Reading mode: Light Dark

Tamron 17-70 vs XF 16-55

Go to last post
GMacF said:
Of course, we can't rule out a bad copy - but all I can do is report on my experience.
Click to expand...
Sure, I don't blame You. It's just.. it's wired. From one side people say that this lens is sturdy and perform well. Then there is YouTuber who reported, that lens has pass small amount of water, through mount gasket + story from this thread when Tamron repair service refused to do guaranty repairs.

There are Your excellent sample shots vs lenstip.com sample shots + measurements.

I don't know what is going on with this Tamron lens, but I would strongly suggest to check this zoom before deciding to buy one, and be rather careful with it (also threat it as it has no WR) :)
 
BeatX said:
Because judging form lab test, Tamron is very sharp corner to corner in every focal lenght:

https://www.lenstip.com/625.4-Lens_...m_f_2.8_Di_III-A_VC_RXD_Image_resolution.html

Perhaps OP has bad copy? Just check out test shots from sample gallery on lenstip.com

It's plastic, and no near build quality of XF 16-55/2.8, but optically it should be slightly superior.
Click to expand...
More likely LensTip had a bad copy of the 16-55. My 16-55 is very sharp across the frame. It’s best at the wide end but is still very good though out the entire focal range. Definitely less prone to CA/fringing than the Tamron too. The 16-55 doesn’t always have the greatest bokeh in some portrait situations, but mine is otherwise very close to the bag of primes it is sometimes described as being.
 
Another thing which could be considered a negative is if like the Sigma 18-50 the zoom ring operates opposite direction from the other Fuji zooms. Not necessarily a deal breaker, but annoying still.

--
www.darngoodphotos.com
 
Last edited:
DarnGoodPhotos said:
Another thing which could be considered a negative is if like the Sigma 18-50 the zoom ring operates opposite direction from the other Fuji zooms. Not necessarily a deal breaker, but annoying still.
Click to expand...
It was/is a deal breaker for me. I had 1 or 2 opposite zooming third party lenses in my canon days and it drove me crazy. Never again.
 
Last edited:
"However, it offers only three things over the Fuji which are size, weight and price."

Ok, but those are THREE BIG THINGS!

--
www.pixelstatic.com
 
Last edited:
Erik Baumgartner said:
BeatX said:
Because judging form lab test, Tamron is very sharp corner to corner in every focal lenght:

https://www.lenstip.com/625.4-Lens_...m_f_2.8_Di_III-A_VC_RXD_Image_resolution.html

Perhaps OP has bad copy? Just check out test shots from sample gallery on lenstip.com

It's plastic, and no near build quality of XF 16-55/2.8, but optically it should be slightly superior.
Click to expand...
More likely LensTip had a bad copy of the 16-55. My 16-55 is very sharp across the frame. It’s best at the wide end but is still very good though out the entire focal range. Definitely less prone to CA/fringing than the Tamron too. The 16-55 doesn’t always have the greatest bokeh in some portrait situations, but mine is otherwise very close to the bag of primes it is sometimes described as being.
Click to expand...
Erik, seems like everybody has bad copy of XF 16-55/2.8 but You 😂

 
Gary Martin said:
"However, it offers only three things over the Fuji which are size, weight and price."

Ok, but those are THREE BIG THINGS!
Click to expand...
They can be but I don't think they are in this instance because those differences are so small. The Tamron is only 130g lighter, 8mm smaller in diameter (is actually longer) and, here in the UK at least outside of sales promotions, isn't that much cheaper - but admittedly the latter is the biggest difference.
These would be three big reasons if we were comparing to the Sigma 18-50 in my opinion.
 
