Tamron 17-50 f4

[alphaZ]

A very interesting uwa/wa/normal FF zoom lens ?

• Completely eliminates need for 16-35/24-70
• Partners well with any combination tele - zoom or a single prime or two
• Better solution than 16-28,16-35, 17-28 or new 20-40/20-70, essentially replaces them all.
• Hopefully will follow Tamron's new design ethos, vxd af/button etc.
• Should be huge success if not too large and great from f4.

I'm in!

 

[Derek 1906]

If it's not huge, would be great for travel.

 

[Mr_Win]

if it's small, I'll consider, otherwise, I'll stick with the 20-70

 

[alphaZ]

If it's not huge, would be great for travel.

It will hopefully be great for lots of things

67mm filter too, so should be compact.

 

[alphaZ]

if it's small, I'll consider, otherwise, I'll stick with the 20-70

<500gr imo, no aperture ring which is a good thing imo, < £$ 1k

 

[alphaZ]

if it's small, I'll consider, otherwise, I'll stick with the 20-70

Below 500gr, no aperture ring, below £1k imo.

 

[SafariBob]

A very interesting uwa/wa/normal FF zoom lens ?

• Completely eliminates need for 16-35/

yes

• 24-70

no, ~70mm is where classic single person portraits start, 50 is not enough

• Partners well with any combination tele - zoom or a single prime or two

yes

• Better solution than 16-28,16-35, 17-28 or new 20-40/

yes

• 20-70, essentially replaces them all.

No

• Hopefully will follow Tamron's new design ethos, vxd af/button etc.
• Should be huge success if not too large and great from f4.

I think it should be ~400g, and is actually a great urban walk around lens. Pairs well with the tamron 50-400 for example. The downside is that it is a 2 lens team lens, there isn’t that many situations where a slow 50 is sufficient at the long end.

another thing I would add, is just how demanding wide angle photography can be in terms of lens quality, primes do really shine

 

[stateit]

I'd better dust my ND filters down. This sounds interesting.

 

[Impulses]

if it's small, I'll consider, otherwise, I'll stick with the 20-70

<500gr imo, no aperture ring which is a good thing imo, < £$ 1k

I'm sure that's plausible, I'm more skeptical of how long it'll be, I'd prefer <5" for a walkabout lens but I think someone was saying the patent stated it'd be longer? If it's near 5" I'll be pretty tempted to trade my 17-28/2.8 for it, I don't necessarily think it totally replaces a 20/24-xx for everyone but I've not used one of those in years so it would suit me fine, heh.

I'd pair it with my 50-400, or with a 75/1.8, or with a 135mm even... And having my UWA be f4 would give me A) an excuse to get that Viltrox 16/1.8 and B) a reason to use both it and my 20/1.8 G more often, heh. Hmm, MPB says it'll give me $510 for the 17-28 and a 24/2.8 I'm not using... That's not bad, like 50% on either.

 

[Impulses]

A very interesting uwa/wa/normal FF zoom lens ?

• Completely eliminates need for 16-35/

yes

• 24-70

no, ~70mm is where classic single person portraits start, 50 is not enough

• Partners well with any combination tele - zoom or a single prime or two

yes

• Better solution than 16-28,16-35, 17-28 or new 20-40/

yes

• 20-70, essentially replaces them all.

No

• Hopefully will follow Tamron's new design ethos, vxd af/button etc.
• Should be huge success if not too large and great from f4.

I think it should be ~400g, and is actually a great urban walk around lens. Pairs well with the tamron 50-400 for example. The downside is that it is a 2 lens team lens, there isn’t that many situations where a slow 50 is sufficient at the long end.

another thing I would add, is just how demanding wide angle photography can be in terms of lens quality, primes do really shine

Hmm, I'm actually more worried about the long end tbh... Most modern UWAs prioritize the short end and can often match or come reasonably close to primes, but they tend to be weaker at the long end and with a longer long end that could be worse. Agreed on all other counts.

