Reading mode: Light Dark

Tamron 17-70 vs Fuji 16-80

Go to last post
I think even the most ardent fans of the 16-80 (and I include myself in that) would concede it is not terribly sharp at f4.

As someone else pointed out, the 16-55 is a better comparison. The Tamron and the 16-80 share nothing bar a broadly similar focal range. They are in totally different price brackets and dimensions & weight are quite a bit apart.

However, if these lenses must be compared at least do it at f5.6.
 
MiroLx said:
ZapperVT said:
Craig268 said:
pictograph said:
For me the Fuji seems to have the much better and natural colors, the Tamron too much greenish touch.

for me this „test“ is very biased towards the Tamron and for me it seems much fairer to compare the Tamron with the xf 16-55 since the 16-80 is not the best choice of the existing zooms at all if sharpness is your first priority.

Interesting that the TO did not mention the extremely disturbing ghosting of the Tamron which is well documented by others.

for me personally this „test“ is just irrelevant for deeper evaluation for those who are about to make a decision for a purchase, especially since the „test“ shows just one single scene…

cheers
Click to expand...
Exactly, off the cuff tests aren't statistically significant because of small sample size and lack of control.
Click to expand...
Every lens test published is invalid by those standards. Except those from LensRentals, who have a sample size of 10, and custom calibrated measurement apparatus.
Click to expand...
I do not get these negative comments. Looks like comparing lenses at this forum is dangerous job...
Click to expand...
Do it correctly and there will be complements for the correct approach. Should we sit back and allow incorrect comparisons affect the purchasing choices of those that are just learning?

Morris
 
GMacF said:
I think even the most ardent fans of the 16-80 (and I include myself in that) would concede it is not terribly sharp at f4.

As someone else pointed out, the 16-55 is a better comparison. The Tamron and the 16-80 share nothing bar a broadly similar focal range. They are in totally different price brackets and dimensions & weight are quite a bit apart.

However, if these lenses must be compared at least do it at f5.6.
Click to expand...
Better, do it a a broad range of apertures on a flat surface. Then show in the field comparisons.

It's a lot of work yet it's what is useful

Morris
 
ZapperVT said:
Craig268 said:
pictograph said:
For me the Fuji seems to have the much better and natural colors, the Tamron too much greenish touch.

for me this „test“ is very biased towards the Tamron and for me it seems much fairer to compare the Tamron with the xf 16-55 since the 16-80 is not the best choice of the existing zooms at all if sharpness is your first priority.

Interesting that the TO did not mention the extremely disturbing ghosting of the Tamron which is well documented by others.

for me personally this „test“ is just irrelevant for deeper evaluation for those who are about to make a decision for a purchase, especially since the „test“ shows just one single scene…

cheers
Click to expand...
Exactly, off the cuff tests aren't statistically significant because of small sample size and lack of control.
Click to expand...
Every lens test published is invalid by those standards. Except those from LensRentals, who have a sample size of 10, and custom calibrated measurement apparatus.
Click to expand...
And yes, bingo - you are correct. That is a fact: individual bench tests are relevant only for the tested lens but empirically may then be extrapolated to apply to lenses of that particular model.
 
Last edited:
It is colour fringing so bad that it has ruled out that lens for me. I don't recall seeing worse, I wonder if it is defective.
 
Morris0 said:
GMacF said:
I think even the most ardent fans of the 16-80 (and I include myself in that) would concede it is not terribly sharp at f4.

As someone else pointed out, the 16-55 is a better comparison. The Tamron and the 16-80 share nothing bar a broadly similar focal range. They are in totally different price brackets and dimensions & weight are quite a bit apart.

However, if these lenses must be compared at least do it at f5.6.
Click to expand...
Better, do it a a broad range of apertures on a flat surface. Then show in the field comparisons.

It's a lot of work yet it's what is useful

Morris
Click to expand...
Totally agree. I should have said f5.6 and beyond.
 