BeatX said:
Erik Baumgartner said:
BeatX said:
Because judging form lab test, Tamron is very sharp corner to corner in every focal lenght:

https://www.lenstip.com/625.4-Lens_...m_f_2.8_Di_III-A_VC_RXD_Image_resolution.html

Perhaps OP has bad copy? Just check out test shots from sample gallery on lenstip.com

It's plastic, and no near build quality of XF 16-55/2.8, but optically it should be slightly superior.
Click to expand...
More likely LensTip had a bad copy of the 16-55. My 16-55 is very sharp across the frame. It’s best at the wide end but is still very good though out the entire focal range. Definitely less prone to CA/fringing than the Tamron too. The 16-55 doesn’t always have the greatest bokeh in some portrait situations, but mine is otherwise very close to the bag of primes it is sometimes described as being.
Click to expand...
Erik, seems like everybody has bad copy of XF 16-55/2.8 but You 😂

Click to expand...
Mine is superb. It goes toe-to-toe with any of the f2 primes.
 
BeatX said:
GMacF said:
Of course, we can't rule out a bad copy - but all I can do is report on my experience.
Click to expand...
Sure, I don't blame You. It's just.. it's wired. From one side people say that this lens is sturdy and perform well. Then there is YouTuber who reported, that lens has pass small amount of water, through mount gasket + story from this thread when Tamron repair service refused to do guaranty repairs.

There are Your excellent sample shots vs lenstip.com sample shots + measurements.

I don't know what is going on with this Tamron lens, but I would strongly suggest to check this zoom before deciding to buy one, and be rather careful with it (also threat it as it has no WR) :)
Click to expand...
I also almost had a 'run-in' with Tamron regarding my (now departed) 150-500. I sent it for repair to the mount which I know for a fact was a quality defect. Their repair centre had my lens for over 3 months as they couldn't get a replacement mount. It did eventually come back to me repaired but their repair notes stated they had to replace the mount due to user error and only replaced it as a goodwill gesture as they had it for so long. Now I admit this could be considered generous from them but I thought it was barefaced cheek to try and pass it off as user damage. IMO Tamron's 5 year warranty is barely worth the paper it's written on - there are just too many hoops to jump through.
So I'm hoping my 11-20 doesn't run into any problems!
 
Last edited:
Mr Bolton said:
GMacF said:
I have uploaded a few sample images to my gallery:

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8918147115/albums/tamron-17-70-vs-xf-16-55

While my testing was quite thorough I could only upload a selection - this batch alone pretty much maxed out my monthly allowance. So I chose to upload comparative shots taken at 16/17mm, 23mm, 35mm and 55mm at f2.8 and f5.6.

All the f2.8 images look to be in favour of the Fuji lens (to my eye). From f5.6 and beyond it's nip and tuck however centre sharpness always seems to be marginally better on the 16-55.
Click to expand...
I would expect the red badge XF Fuji zoom to be optically superior to the plastic $799 Tamron, so no surprise there.

The only issue I've had with my Tamron 17-70 f2.8 is that it developed a hitch in its getalong, as in a tight spot towards the long end of its zoom travel. So I sent it in to Tamron through the camera store where I bought it. They called back a week later with a laundry list of stuff broken inside the lens, there was serious intimation that I might have thrown it down a flight of stairs. They wanted $600 to fix it. You know, for a lens that I paid $699 on sale, five months ago. (I sent it in back in March).

I did not. That lens has seen nothing like the action my hapless 16-80mm f4 has-I clipped a bollard with my bike's left pedal at 15mph, which promptly caused me and camera to hit the ground. The f4 lens laughed it off. Earlier, I was standing at the bar after a shoot and my camera strap clip just gave up on life, causing the whole rig to hit concrete from 4' up. Broke the flash, but X-H1 and f4 zoom came up shootin' as usual.

The Tamron is plastic, so I'm much more gentle with it. I wouldn't say I baby it, but geez.. seems awful busted up inside for a lens that I got last October! Oddly, the store said I would have to have them button it up, return it to the store, then I'd have to box it up and send it to Tamron myself, through their warranty channel, to see if they'd take better care of it for me? Seems pretty inefficient since the lens is already at Tamron's facility. Maybe the store gets a cut of the repairs.. but anyway..
Click to expand...
I can absolutely see this. While I wouldn't say my 16-55 has been poorly treated or lived a charmed life but it has taken the odd ding off a doorway and what not I doesn't really cost me a thought.
While the Tamron did feel nice in the hand I just never got the impression it could live up a life of use and abuse to anywhere near the level of the 16-55 - or the 16-80 as you say.
Mr Bolton said:
The first takeaway here is never buy a used camera from me :-D And the second one is that you get what you pay for, and if you get a Tamron 17-70 f2.8 zoom, maybe take super gentle good care of it.

