding a 24-70 doesn't help to my always change lens between 20mm (of tamron 17-28) and 45mm (of my samyang). So i don't know. Dustin abbott answer me that optically is on par to 17-28.
Cross shopping the Tamron 17-50 f/4 with the Sony 20-70 f/4 is probably the right call. For landscapes, I find the Sony lens to be about the perfect focal length. However. The Tamron 17-50 is a lot cheaper, internal zooming, a little lighter…. And for people who also pack an APS-C body, this wouldn’t be half bad for that application either. The Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 would be a smarter buy for most people if APS-C is primary, but if it’s a B-Cam and I want a lens for both cameras, I can’t complain. Biggest perk for myself I think? I run two bodies, an A7RV and A6700. I think this 17-50 on the A7RV and the Tamron 50-400 on the A6700 would basically cover all the shooting I do most of the time. That said, the 16-35 power zoom is a compelling alternative, but that is considerably more expensive (though common enough to find used)
14:38 A bit funny after talking so much about the macro reproduction. With my Sigma 18-50 DC DN I found that is the area where those longitudinal CA are rather jarring sometimes. But yeah I guess there was so little of it, thats what that comment meant. Certainly less than my 18-50.
could you do an article or video on the top lens that youve used. Could go as big or small as youd like, best for categories w budget nomination, or best 3 lens total, most memeorable? what you grab? I really really like your videos, both the definitive and the shorter. Watch them both, haha.
That would be fantastic. All these CZcams in my bag videos. But, the guy that uses and reviews exactly that.... It would mean alot to likely....most of your viewers. If even just a talking head, gear that makes sense, gear that left an impression, gear for budget or situation. Gear you use by choice, or what would you buy if you were the average. You could even do like a live stream, schedule it ahead of time, and I will be there. And that's not normally a thing I'm into.
Hello Dustin, due to distorsion, once corretted, it's a real 17mm? If you had to choose, between this and 16-35 f4 G Pz, which one is better (not considering the 15 mm less)
On Dustin's text review he says the Tamron goes as wide as 103°41′ , which is pretty close to a true 17mm. 17mm is supposed to be 104°. 16mm 107°. 18mm 100°. So how much is the difference b/t 103°41' and 107°? Probably not as significant as the difference between 63° vs 47° (35mm vs 50mm) on the long end. 3.5° gain on the wide end but 16° loss on the long end. Seems to me the only advantage to the 16-35 pz for photo (not video) is the size/weight difference.
@@2ramona959 when i was asking about which one is better i was talking about quality, sharpness.. contrast.. . Anyway, from 35 to 50 is not so small difference
I plan to get A7RV with Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 (crop 2X to 800mm), should I pair it with a Sony 12-24mm F4 or 14mm F1.8 (crop to 28mm F3.6 DOF) as ultrawide and everyday lens if I use them mainly for photo and for video mainly with Panasonic HC-X1500 25-600mm camcorder? I was deciding between these and Loawa 10-18, Sigma 14-24 F2.8, Sony 16-35 F4 PZ, Tamron 17-50 F4 and Sony 20 F1.8 but I think >=30mm can covered with few steps back on the tele lens's 50mm, F2.8 is just slight better than F4 hence better get faster lens if I really need that, 17&16mm might not wide enough for indoor, this is why I reduced to these 2 options, but will Sony update the 12-24mm F4 soon? The Power Zoom is tempting but is it essential or any of these even the fix lens can do dolly zoom just fine? And can I set profile for each lens so the pic&vid took by the golden look Tamron lenses and cooler look Sony lenses will look consistent? 14mm is better with the A7RV's cropped 4K60 with active stabilisation?
To be fair, you are asking about a specific scenario outside the level of my expertise. I don't know that setting a profile in your camera, though if you shoot in LOG you can probably develop a LUT that would match colors fairly well. If you are planning to have a 2x crop for your shots, the wider the better, so I think if you're willing to spend the money, you probably should go for the Sony 12-24. It's the most exceptional lens on your list and has the advantage of still giving you a fairly wide angle of view even with a 2x crop.
