Tamron 17-28mm user experience

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
EarthQuake Senior Member • Posts: 2,876
Re: Tamron 17-28mm user experience
1

SimonOL wrote:

I'm planning on buying an UWA zoom for my A7Rii and have almost decided to get the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8. According to numerous reviews, the image quality seems pretty decent, the 2.8 aperture would be useful and the ability to use standard screw-on filters is appealing as is the reasonable cost relative to other UWA zooms.

I've noticed a few comments that suggest that AF may not be entirely reliable, distortion is quite pronounced and coma at the edges of the frame can be an issue for astro photography which I'd like to try one day. Are these things that you've experienced issues with.

I'm also attracted to the new Sigma 14-24mm 2.8 which seems to provide slightly better IQ but I don't think I regularly need to go that wide so not sure if the downsides - additional cost, larger size and weight and inability to easily use front-mounted filters - would outweigh the benefits for me.

Does anyone have first hand experience using both lenses? Which one would you buy?

I've got the 17-28mm 2.8 and think it is a fantastic lens.

AF in general seems reliable, it struggles in the same situations on my A7 III that my other Sony lenses (35/1.8, 35/2.8, 85/1.8) struggle, namely in very low light with low contrast. I don't have either Sony 16-35mm lens to compare it to so I don't know if the AF is any better or worse. AF is very quiet and works well in video.

The distortion is noticeable if you go looking for it, but not much issue in real world use. You can clean it up in post for shots where it is problematic.

Image quality overall is very good.

I haven't used it for astro so can't comment there.

It's an exceptionally light weight lens for this class (2.8 ultra wide). The build quality is good. Yes, it's made of plastic, but that's why the weight is so light. It's the perfect UWA for traveling. Some will complain about the build quality - I would say if you think good build means really heavy and a metal vanity shell covering the lens (with a plastic interior, as pretty much all modern lenses have), you might be disappointed. But if you're looking for relatively small and lightweight option, it's the best choice in the system.

I wish it went to 15 or 16mm, that's my only complaint. 17mm is good enough for most things, but as others said, you can never go too wide. If you think 17mm won't be wide enough, I would consider the Sony 12-24/4 in addition to the Sigma 14-24mm.

One final positive here is that since it's limited to 17mm, it can take standard 67mm filters. If you want a zoom that gets significantly wider, you're going to have to resort to a third party filter adapter system (if you use filters).

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow