Reading mode: Light Dark

Tamron 17-70 vs Fuji 16-80

Go to last post
balco said:
Woof, Comments here are as interesting as the comparison! Appreciate the OP taking the time to post the pictures. I’m intrigued by the tamron but more for a potential replacement for the 16-55 on my x-t3....but damn I love my 16-55. Seems almost perfect to me but still might try the 17-70 to satisfy my curiosity. On the other hand, I don’t care who this upsets but the 16-80 is a dog of a lens. Unless I got 3 useless copies, it can’t even compete with the 18-55 I have or the 18-135 I used to have. Will never touch that lens again unless it drops to the $300 range used some day. Again thanks to the OP for posting this, pardon the tough crowd.
Click to expand...
As an owner of both 18-55 and 16-80, my experience has been the opposite of yours. The 18-55 never gave me the image quality of the 16-80. There’s so much copy variation in these two lenses, that generalizations are practically useless.
 
Last edited:
In case anyone is wondering about FOV at wide angle, the difference between the two lenses, once corrected, is very small. With the 16-80 higher barrel distortion at 16 mm, the corrected effective lens focal length is about 17.1 mm. In the case of the Tamron, the corrected 17 mm focal length is about 17.5 mm so less than the nominal 1 mm difference due to it's lower barrel distortion than the Fuji.
 
Compare them at f2.8… oh, you can't.

Fuji has made 5 standard zooms and Tamron makes one with the best of each of them.
 
fernandojval said:
Compare them at f2.8… oh, you can't.

Fuji has made 5 standard zooms and Tamron makes one with the best of each of them.
Click to expand...
If it really had the best of all of them it would also have an aperature ring.
 
Last edited:
White-collar said:
fernandojval said:
Compare them at f2.8… oh, you can't.

Fuji has made 5 standard zooms and Tamron makes one with the best of each of them.
Click to expand...
If it really had the best of all of them it would also have an aperature ring.
Click to expand...
My 55-200 has an aperture ring "by wire" which I suppose makes sense for a variable aperture zoom. If nothing else, it would be good for the Tamron to at least have that. But this lens was designed for Sony E-mount and I don't know if Sony uses aperture control by wire on their zooms. Anyone know?

Regardless, it's not a big deal to assign aperture control to the front or back control dial.
 
Jim in Hudson said:
White-collar said:
fernandojval said:
Compare them at f2.8… oh, you can't.

Fuji has made 5 standard zooms and Tamron makes one with the best of each of them.
Click to expand...
If it really had the best of all of them it would also have an aperature ring.
Click to expand...
My 55-200 has an aperture ring "by wire" which I suppose makes sense for a variable aperture zoom. If nothing else, it would be good for the Tamron to at least have that. But this lens was designed for Sony E-mount and I don't know if Sony uses aperture control by wire on their zooms. Anyone know?

Regardless, it's not a big deal to assign aperture control to the front or back control dial.
Click to expand...
I currently don't use any lenses without aperture rings and do use my command dials for other things. The Tamron looks to be a very nice lens, but I won't be trading in my 16-55 anytime soon. I'm sure I could manage without an aperture ring, but I don't want to. Not too keen on giving up any wide end either, 16mm is often "just' enough.
 
DJF55 said:
DJF55 said:
Jim in Hudson wrote

Regardless, it's not a big deal to assign aperture control to the front or back control dial.
Click to expand...
Unless some other setting has been assigned to same.
Click to expand...
You can assign more than one function to the control dials. Just push them in to instantly toggle.
 
Erik Baumgartner said:
Jim in Hudson said:
White-collar said:
fernandojval said:
Compare them at f2.8… oh, you can't.

Fuji has made 5 standard zooms and Tamron makes one with the best of each of them.
Click to expand...
If it really had the best of all of them it would also have an aperature ring.
Click to expand...
My 55-200 has an aperture ring "by wire" which I suppose makes sense for a variable aperture zoom. If nothing else, it would be good for the Tamron to at least have that. But this lens was designed for Sony E-mount and I don't know if Sony uses aperture control by wire on their zooms. Anyone know?

Regardless, it's not a big deal to assign aperture control to the front or back control dial.
Click to expand...
I currently don't use any lenses without aperture rings and do use my command dials for other things. The Tamron looks to be a very nice lens, but I won't be trading in my 16-55 anytime soon. I'm sure I could manage without an aperture ring, but I don't want to. Not too keen on giving up any wide end either, 16mm is often "just' enough.
Click to expand...
Exactly my thoughts.
 
Erik Baumgartner said:
Jim in Hudson said:
White-collar said:
fernandojval said:
Compare them at f2.8… oh, you can't.

Fuji has made 5 standard zooms and Tamron makes one with the best of each of them.
Click to expand...
If it really had the best of all of them it would also have an aperature ring.
Click to expand...
My 55-200 has an aperture ring "by wire" which I suppose makes sense for a variable aperture zoom. If nothing else, it would be good for the Tamron to at least have that. But this lens was designed for Sony E-mount and I don't know if Sony uses aperture control by wire on their zooms. Anyone know?

Regardless, it's not a big deal to assign aperture control to the front or back control dial.
Click to expand...
I currently don't use any lenses without aperture rings and do use my command dials for other things. The Tamron looks to be a very nice lens, but I won't be trading in my 16-55 anytime soon. I'm sure I could manage without an aperture ring, but I don't want to. Not too keen on giving up any wide end either, 16mm is often "just' enough.
Click to expand...
The question of the thread is whether you'd rather use the Fuji 16-80/4 or the Tamron 17-70/2.8. What does the 16-55 have to do with this?
 
Jim in Hudson said:
Erik Baumgartner said:
Jim in Hudson said:
White-collar said:
fernandojval said:
Compare them at f2.8… oh, you can't.