I see, yeah, I think you are right about picking the 12-24mm as my everyday and ultrawide lens, F4 is enough for me, I think you don't express much in your videos but you do know what's good! But do you think Sony will release a mark 2 version of this soon because it release in same 2017 time as the 16-35 GM and it got updated with a mark 2 months ago, should I buy the Tamron 50-400 first and wait or get that 12-24mm together too?
@@DustinAbbottTWI first, thanks a lot fir ur reply n revire...I m thinking of getting the tamron 17 50 f4 with the tamron 50 400 for landscape and architecture , I m under the impression that the tamron 17 28 is sharper
Hi there Dustin! I'd like to ask for your input regarding this lens or the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, image quality wise I'd say they're pretty much just as good and thus negligeable as a point of comparison. What I wonder is, would getting this tamron be a good idea if I were to look for a better corner to corner sharpness compared to aforementioned sigma? since whilst it does show distortions and vignette on the corners at ff, it will be cropped in whereas the sigma lens shows that on aps-c. *atm I'm on a Sony A6000 body Thank you as always for the thorough review Dustin, may you have a good day!
Interesting question. The Tamron would be much larger, and has a slower maximum aperture, but does have a better build, more features, and should have slightly better IQ.
Your testing chart seems to be too small for wide angle lens testing. It's probably about 30" diagonal. That means at 17mm end you are shooting from a distance of about 12". Lenses do not perform as well at close distance as at infinity. You need a significantly bigger chart.
My chart is actually 43" on the diagonal, so it is fairly large. Getting a larger one would be difficult, as mine is already custom made and expensive, and trying to get one with high enough resolution at a larger size than that would really get expensive.
@@DustinAbbottTWI One solution is to put several charts side by side on a flat surface. I don't have several charts so I simply take separate pictures of my 50" chart moving it to the center and to the corners. I'm having more trouble with long (400mm+) lenses as I don't have big enough room at home.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'm using it on sony a7 iii the video is very noisy and pixelated even in daylight. Not sure if my lens is defective or if I messed up some setting. Have you used the nd filters ?
Isn't a 12-24 far superior for interior use? And f/4~f/8 is still required for DoF unless focus stacking (which only 1 camera in the entire E-mount can do).
This video is sponsored by Gadget Discovery Club. Visit www.gadgetdiscoveryclub.com/dustinabbott and use code "dustinabbott" to get $20/ £20 / $20 CAD off
I really like that Tamron keeps coming up with lenses that have unique focal length ranges. 17-50 is an incredibly useful range.
You're still my favorite lens reviewer especially for Sony FE ones! Thanks a lot for all you do!
My pleasure!
Well covered. It’s really hard to beat the value of any of the Tamron zoom lenses, I also like that they tend to be lighter, on average.
unlike other reviewer ,yours always clear & comprehensive & photo centric .Thanks
I’d take this any day over a 24-70 F4. Having the extra range on the wide end is more useful than 50-70 on the long end. A 17-50 with a 70-200 is a nice 2 lens kit.
Fair enough.
I was just thinking, this lens paired with the new Tamron 50-300
How does this compare to the 20-40? Which would you prefer for real estate weddings if I own a 24-105/35mm f1.4/85mm f1.8/70-180?
Great review as usual.
Now anxiously waiting for comparison video with 20-70. Also, between the two, which one would be your pick?
This seems like a great "do it all" lens for my use case mainly focusing on landscapes and travel photos. I've been using the Sony 24-105 f4 for some years now as my only lens. Would have loved to see how this Tamron manages photographing night sky. I've taken some nice northern light photos with the 24-105 but have often wished for something wider.
Still waiting on a review of the Sony 16-35mm f/4 PZ. I’d love to see it compared to the new 16-35mm GM II.
Thank you for the review! I cancelled my preorder, because I wasn’t sure it performed well (some said it was a kit lens kind of performer), but now I see it’s an unbelievable offer. For real estate, Airbnb, interiors especially
It's definitely far from a kit lens in performance.
They need to drop that 17-28 g2 already, first one is good but it's also nothing more then good, I use that lens for around 30-40% of my wedding videos
This plus 35-150
Nicee combo
Definitely.