I'd like to reiterate that my copy does have excellent optics-it is sharp, not decentered, and oddly the autofocus as in tracking/face detection seems to work better than my Fuji lenses! Go figure..
Click to expand...
 
BeatX said:
Erik Baumgartner said:
BeatX said:
Because judging form lab test, Tamron is very sharp corner to corner in every focal lenght:

https://www.lenstip.com/625.4-Lens_...m_f_2.8_Di_III-A_VC_RXD_Image_resolution.html

Perhaps OP has bad copy? Just check out test shots from sample gallery on lenstip.com

It's plastic, and no near build quality of XF 16-55/2.8, but optically it should be slightly superior.
Click to expand...
More likely LensTip had a bad copy of the 16-55. My 16-55 is very sharp across the frame. It’s best at the wide end but is still very good though out the entire focal range. Definitely less prone to CA/fringing than the Tamron too. The 16-55 doesn’t always have the greatest bokeh in some portrait situations, but mine is otherwise very close to the bag of primes it is sometimes described as being.
Click to expand...
Erik, seems like everybody has bad copy of XF 16-55/2.8 but You 😂
Click to expand...
Not true at all. The vast majority of people who actually own and use the 16-55 seem to get the same great results with theirs too. Seems the only people who go on about how it isn't all that great have never actually used one. Maybe there was a bad batch somewhere along the line that some reviewers got a hold of, but most 16-55s are excellent. Sample variation is a real thing, but I think there’s far less with the 16-55 than with the 18-55 or 16-80. Are there some 16-55 duds out there? Sure, but I’ve heard of plenty of bad Tamron 17-70s too.
 
Last edited:
I've found good quality (full resolution) image taken with Tamron 17-70/2,8 at the wide end:

126ad8b639064c838fa98f1306800ec2.jpg

Link to source:
https://flic.kr/p/2pGSvyY

Now I'm confused :-O
Image above is rally good looking.
I mean - no complains when it comes to sharpness if You ask me! (as for a standard zoom lens)
Seems like theory of bad copies Tamron 17-70/2.8 lenses is true, and everyone before buying should test it very carefully.

--
My gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maciej_k/
 
BeatX said:
Erik Baumgartner said:
BeatX said:
Because judging form lab test, Tamron is very sharp corner to corner in every focal lenght:

https://www.lenstip.com/625.4-Lens_...m_f_2.8_Di_III-A_VC_RXD_Image_resolution.html

Perhaps OP has bad copy? Just check out test shots from sample gallery on lenstip.com

It's plastic, and no near build quality of XF 16-55/2.8, but optically it should be slightly superior.
Click to expand...
More likely LensTip had a bad copy of the 16-55. My 16-55 is very sharp across the frame. It’s best at the wide end but is still very good though out the entire focal range. Definitely less prone to CA/fringing than the Tamron too. The 16-55 doesn’t always have the greatest bokeh in some portrait situations, but mine is otherwise very close to the bag of primes it is sometimes described as being.
Click to expand...
Erik, seems like everybody has bad copy of XF 16-55/2.8 but You 😂

Click to expand...
That's simply a crock. I purchased that lens years ago based on a consistent stream of very positive comments in this forum and some positive reviews, IIRC. So, I'm not entirely sure who this "everybody" is that you're referring to, but it certainly doesn't apply to me and a host of others in the forum for years now with tons of posted examples and very positive comments about this lens. That was a primary driver for my decision a few years ago to purchase that lens. Zero regrets with that purchase, and still probably my most frequently used lens, but as has been the case for many years now, complainers are gonna complain. Fortunately, I keep a pretty good stock of popcorn just for threads and comments like this.
 