Fuji has made 5 standard zooms and Tamron makes one with the best of each of them.
Click to expand...
If it really had the best of all of them it would also have an aperature ring.
Click to expand...
My 55-200 has an aperture ring "by wire" which I suppose makes sense for a variable aperture zoom. If nothing else, it would be good for the Tamron to at least have that. But this lens was designed for Sony E-mount and I don't know if Sony uses aperture control by wire on their zooms. Anyone know?

Regardless, it's not a big deal to assign aperture control to the front or back control dial.
Click to expand...
I currently don't use any lenses without aperture rings and do use my command dials for other things. The Tamron looks to be a very nice lens, but I won't be trading in my 16-55 anytime soon. I'm sure I could manage without an aperture ring, but I don't want to. Not too keen on giving up any wide end either, 16mm is often "just' enough.
Click to expand...
The question of the thread is whether you'd rather use the Fuji 16-80/4 or the Tamron 17-70/2.8. What does the 16-55 have to do with this?
Click to expand...
"This" had become a discussion about aperture rings. Like the 16-80, The 16-55 has one.

Other than the unfortunate aperture ring issue, from what I've seen, the Tamron is likely a better lens overall than most copies of the 16-80 and is probably a better contender for the 16-55's spot in the line up.
 
Erik Baumgartner said:
Jim in Hudson said:
The question of the thread is whether you'd rather use the Fuji 16-80/4 or the Tamron 17-70/2.8. What does the 16-55 have to do with this?
Click to expand...
"This" had become a discussion about aperture rings. Like the 16-80, The 16-55 has one.

Other than the unfortunate aperture ring issue, from what I've seen, the Tamron is likely a better lens overall than most copies of the 16-80 and is probably a better contender for the 16-55's spot in the line up.
Click to expand...
Totally agreed. IQ and aperture-wise, the 17-70/2.8 should be directly compared to the 16-55/2.8, not the 16-80/4.

The 17-70 has OIS but doesn't have the aperture ring, a plus on non-IBIS bodies, but a minus otherwise.

The 16-80 seems to be in the lower tier: 18-55, 18-135, 55-200, ...
 
Last edited:
DJF55 said:
sluggy_warrior said:
The 17-70 has OIS but doesn't have the aperture ring, a plus on non-IBIS bodies, but a minus ototherwise.
Click to expand...
That is an argument that is not clear to me. Would therefore be interested in the reasoning. Thx.
Click to expand...
The 16-55/2.8:
- no OIS: hard to take slow shots without IBIS (e.g. XH-1, X-T4)
+ has aperture ring

The 17-70/2.8:
+ has OIS: doesn't need IBIS
- no aperture ring
 
sluggy_warrior said:
DJF55 said:
sluggy_warrior said:
The 17-70 has OIS but doesn't have the aperture ring, a plus on non-IBIS bodies, but a minus ototherwise.
Click to expand...
That is an argument that is not clear to me. Would therefore be interested in the reasoning. Thx.
Click to expand...
The 16-55/2.8:
- no OIS: hard to take slow shots without IBIS (e.g. XH-1, X-T4)
+ has aperture ring

The 17-70/2.8:
+ has OIS: doesn't need IBIS
- no aperture ring
Click to expand...
Aperture ring yes or no and IBIS yes or no are as far as I know in no way related, for my photography. The argument that I am asking for is therefore still not provided - you are stating known facts but nothing else. Sorry to be blunt now.
 
I can see that we are getting into absurdities. Whats up there .. Tamron has a 67mm filter and Fuji has a 72mm filter. And ...?
 
These debates always end thus. People run out of things to say but still have the urge. As you can see from this posting.
 
marcin255 said:
I was happy with Fuji until I read https://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-17-70mm-f-2-8-di-iii-a-vc-rxd-fujifilm-x-mount-lens- review-36071 and compared on the same page to Fuji16-80. In the charts, Fuji was getting spanked in focus, I decided to check and Tamron is not coming back to the store.
Click to expand...
It's hard to understand how it could be happy with such shots. It looks so waxy and unacceptable with some focusing problem. Mine copy of 16-80 definitely better, but I guess 16-80 could perform different with different cameras. I have an X-T2 and feel like shutter shock is still a problem even with the latest firmware, so I use ES mode only with this lens. I think we need more sample photos with different apertures.
 
Flying Fijian said:
RobertMachin 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...
Any post that implies that Fuji is not at the top of the game is a risky move on this forum....
Click to expand...
The Tamron seems like a nice lens but they seemed to have priced it a bit too high imo. In Australia it's selling for around $1300. The Fuji 16-55 has been out a long time and can easily be picked used up for $900. I got a mint one a while ago and I can't see myself getting the Tamron. The 16-55 has been growing on me...certainly can't complain about it's quality. The 16-80mm is even cheaper making the Tamron a poor value.

Hopefully the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 is priced much lower than this.
Click to expand...
The tamron is a much better lens than the fuji 16-80mm. I'm nto sure where you see the poor value.

There is no other lens that offer what tamron is offering with this lens, on the fuji ecosystem.
 
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...
This is baffling. The Tamron 17-70mm is closer to the 16-80mm than it is from the 16-55mm.

Focal length is similar and it has VC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Best Travel Zoom for 40mp Fuji?
Replies
15
Views
1K
MrAndreas
MrAndreas
F
Tamron 17-70 vs Fuji 16 - 80
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
baobob
baobob
J
Distortion control - Tamron 17-70
Replies
6
Views
339
Jackpot101
J
Tom in AR
Tamron 18-300mm w/X-T5?
Replies
3
Views
360
GreatOceanSoftware
GreatOceanSoftware
Lettermanian
  • Question Question
16-50 vs 16-80 close focus at their long ends?
Replies
13
Views
536
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