Received my Tamron 17-70mm today...

It was a bit of a surprise because when I preordered availability was supposed to be in August... I won't complain

No time to test it yet in earnest but opened it and tried it briefly on my X-S10 and X-T3. Initial thoughts:

- feels good in the hand, high quality plastic build etc., weather seal on the mount. I like the smaller hood. almost the exact same diameter as the 70-300, and it balances well on the X-S10, mainly because of the extra grip. On the X-T3 it feels a bit front-heavy, but doesn't significantly affect the handling at all. I've had two 16-55's over the years and this one feels lighter and less bulky.

- it's not compact, being almost the same length as the 70-300 unzoomed (is that a word?). You can see size comparisons below.

- We hadn't seen yet how this lens works with IBIS. I can report that the full IS MODE menu is displayed on the X-S10 as well as "OFF", and on the X-T3 the full menu as well. I will have to wait to actually test it properly to see if the lens VC works with Fuji's IBIS (if I'll even be able to tell...)

- the other lens-related menu items, such as Linear/Non-linear and focus ring direction are also available. Manual focus also seems to work fine with peaking and magnification working the same as with a fuji lens.

- good close-focus capabilities. See pics below.

I'll be able to shoot with it over the next couple of days (weather permitting), but let me know if you have any questions, and I'll try to get to them.

My collection: Fuji 70-300, Tamron 17-70, Viltrox 13mm (all three with 67mm filter, yay!) Fuji 18-55, Zeiss 12mm 2.8

70-300 vs 17-70 with hoods.

Zoomed all the way (300mm and 70mm)

Close focus at 70mm...

...and at 17mm

IS MODE menu on X-S10 in AUTO ISO (if in manual/single value ISO just continuous and shooting only  and OFF are available (normal).

Displays the lens firmware version.

Thanks for the post. Mine is waiting for pickup at my dealer bit given that is an hour drive away I will wait til Thursday when I can pick up the X-H2s and hopefully the 150-600 as well. Tamron is doing very well of late. Had my first serious work with the Tamron 35-150 for Sony FF last week and was very impressed.

Thx for sharing Your opinion

Uhh.. That Tamron 17-70/2.8 is big! I mean it looks like similar size to any 24-105/4 FF zoom lenses (?) for me personally standard zoom lens of this size for APSC camera is wired idea. Beside VC (and Fuji color science), there is very little adventages of such huge lens attached to Fuji camera, where You Can get for example R6 + 24-105/4 IS L lens in similar size compared to X-T4 + T17/70/2.8. And You got all adventages of FF sensor, plus better AF.

In my opinion, new Sigma 18-55/2.8 is essense of standard zoom for APSC camera (or Tamron 18-300 for hiking)

I saw a review of a pro-photographer some days ago..

conclusion: If massive ghosting is part of your personal image-style, you MUST purchase the Tamron 17-70….

cheers

BeatX wrote:

Thx for sharing Your opinion

Uhh.. That Tamron 17-70/2.8 is big! I mean it looks like similar size to any 24-105/4 FF zoom lenses (?) for me personally standard zoom lens of this size for APSC camera is wired idea. Beside VC (and Fuji color science), there is very little adventages of such huge lens attached to Fuji camera, where You Can get for example R6 + 24-105/4 IS L lens in similar size compared to X-T4 + T17/70/2.8. And You got all adventages of FF sensor, plus better AF.

In my opinion, new Sigma 18-55/2.8 is essense of standard zoom for APSC camera (or Tamron 18-300 for hiking)

A 2.8 lens is still a 2.8 lens in terms of light gathering, so there's not a direct comparison to a 24-105 f4. A 2.8 24-105 on ff would be huge and heavy. I've recently owned Nikon's Z5 and 6ii w/24-200, a Panasonic S5 with a 24-105 f4, and they're all very nice and full-framey, but as a system Fuji still has advantages for my purposes: better ooc colours and reach in a lighter-weight package than ff. There's no ff lens in any current system that gives 450mm-equiv non-cropped images at the size and weight of Fuji's 70-300. While the 17-70 is big, it's lighter and slimmer than Fuji's own 16-55mm f2.8, so for Fuji users it can be advantageous, if the IQ is close.