This lens is really nice. I’ve been using it for stills. Impressed by the depth of field at f4
It's great to have a lot in focus with a lens like this wide open when shooting at the wide end.
Tamron really is giving the sony platform such a variety of zoom ranges. And the functional design combined with software customization really works as workhouse lenses. Combined with the 50-400 one gets such a range & with a high res sensor even more reach. The sony 2 lens version is 20-70 & then 70-200 at a significantly higher price. Earlier Tamron had their 2.8 set but now that the newer cameras have so much better light sensitivity & ibis they have developed slower but with more range quality optics. One can also mix and match with fast primes. Very versatile range!
Thank you for the review! MFT had lenses like this (Oly 8-25) and they are fantastic for lightweight video/photos, landscape or travel and street in a city. It was a big selling point for that system IMHO. f4 makes much more sense on full frame though, not a pro lens but a fun one!
Oh wow, early review of this lens! Great get!
Great video as usual. Looking forward to your review of the Sigma 10-18mm.
Great Review, Thanks ! You seem to have chances on your unit. I had to send mine back as the corners were really soft !
I think you're the first to give that kind of feedback, so hopefully the copy you got is the exception to the rule.
This may just become my go to Real-Estate lens and Landscape lens!
Thank you Dustin. I was waiting for your review. It looks like it is a keeper. I have the 17-28 and was thinking about upgrading to the 20-40 for better focal range. Now I have another contender in the mix!! This and the 50-400 would probably be the only lenses I will need for a two-lens landscape kit.
The f4 is not comparable at all
@@buzzj89 f/2.8 is not necessary for landscapes. And f/4 is not a concern with modern full frame sensors. I still shoot f/5.6 in the dark if I need the DoF.
@@buzzj89 What do you mean by comparable? Which lens?
For many landscape uses f/4 is enough. @@buzzj89
Another great review, thanks. Other reviewers have said it is quite soft in the corners?
Also, it would be great to have an updated video on lens choice for the E mount, as so many interesting lenses since your last ‘my kit bag’ type video. Do you go for the Sony trinity of lenses, should the 35-150 tamron be in the bag & which ultra-wide angle or telephoto to add. Be really interested in your views for this now!
Thanks for the amazing reviews….definately a go to channel when a new lens comes out - thanks
Oh diffuicult this one or the sony 16-35 f4 pz. I have the 17-28 and it is great but i am looking for something with a bit more reach, so i have more over lap and having to change a lens a bit less. Sometimes i now use my old beloved canon ef 17-40 but it holds not up that well on more then 24mpix. 20-70 is not wide enough. What would you choose? 16-35 f4 pz or this new tamron?
(Ps mostly photography)
same situation: what i'm worried is distorsion (also if corrected) at 16 and 17mm. The 16-35 f4 G cost a lot, considering 7mm more only. I'm more oriented to this tamron or adding a 24-70. But adding a 24-70 doesn't help to my always change lens between 20mm (of tamron 17-28) and 45mm (of my samyang). So i don't know. Dustin abbott answer me that optically is on par to 17-28.
Every zoom lens Tamron makes is sharp and their colors are the best on the emount system in my opinion
That's music to Tamron's ears.
Cross shopping the Tamron 17-50 f/4 with the Sony 20-70 f/4 is probably the right call. For landscapes, I find the Sony lens to be about the perfect focal length.
However. The Tamron 17-50 is a lot cheaper, internal zooming, a little lighter…. And for people who also pack an APS-C body, this wouldn’t be half bad for that application either. The Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 would be a smarter buy for most people if APS-C is primary, but if it’s a B-Cam and I want a lens for both cameras, I can’t complain.
Biggest perk for myself I think? I run two bodies, an A7RV and A6700. I think this 17-50 on the A7RV and the Tamron 50-400 on the A6700 would basically cover all the shooting I do most of the time.
That said, the 16-35 power zoom is a compelling alternative, but that is considerably more expensive (though common enough to find used)
Planning to get this lens for my architectural work, but that complex distortion is a deal breaker
Just wanted to say thank you!
While I like and own several Tamron lens, I find it frustrating they still do not incorporate the AFMF switch into their lens.