Jerry-astro said:
BeatX said:
Erik Baumgartner said:
BeatX said:
Because judging form lab test, Tamron is very sharp corner to corner in every focal lenght:

https://www.lenstip.com/625.4-Lens_...m_f_2.8_Di_III-A_VC_RXD_Image_resolution.html

Perhaps OP has bad copy? Just check out test shots from sample gallery on lenstip.com

It's plastic, and no near build quality of XF 16-55/2.8, but optically it should be slightly superior.
Click to expand...
More likely LensTip had a bad copy of the 16-55. My 16-55 is very sharp across the frame. It’s best at the wide end but is still very good though out the entire focal range. Definitely less prone to CA/fringing than the Tamron too. The 16-55 doesn’t always have the greatest bokeh in some portrait situations, but mine is otherwise very close to the bag of primes it is sometimes described as being.
Click to expand...
Erik, seems like everybody has bad copy of XF 16-55/2.8 but You 😂

Click to expand...
That's simply a crock. I purchased that lens years ago based on a consistent stream of very positive comments in this forum and some positive reviews, IIRC. So, I'm not entirely sure who this "everybody" is that you're referring to, but it certainly doesn't apply to me and a host of others in the forum for years now with tons of posted examples and very positive comments about this lens. That was a primary driver for my decision a few years ago to purchase that lens. Zero regrets with that purchase, and still probably my most frequently used lens, but as has been the case for many years now, complainers are gonna complain. Fortunately, I keep a pretty good stock of popcorn just for threads and comments like this.
Click to expand...
Fair enough :) You read tons of positive feedback, but I read only opinions with zero posts, where users upload .raf files from this lens taken on 40Mpix sensor for further evaluation as a backup for their claims.
Thx to GMacF this thread is an one and only exception where I could finally examine how XF 16-55/2.8 performs on new X-Trans V 40Mpix sensor vs direct competition.
Wonna add something to discussion? Please, add .raf files from XF 16-55/2.8 taken on X-Trans V 40Mpix sensor (@ wide and tele end) to convince me, and bury my doubts once and for all (probably not only mine doubts)
Otherwise Your post is just another claim, like dozens others with zero backup :)

And yes, I guess You are right - I did exaggerated using word "everybody". Sorry.
I think that word "many" is more accurate.
Enjoy Your popcorn :)

--
My gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maciej_k/
 
Last edited:
BeatX said:
Jerry-astro said:
BeatX said:
Erik Baumgartner said:
BeatX said:
Because judging form lab test, Tamron is very sharp corner to corner in every focal lenght:

https://www.lenstip.com/625.4-Lens_...m_f_2.8_Di_III-A_VC_RXD_Image_resolution.html

Perhaps OP has bad copy? Just check out test shots from sample gallery on lenstip.com

It's plastic, and no near build quality of XF 16-55/2.8, but optically it should be slightly superior.
Click to expand...
More likely LensTip had a bad copy of the 16-55. My 16-55 is very sharp across the frame. It’s best at the wide end but is still very good though out the entire focal range. Definitely less prone to CA/fringing than the Tamron too. The 16-55 doesn’t always have the greatest bokeh in some portrait situations, but mine is otherwise very close to the bag of primes it is sometimes described as being.
Click to expand...
Erik, seems like everybody has bad copy of XF 16-55/2.8 but You 😂

Click to expand...
That's simply a crock. I purchased that lens years ago based on a consistent stream of very positive comments in this forum and some positive reviews, IIRC. So, I'm not entirely sure who this "everybody" is that you're referring to, but it certainly doesn't apply to me and a host of others in the forum for years now with tons of posted examples and very positive comments about this lens. That was a primary driver for my decision a few years ago to purchase that lens. Zero regrets with that purchase, and still probably my most frequently used lens, but as has been the case for many years now, complainers are gonna complain. Fortunately, I keep a pretty good stock of popcorn just for threads and comments like this.
Click to expand...
Fair enough :) You read tons of positive feedback, but I read only opinions with zero posts, where users upload .raf files from this lens taken on 40Mpix sensor for further evaluation as a backup for their claims.
Thx to GMacF this thread is an one and only exception where I could finally examine how XF 16-55/2.8 performs on new X-Trans V 40Mpix sensor vs direct competition.
Wonna add something to discussion? Please, add .raf files from XF 16-55/2.8 taken on X-Trans V 40Mpix sensor (@ wide and tele end) to convince me, and bury my doubts once and for all (probably not only mine doubts)
Otherwise Your post is just another claim, like dozens others with zero backup :)