pictograph wrote:

I saw a review of a pro-photographer some days ago..

conclusion: If massive ghosting is part of your personal image-style, you MUST purchase the Tamron 17-70….

cheers

A link to the review you saw would be helpful, otherwise the opinion is unsubstantiated.

pictograph wrote:

I saw a review of a pro-photographer some days ago..

conclusion: If massive ghosting is part of your personal image-style, you MUST purchase the Tamron 17-70….

cheers

Dude, is the year 2022 this Tamron lens is a really good modern lens, and is a 2.8 with a fantastic focal length range.  Is not like Fuji makes perfect lenses either.

Tamron has been making really good lenses for a very long time and thousands of photographers have used them on their cameras throughout the years.

Dennis wrote:

Lettermanian wrote:

BeatX wrote:

Uhh.. That Tamron 17-70/2.8 is big! I mean it looks like similar size to any 24-105/4 FF zoom lenses (?)

A 2.8 lens is still a 2.8 lens in terms of light gathering, so there's not a direct comparison to a 24-105 f4.

You've been around here a long time (long enough to have read plenty about equivalence) you can't really believe that ?

Dennis, you are mistaking Depth of field  with light gathering. An F2.8 lens  will have the same light gathering ability on FF as on APSC. That's why these lenses are big.

Great news!

Some feedback about performance at 70mm wide open would be very appreciated.

sluggy_warrior wrote:

The only thing holding me back is the lack of an aperture ring. Fuji put aperture ring on most of their lenses, and thus trained me into relying on it Tamron should do the same when designing for Fuji cameras, instead of simply copying their Sony version.

I suspect that such a redesign would cost a lot in terms of R&D, tooling and manufacturing to the point that the return on sales would not justify the investment. However, despite that commercial reality, I agree with you that a Tamron with an aperture ring would be a very nice lens indeed.

Dennis wrote:

Lettermanian wrote:

BeatX wrote:

Uhh.. That Tamron 17-70/2.8 is big! I mean it looks like similar size to any 24-105/4 FF zoom lenses (?)

A 2.8 lens is still a 2.8 lens in terms of light gathering, so there's not a direct comparison to a 24-105 f4.

You've been around here a long time (long enough to have read plenty about equivalence) you can't really believe that ?

In a nutshell: whatever your reasons might be for choosing an f/2.8 zoom over an f/4 zoom on APS-C, someone can accomplish those same goals with an f/4 zoom on FF.

There's no ff lens in any current system that gives 450mm-equiv non-cropped images at the size and weight of Fuji's 70-300.

Yeah, that's where I kind of get stuck, too. I don't mind having a bigger lens at home for running outside for opportunistic wildlife photographs. But I really like the idea of a small, light kit I can travel around with and have up to 300mm APS-C equivalent. My Sigma 100-400 isn't all that big, but considerably bigger than the Fuji 70-300. If Nikon came out with a killer 70-300 lens for Z I could contemplate cropping but then I'd need a pricey Z7 II for the resolution and the lens would have to be very sharp to compete with the Fuji after cropping down to APS-C size.

So even though a lens like the 17-70/2.8 (or the 16-55/2.8) makes me question whether it's not just better to go FF with an f/4 zoom (same argument to be made for f/1.4 primes versus f/1.8 for FF), I can see an easy case for it when it's just one big, equivalent lens and the rest of the kit is smaller.

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

I don't know if this helps, but I went from m4/3 to FF, shooting Sony and Fuji simultaneously right now.  I miss the m4/3 lens size and love the FF low light. FF lenses are all big. I'm by no means a pro, so APS-C to me is the right compromise for me.  The A7iii isn't a big camera, but the lenses are definitely bigger and heavier than APS-C.

Lettermanian wrote:

pictograph wrote:

I saw a review of a pro-photographer some days ago..

conclusion: If massive ghosting is part of your personal image-style, you MUST purchase the Tamron 17-70….

cheers

A link to the review you saw would be helpful, otherwise the opinion is unsubstantiated.