Now it’s a programmable button
Hello, is this lens the same optical quality as 17-28 f/2.8 or it's more a kit lens?
The optical quality is on par with the 17-28mm
You are the first one with a good review, all others I saw so far are telling very bad edge performance at all focal length..mh iam confused
You can see my results clearly in my tests here, so I can only comment on what I see, not what others see.
Is the corrected image at the wide end a true 17mm, or is it only with the uncorrected image you get the full 17mm?
It's a true 17mm. Most lens makers leave room for correction, so it is actually wider than 17mm uncorrected.
@@DustinAbbottTWI many thanks
I thing it is about time for Tamron to offer affordable f4 lenses also, like 17-28, 28-75 and 70-180. It would be interesting to see an f4 lineup.
50-200 f/4 would pair perfectly with 17-50.
I would love a small 35-150 f/4
14:38
A bit funny after talking so much about the macro reproduction. With my Sigma 18-50 DC DN I found that is the area where those longitudinal CA are rather jarring sometimes.
But yeah I guess there was so little of it, thats what that comment meant. Certainly less than my 18-50.
Not being par focal, I would personally be opting for the Sony.
Fair enough.
could you do an article or video on the top lens that youve used. Could go as big or small as youd like, best for categories w budget nomination, or best 3 lens total, most memeorable? what you grab?
I really really like your videos, both the definitive and the shorter. Watch them both, haha.
I do have "if I could only have one lens" episode planned along with my top choices for 2023.
That would be fantastic. All these CZcams in my bag videos.
But, the guy that uses and reviews exactly that.... It would mean alot to likely....most of your viewers. If even just a talking head, gear that makes sense, gear that left an impression, gear for budget or situation. Gear you use by choice, or what would you buy if you were the average.
You could even do like a live stream, schedule it ahead of time, and I will be there. And that's not normally a thing I'm into.
Which one is better in the 17-28 range compared to Tamron 17-28/2.8?
Hello Dustin, due to distorsion, once corretted, it's a real 17mm?
If you had to choose, between this and 16-35 f4 G Pz, which one is better (not considering the 15 mm less)
On Dustin's text review he says the Tamron goes as wide as 103°41′ , which is pretty close to a true 17mm. 17mm is supposed to be 104°. 16mm 107°. 18mm 100°. So how much is the difference b/t 103°41' and 107°? Probably not as significant as the difference between 63° vs 47° (35mm vs 50mm) on the long end. 3.5° gain on the wide end but 16° loss on the long end. Seems to me the only advantage to the 16-35 pz for photo (not video) is the size/weight difference.
@@2ramona959 when i was asking about which one is better i was talking about quality, sharpness.. contrast.. . Anyway, from 35 to 50 is not so small difference
Yes, the Tamron is very close to a true 17mm. I haven't actually reviewed the 16-35mm, so I can't answer that question.
Спасибо большое за обзор. Классное видео!
говно ревью, эта линза меняет яркость при зуме, не для видео, 0.7 stop
I plan to get A7RV with Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 (crop 2X to 800mm), should I pair it with a Sony 12-24mm F4 or 14mm F1.8 (crop to 28mm F3.6 DOF) as ultrawide and everyday lens if I use them mainly for photo and for video mainly with Panasonic HC-X1500 25-600mm camcorder? I was deciding between these and Loawa 10-18, Sigma 14-24 F2.8, Sony 16-35 F4 PZ, Tamron 17-50 F4 and Sony 20 F1.8 but I think >=30mm can covered with few steps back on the tele lens's 50mm, F2.8 is just slight better than F4 hence better get faster lens if I really need that, 17&16mm might not wide enough for indoor, this is why I reduced to these 2 options, but will Sony update the 12-24mm F4 soon? The Power Zoom is tempting but is it essential or any of these even the fix lens can do dolly zoom just fine? And can I set profile for each lens so the pic&vid took by the golden look Tamron lenses and cooler look Sony lenses will look consistent? 14mm is better with the A7RV's cropped 4K60 with active stabilisation?