And yes, I guess You are right - I did exaggerated using word "everybody". Sorry.
I think that word "many" is more accurate.
Enjoy Your popcorn :)
Click to expand...
No thanks. I have better things to do with my time than to prove (yet again for the umpteenth time) that this lens is more than capable to "delivering the goods." Now, admittedly, I shoot with an X-H2s, so I'm not pixel peeping a 40 Mpix image. However, I seriously doubt that the difference you'd see in sharpness between the two sensors would be significant enough to suggest that the lens can't deliver the sharpness needed at 40 Mpix. But, by all means please do carry on, and I'll drag out the popcorn again. I've wasted plenty enough time on this as it is.
 
BeatX said:
Jerry-astro said:
BeatX said:
Erik Baumgartner said:
BeatX said:
Because judging form lab test, Tamron is very sharp corner to corner in every focal lenght:

https://www.lenstip.com/625.4-Lens_...m_f_2.8_Di_III-A_VC_RXD_Image_resolution.html

Perhaps OP has bad copy? Just check out test shots from sample gallery on lenstip.com

It's plastic, and no near build quality of XF 16-55/2.8, but optically it should be slightly superior.
Click to expand...
More likely LensTip had a bad copy of the 16-55. My 16-55 is very sharp across the frame. It’s best at the wide end but is still very good though out the entire focal range. Definitely less prone to CA/fringing than the Tamron too. The 16-55 doesn’t always have the greatest bokeh in some portrait situations, but mine is otherwise very close to the bag of primes it is sometimes described as being.
Click to expand...
Erik, seems like everybody has bad copy of XF 16-55/2.8 but You 😂

Click to expand...
That's simply a crock. I purchased that lens years ago based on a consistent stream of very positive comments in this forum and some positive reviews, IIRC. So, I'm not entirely sure who this "everybody" is that you're referring to, but it certainly doesn't apply to me and a host of others in the forum for years now with tons of posted examples and very positive comments about this lens. That was a primary driver for my decision a few years ago to purchase that lens. Zero regrets with that purchase, and still probably my most frequently used lens, but as has been the case for many years now, complainers are gonna complain. Fortunately, I keep a pretty good stock of popcorn just for threads and comments like this.
Click to expand...
Fair enough :) You read tons of positive feedback, but I read only opinions with zero posts, where users upload .raf files from this lens taken on 40Mpix sensor for further evaluation as a backup for their claims.
Thx to GMacF this thread is an one and only exception where I could finally examine how XF 16-55/2.8 performs on new X-Trans V 40Mpix sensor vs direct competition.
Wonna add something to discussion? Please, add .raf files from XF 16-55/2.8 taken on X-Trans V 40Mpix sensor (@ wide and tele end) to convince me, and bury my doubts once and for all (probably not only mine doubts)
Otherwise Your post is just another claim, like dozens others with zero backup :)

And yes, I guess You are right - I did exaggerated using word "everybody". Sorry.
I think that word "many" is more accurate.
Enjoy Your popcorn :)
Click to expand...
please forget about the 40MP sensor as changing things. it is a phallacy caused by 100% viewing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D.A.A.N.
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 vs Fuji XF 16-50 f/2.8-4.8 or 16-55 f/2.8
Replies
0
Views
7K
D.A.A.N.
D.A.A.N.
D.A.A.N.
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Fuji 16-50 /16-55
Replies
19
Views
27K
baobob
baobob
M
  • User review User review
XF 16-55 Mk II: Travel & Landscape Review
Replies
16
Views
23K
Jerry-astro
Jerry-astro
G
Best walkaround lens?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
13K
mahidoes
mahidoes
J
Distortion control - Tamron 17-70
Replies
6
Views
2K
Jackpot101
J

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