Well,

thie review (video) is in German language so you might not be able to follow.

since you have the tamron  17-70 it is very easy to verify his founding:

do not take photographs of the lens, but use it and test it yourself by using the lens shooting against the sun or just so that the sun is visible at the border…. And post the images….

scottyinfrisco wrote:

Dennis wrote:

Lettermanian wrote:

BeatX wrote:

Uhh.. That Tamron 17-70/2.8 is big! I mean it looks like similar size to any 24-105/4 FF zoom lenses (?)

A 2.8 lens is still a 2.8 lens in terms of light gathering, so there's not a direct comparison to a 24-105 f4.

You've been around here a long time (long enough to have read plenty about equivalence) you can't really believe that ?

In a nutshell: whatever your reasons might be for choosing an f/2.8 zoom over an f/4 zoom on APS-C, someone can accomplish those same goals with an f/4 zoom on FF.

There's no ff lens in any current system that gives 450mm-equiv non-cropped images at the size and weight of Fuji's 70-300.

Yeah, that's where I kind of get stuck, too. I don't mind having a bigger lens at home for running outside for opportunistic wildlife photographs. But I really like the idea of a small, light kit I can travel around with and have up to 300mm APS-C equivalent. My Sigma 100-400 isn't all that big, but considerably bigger than the Fuji 70-300. If Nikon came out with a killer 70-300 lens for Z I could contemplate cropping but then I'd need a pricey Z7 II for the resolution and the lens would have to be very sharp to compete with the Fuji after cropping down to APS-C size.

So even though a lens like the 17-70/2.8 (or the 16-55/2.8) makes me question whether it's not just better to go FF with an f/4 zoom (same argument to be made for f/1.4 primes versus f/1.8 for FF), I can see an easy case for it when it's just one big, equivalent lens and the rest of the kit is smaller.

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

I don't know if this helps, but I went from m4/3 to FF, shooting Sony and Fuji simultaneously right now. I miss the m4/3 lens size and love the FF low light. FF lenses are all big. I'm by no means a pro, so APS-C to me is the right compromise for me. The A7iii isn't a big camera, but the lenses are definitely bigger and heavier than APS-C.

And what about a Tamron 28-200 paired to your A7III. Might be all you need. The Tamron get really good reviews. That’s the most used lens by Mads Peter Iversen. I have an a7IV with this Tamron, the Sony 100-400, maybe a wide prime and a portrait prime as well.

Lettermanian wrote:

BeatX wrote:

Thx for sharing Your opinion

Uhh.. That Tamron 17-70/2.8 is big! I mean it looks like similar size to any 24-105/4 FF zoom lenses (?) for me personally standard zoom lens of this size for APSC camera is wired idea. Beside VC (and Fuji color science), there is very little adventages of such huge lens attached to Fuji camera, where You Can get for example R6 + 24-105/4 IS L lens in similar size compared to X-T4 + T17/70/2.8. And You got all adventages of FF sensor, plus better AF.

In my opinion, new Sigma 18-55/2.8 is essense of standard zoom for APSC camera (or Tamron 18-300 for hiking)

A 2.8 lens is still a 2.8 lens in terms of light gathering, so there's not a direct comparison to a 24-105 f4. A 2.8 24-105 on ff would be huge and heavy. I've recently owned Nikon's Z5 and 6ii w/24-200, a Panasonic S5 with a 24-105 f4, and they're all very nice and full-framey, but as a system Fuji still has advantages for my purposes: better ooc colours and reach in a lighter-weight package than ff. There's no ff lens in any current system that gives 450mm-equiv non-cropped images at the size and weight of Fuji's 70-300. While the 17-70 is big, it's lighter and slimmer than Fuji's own 16-55mm f2.8, so for Fuji users it can be advantageous, if the IQ is close.

Yes, I know that f/2.8 lens is still an f/2.8 lens, but my point is that comparing two lenses like: Tamron 17-70/2.8 vs Canon 24-105/4 IS L (closest competition) will give exact same results when they are used on APSC body vs FF body.

