First of all we know, for the most part, the 16-55 is highly revered on here (myself included) however recent events thrust the Tamron 17-70 into the spotlight. I was (and still am) mightily impressed at how the Tamron 11-20 performs and so I was curious to know if this extended to the 17-70. I was further spurred on by Dustin Abbott's video regarding his experience with the 16-55 on the newer 40mp sensor. I was somewhat surprised by his conclusions so I decided to finally check it out for myself.
So, is the Tamron better than the 16-55 (even on the newer sensor)?
No, it isn't.
I took delivery of the Tamron during the week and got straight to work on testing alongside the 16-55.
The long and short of it is the Tamron is a VERY good lens and I was pleased with what it produces both in terms of sharpness and overall rendering. It does seem to produce slightly better bokeh in certain scenarios e.g. the usual busy backgrounds with foliage etc where Fuji lenses to have a slight tendency to fall down.
However, when it comes to absolute critical detail and micro contrast the Fuji lens just edges in front of the Tamron and on really close inspection the latter just doesn't stand up to the Fuji.
In my opinion, I see no reason for anyone who already owns the Fuji lens to swap it out for the Tamron - I know I certainly won't.
If you have neither and wondering which one to buy, I honestly think you'd be happy with either. In isolation the Tamron is an excellent lens. However, it offers only three things over the Fuji which are size, weight and price. I find the output from the 16-55 @ 55mm is pretty much on par with the Tamron @ 70mm so I have no issues with doing a little extra cropping.
Subjectively, I do prefer the zoom/focus ring placement on the Tamron. Its zoom ring is nice and broad and for manual focus I do like the manual focus ring closer to the body - this might not be for everyone of course.
The Tamron of course lacks the aperture ring however this is a feature I would relinquish for better performance - as demonstrated by the 11-20. However, in this instance the 17-70 offered nothing to overcome that lack of aperture ring.
So to summarise (my findings), the Tamron is an excellent lens and I don't think anyone would be disappointed with it, but it's just not quite as good as the Fuji.
So, is the Tamron better than the 16-55 (even on the newer sensor)?
No, it isn't.
I took delivery of the Tamron during the week and got straight to work on testing alongside the 16-55.
The long and short of it is the Tamron is a VERY good lens and I was pleased with what it produces both in terms of sharpness and overall rendering. It does seem to produce slightly better bokeh in certain scenarios e.g. the usual busy backgrounds with foliage etc where Fuji lenses to have a slight tendency to fall down.
However, when it comes to absolute critical detail and micro contrast the Fuji lens just edges in front of the Tamron and on really close inspection the latter just doesn't stand up to the Fuji.
In my opinion, I see no reason for anyone who already owns the Fuji lens to swap it out for the Tamron - I know I certainly won't.
If you have neither and wondering which one to buy, I honestly think you'd be happy with either. In isolation the Tamron is an excellent lens. However, it offers only three things over the Fuji which are size, weight and price. I find the output from the 16-55 @ 55mm is pretty much on par with the Tamron @ 70mm so I have no issues with doing a little extra cropping.
Subjectively, I do prefer the zoom/focus ring placement on the Tamron. Its zoom ring is nice and broad and for manual focus I do like the manual focus ring closer to the body - this might not be for everyone of course.
The Tamron of course lacks the aperture ring however this is a feature I would relinquish for better performance - as demonstrated by the 11-20. However, in this instance the 17-70 offered nothing to overcome that lack of aperture ring.
So to summarise (my findings), the Tamron is an excellent lens and I don't think anyone would be disappointed with it, but it's just not quite as good as the Fuji.