Last edited:
This is not "TEST", this is my comparison, I bought a Tamron and took some photos on the way from the store. Another 16-80 vs Tamron, because I have one, or actually I had it, because it goes on sale. Fuji in the corners has fallen disgracefully, I know we praise what we have and what we have is the best is it so objective? No nerves with greetings.
 
GMacF said:
I think even the most ardent fans of the 16-80 (and I include myself in that) would concede it is not terribly sharp at f4.

As someone else pointed out, the 16-55 is a better comparison. The Tamron and the 16-80 share nothing bar a broadly similar focal range. They are in totally different price brackets and dimensions & weight are quite a bit apart.
Click to expand...
Huh?

Fuji 16-55: $1199 / 655g

Fuji 16-80: $799 / 440g

Tamron 17-70: $799 / 525g

The Tamron is exactly the same price as the 16-80 (in USD) while the 16-55 is $400 more. It is closer in weight to the 16-80 than the 16-55: 85g more than the 16-80, 130g less than the 16-55.
GMacF said:
However, if these lenses must be compared at least do it at f5.6.
Click to expand...
Well, no. The reason to buy an f/2.8 lens is so you can use it at f/2.8. Most lenses are tolerably good at f/5.6, but many aren't so good wide open.
 
Last edited:
MiroLx said:
ZapperVT said:
Craig268 said:
pictograph said:
For me the Fuji seems to have the much better and natural colors, the Tamron too much greenish touch.

for me this „test“ is very biased towards the Tamron and for me it seems much fairer to compare the Tamron with the xf 16-55 since the 16-80 is not the best choice of the existing zooms at all if sharpness is your first priority.

Interesting that the TO did not mention the extremely disturbing ghosting of the Tamron which is well documented by others.

for me personally this „test“ is just irrelevant for deeper evaluation for those who are about to make a decision for a purchase, especially since the „test“ shows just one single scene…

cheers
Click to expand...
Exactly, off the cuff tests aren't statistically significant because of small sample size and lack of control.
Click to expand...
Every lens test published is invalid by those standards. Except those from LensRentals, who have a sample size of 10, and custom calibrated measurement apparatus.
Click to expand...
I do not get these negative comments. Looks like comparing lenses at this forum is dangerous job...
Click to expand...
It's the same at any of the brand specific forums. The brand fans will demand scientific rigor, but only when their brand suffers in comparison.
 
35mm Fuji 5.6

a810848fb083450ab2745083ea0577f4.jpg

Tamron 35 5.6

9357f521ebe84994aaf09530e906b5d3.jpg

In my opinion, Fuji recedes at 35, but it's not as drastic as at 16-17mm
 
ZapperVT said:
MiroLx said:
ZapperVT said:
Craig268 said:
pictograph said:
For me the Fuji seems to have the much better and natural colors, the Tamron too much greenish touch.

for me this „test“ is very biased towards the Tamron and for me it seems much fairer to compare the Tamron with the xf 16-55 since the 16-80 is not the best choice of the existing zooms at all if sharpness is your first priority.

Interesting that the TO did not mention the extremely disturbing ghosting of the Tamron which is well documented by others.

for me personally this „test“ is just irrelevant for deeper evaluation for those who are about to make a decision for a purchase, especially since the „test“ shows just one single scene…

cheers
Click to expand...
Exactly, off the cuff tests aren't statistically significant because of small sample size and lack of control.
Click to expand...
Every lens test published is invalid by those standards. Except those from LensRentals, who have a sample size of 10, and custom calibrated measurement apparatus.
Click to expand...
I do not get these negative comments. Looks like comparing lenses at this forum is dangerous job...
Click to expand...
It's the same at any of the brand specific forums. The brand fans will demand scientific rigor, but only when their brand suffers in comparison.
Click to expand...
And then there are those who say others must be brand fans because they want some rigor in a test
 
Just for my own information, you were already unhappy with the Fuji lens before you bought the Tamron?
 