DOF from APSC f/2.8 is same as FF f/4 lens, angle of view from 17-70 is same as 25-105 in FF. The fact that f/2.8 lens gathers exact 1EV more light than f/4 (so You can go down with ISO) can be compensate without a problem, by pushing up ISO in FF camera by 1EV, where in FF camera You have way less noise in high ISO

Only thing what comes to my mind that Tamron 17-70/2.8 + APSC body is better option than 24-105 lens + FF body is small weight difference plus lower price, and that's it

Anyway I'm happy for You, and rally wish You to get some great shots with this new Tamron!

I have the Tamron 17-70 mountes on a sony a6600 and the ghosting/flair is defintely one of the main downsides of the lens. The af also does not work flawless an older camera like the a6300. Apart from those issues, it is defintely a very nice and sharp lens. The rendering is a little bit yellowish compared to sigma lenses. The VC combined with IBIS is awesome. The size and weight is ok, if you have a nice grip like on the s10.

gillesC wrote:

scottyinfrisco wrote:

Dennis wrote:

Lettermanian wrote:

BeatX wrote:

Uhh.. That Tamron 17-70/2.8 is big! I mean it looks like similar size to any 24-105/4 FF zoom lenses (?)

A 2.8 lens is still a 2.8 lens in terms of light gathering, so there's not a direct comparison to a 24-105 f4.

You've been around here a long time (long enough to have read plenty about equivalence) you can't really believe that ?

In a nutshell: whatever your reasons might be for choosing an f/2.8 zoom over an f/4 zoom on APS-C, someone can accomplish those same goals with an f/4 zoom on FF.

There's no ff lens in any current system that gives 450mm-equiv non-cropped images at the size and weight of Fuji's 70-300.

Yeah, that's where I kind of get stuck, too. I don't mind having a bigger lens at home for running outside for opportunistic wildlife photographs. But I really like the idea of a small, light kit I can travel around with and have up to 300mm APS-C equivalent. My Sigma 100-400 isn't all that big, but considerably bigger than the Fuji 70-300. If Nikon came out with a killer 70-300 lens for Z I could contemplate cropping but then I'd need a pricey Z7 II for the resolution and the lens would have to be very sharp to compete with the Fuji after cropping down to APS-C size.

So even though a lens like the 17-70/2.8 (or the 16-55/2.8) makes me question whether it's not just better to go FF with an f/4 zoom (same argument to be made for f/1.4 primes versus f/1.8 for FF), I can see an easy case for it when it's just one big, equivalent lens and the rest of the kit is smaller.

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

I don't know if this helps, but I went from m4/3 to FF, shooting Sony and Fuji simultaneously right now. I miss the m4/3 lens size and love the FF low light. FF lenses are all big. I'm by no means a pro, so APS-C to me is the right compromise for me. The A7iii isn't a big camera, but the lenses are definitely bigger and heavier than APS-C.

And what about a Tamron 28-200 paired to your A7III. Might be all you need. The Tamron get really good reviews. That’s the most used lens by Mads Peter Iversen. I have an a7IV with this Tamron, the Sony 100-400, maybe a wide prime and a portrait prime as well.

I have that lens. I've had an occasional focus issue with it. Pretty sure FW is up to date.  It is a good combo.  I do prefer the Sigma 24-70 f2.8, but the 28-200 is on the camera right now. I will say the 24mm is missed more than the long end is used, but not a deal breaker.  I also have the Sigma 100-400, which for the price is OK, and sort of compact.  That aside, I have never enjoyed using a Sony from an ergonomic perspective or for the menus. The camera take great images, but so do most. Then there is the Fuji JPEGS which I really do like.  If choices didn't exist I could use the Sony forever.

sluggy_warrior wrote:

I've always wanted the 16-55 to pair with the 50-140 for high-quality theater shots, as the 18-55 is not up to task. However, none of my bodies have IBIS.

I've been reading reviews on the 17-70, IQ seems to be really good, even in corners at wide open. Even though OIS is not as good as Fuji's, it's still there and can help a lot.

The only thing holding me back is the lack of an aperture ring. Fuji put aperture ring on most of their lenses, and thus trained me into relying on it Tamron should do the same when designing for Fuji cameras, instead of simply copying their Sony version.

Yes indeed.