To be fair, you are asking about a specific scenario outside the level of my expertise. I don't know that setting a profile in your camera, though if you shoot in LOG you can probably develop a LUT that would match colors fairly well. If you are planning to have a 2x crop for your shots, the wider the better, so I think if you're willing to spend the money, you probably should go for the Sony 12-24. It's the most exceptional lens on your list and has the advantage of still giving you a fairly wide angle of view even with a 2x crop.
I see, yeah, I think you are right about picking the 12-24mm as my everyday and ultrawide lens, F4 is enough for me, I think you don't express much in your videos but you do know what's good! But do you think Sony will release a mark 2 version of this soon because it release in same 2017 time as the 16-35 GM and it got updated with a mark 2 months ago, should I buy the Tamron 50-400 first and wait or get that 12-24mm together too?
is this lens sharper then the sony 50mm f2.5 G or the sigma 50mm f2?
Not at equivalent apertures.
Hey would you advise this or the tamron 17-28
That depends on your needs. Do you need an F2.8 or more zoom range?
@@DustinAbbottTWI first, thanks a lot fir ur reply n revire...I m thinking of getting the tamron 17 50 f4 with the tamron 50 400 for landscape and architecture , I m under the impression that the tamron 17 28 is sharper
Hi there Dustin! I'd like to ask for your input regarding this lens or the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, image quality wise I'd say they're pretty much just as good and thus negligeable as a point of comparison. What I wonder is, would getting this tamron be a good idea if I were to look for a better corner to corner sharpness compared to aforementioned sigma? since whilst it does show distortions and vignette on the corners at ff, it will be cropped in whereas the sigma lens shows that on aps-c.
*atm I'm on a Sony A6000 body
Thank you as always for the thorough review Dustin, may you have a good day!
Interesting question. The Tamron would be much larger, and has a slower maximum aperture, but does have a better build, more features, and should have slightly better IQ.
Downside: is f4. F2.8 is needed, please
An F2.8 lens with this kind of zoom range would be very large or otherwise very optically compromised.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Well, sony has it.
@@rogeriogomesosorio4755full frame with AF?!? If you have seen such a lens for Sony, please post a link!
If you need 2.8 you can choose a modestly narrower zoom range; 16-35 or 20-40. This 17-50 trades more range for slower max aperture.
@@rogeriogomesosorio4755 Doesn't that cost 3x this lens as well?
Your testing chart seems to be too small for wide angle lens testing. It's probably about 30" diagonal. That means at 17mm end you are shooting from a distance of about 12". Lenses do not perform as well at close distance as at infinity. You need a significantly bigger chart.
My chart is actually 43" on the diagonal, so it is fairly large. Getting a larger one would be difficult, as mine is already custom made and expensive, and trying to get one with high enough resolution at a larger size than that would really get expensive.
@@DustinAbbottTWI One solution is to put several charts side by side on a flat surface. I don't have several charts so I simply take separate pictures of my 50" chart moving it to the center and to the corners. I'm having more trouble with long (400mm+) lenses as I don't have big enough room at home.
@@USGrant21st I've got a much smaller chart for telephotos. It helps to condense the amount of room needed.
Just don't get why they would make this when we have the 17-70 F/2.8
The 17-70mm F2.8 is an APS-C lens; this is a full frame lens. 17mm on full frame is MUCH wider than 17mm on APS-C (about 28mm full frame equivalent)
@DustinAbbottTWI I get where your coming from. Socks they made it F4 and not 2.8
Purchased this lens. Its very bad for video work.
And why is that? I didn't find that to be the case at all.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'm using it on sony a7 iii the video is very noisy and pixelated even in daylight. Not sure if my lens is defective or if I messed up some setting. Have you used the nd filters ?
@@user-si5hg6vj4hnoise and pixeling doesn’t come from the lens. You sure about your camera settings?
Tamron needs a 15-35 f2-2.8. I don't understand a 17-50 f4, 17 isn't wide wide enough imo and f4 hurts interior capability.
Isn't a 12-24 far superior for interior use? And f/4~f/8 is still required for DoF unless focus stacking (which only 1 camera in the entire E-mount can do).
Buzz... people in hell would like ice water, lol 😂