There's a big difference at the edges though. Compare the football goal net at the left hand side for example. What was the focus point in these images?
 
marcin255 said:
Fuji 16 F4

44dc951058c3450a9b3d3fd5e9f3db41.jpg

Tamron 17 F2,8

ac43caf2e3ac4906b73ddb5f22b4d1cc.jpg

Tamron 17 F4

e28e816f482b4af980c23b38a55fffde.jpg
Click to expand...
Are you sure these were focused in the same place? The Fuji looks to have been focused further out. Anyway, the Tamron seems to be significantly sharper than the 16-80 (this copy anyway), but with a noticeably cooler color rendering, I'd be curious if that was just an AWB anomaly, or if it really is that much cooler(a fixed WB should be used to determine if this is the case) . Too bad about the significant purple fringing, I hate that, not something I ever see to this degree with my 16-55.
 
robert1955 said:
ZapperVT said:
MiroLx said:
ZapperVT said:
Craig268 said:
pictograph said:
For me the Fuji seems to have the much better and natural colors, the Tamron too much greenish touch.

for me this „test“ is very biased towards the Tamron and for me it seems much fairer to compare the Tamron with the xf 16-55 since the 16-80 is not the best choice of the existing zooms at all if sharpness is your first priority.

Interesting that the TO did not mention the extremely disturbing ghosting of the Tamron which is well documented by others.

for me personally this „test“ is just irrelevant for deeper evaluation for those who are about to make a decision for a purchase, especially since the „test“ shows just one single scene…

cheers
Click to expand...
Exactly, off the cuff tests aren't statistically significant because of small sample size and lack of control.
Click to expand...
Every lens test published is invalid by those standards. Except those from LensRentals, who have a sample size of 10, and custom calibrated measurement apparatus.
Click to expand...
I do not get these negative comments. Looks like comparing lenses at this forum is dangerous job...
Click to expand...
It's the same at any of the brand specific forums. The brand fans will demand scientific rigor, but only when their brand suffers in comparison.
Click to expand...
And then there are those who say others must be brand fans because they want some rigor in a test
Click to expand...
It's always nice when someone else invests a lot of time testing a lens very carefully and rigorously and showing the results to everyone. I really appreciate that. I also appreciate it when someone does a quick comparison like the OP and shows the results. Actually I think images like these are more informative than test chart images, because they are similar to how I use walk-around lenses like these. I spend zero time shooting perfectly flat objects, perpendicular to the optical axis of my camera, and at short range!
 
Erik Baumgartner said:
marcin255 said:
Fuji 16 F4

44dc951058c3450a9b3d3fd5e9f3db41.jpg

Tamron 17 F2,8

ac43caf2e3ac4906b73ddb5f22b4d1cc.jpg

Tamron 17 F4

e28e816f482b4af980c23b38a55fffde.jpg
Click to expand...
Are you sure these were focused in the same place? The Fuji looks to have been focused further out. Anyway, the Tamron seems to be significantly sharper than the 16-80 (this copy anyway), but with a noticeably cooler color rendering, I'd be curious if that was just an AWB anomaly, or if it really is that much cooler(a fixed WB should be used to determine if this is the case) . Too bad about the significant purple fringing, I hate that, not something I ever see to this degree with my 16-55.
Click to expand...
36 / 5 000

Wyniki tłumaczenia

star_border
same AF point at the same location
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Best Travel Zoom for 40mp Fuji?
Replies
15
Views
45
MrAndreas
MrAndreas
F
Tamron 17-70 vs Fuji 16 - 80
2
Replies
27
Views
30
baobob
baobob
J
Distortion control - Tamron 17-70
Replies
6
Views
8
Jackpot101
J
Tom in AR
Tamron 18-300mm w/X-T5?
Replies
3
Views
4
GreatOceanSoftware
GreatOceanSoftware
Lettermanian
  • Question Question
16-50 vs 16-80 close focus at their long ends?
Replies
13
Views
61
FSch
F

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top