 

[Marximus]

If I read the patent correctly the length is just about 5 inches.

Edit: here's a video showing a size comparison:

 

[Malling]

A very interesting uwa/wa/normal FF zoom lens ?

• Completely eliminates need for 16-35/24-70
• Partners well with any combination tele - zoom or a single prime or two
• Better solution than 16-28,16-35, 17-28 or new 20-40/20-70, essentially replaces them all.
• Hopefully will follow Tamron's new design ethos, vxd af/button etc.
• Should be huge success if not too large and great from f4.

I'm in!

Unless you use 16mm a lot and Tamron 17mm ain’t no 17mm, it’s in fact actually closer to 18mm, those two mm is rather noticeable in FOV

I agree it partners well with the longer zooms, I don’t agree it’s better then 20-70mm it really depends on if one prefer the additional 3(2)mm wide over the 50-70mm range it doesn’t cover. For many 20mm is plenty wide enough, there definitely people out there who would prefer coverage in between the 50-70mm range over the additional “3mm” gain on the wide end.

There aren’t loads of lenses that start at 50mm so it’s either compromising the in between or have the 35-50 coverage in two lenses. Hopefully Tamron will release more of these odd range to take care off it and not just the 50-400.

The size is that of 28-75mm lens, weight is 460g it’s not extending when zooming.

I do think it looks interesting enough, but all depends on actual performance, if it around PZ 16-35G I might consider getting one

Also portraits it’s too slow, so a prime is necessary

 

[Bender79ita]

A very interesting uwa/wa/normal FF zoom lens ?

• Completely eliminates need for 16-35/24-70
• Partners well with any combination tele - zoom or a single prime or two
• Better solution than 16-28,16-35, 17-28 or new 20-40/20-70, essentially replaces them all.
• Hopefully will follow Tamron's new design ethos, vxd af/button etc.
• Should be huge success if not too large and great from f4.

I'm in!

It is a two lens combo for landscapes with the 50-400, assuming both can produce decent sunstars and have flaring/loss of contrast under control.

I rarely shoot above 200mm, so 17-28 and 28-200 with their larger aperture have my preference for indoors and handheld night shooting. Considering a 35-150, even.

But I can see how the setup above might have its uses for long hikes.

 

[PieterB]

If it's not huge, would be great for travel.

Or as a walkaround lens.

 

[No account anymore]

• Better solution than 16-28,16-35, 17-28 or new 20-40/20-70, essentially replaces them all.

You don't need to cover all focal lengths if you are using viewing angle and distance to the subject to strengthen the story that is told.

Widest aperture f:4 is bright enough for a plenty of work, and internal focus seems fine for those of us who use lightweight gimbals.

 

[alphaZ]

1. Malling wrote:

A very interesting uwa/wa/normal FF zoom lens ?

• Completely eliminates need for 16-35/24-70
• Partners well with any combination tele - zoom or a single prime or two
• Better solution than 16-28,16-35, 17-28 or new 20-40/20-70, essentially replaces them all.
• Hopefully will follow Tamron's new design ethos, vxd af/button etc.
• Should be huge success if not too large and great from f4.

I'm in!

Unless you use 16mm a lot and Tamron 17mm ain’t no 17mm, it’s in fact actually closer to 18mm, those two mm is rather noticeable in FOV

If I was on Tamron design team I'd pushed for 15-45 2.8-4, 3.5 @24mm but hey I'm not and still its pretty compelling lens, on the end of the a7c r will be very much a single body/lens landscape solution

I agree it partners well with the longer zooms, I don’t agree it’s better then 20-70mm it really depends on if one prefer the additional 3(2)mm wide over the 50-70mm range it doesn’t cover.

I found 20mm on both Tamron and Sony 20 to x a bit lacking, the 40mm was definitely a tad short on the too on the 20-40 so the 50mm will work for me and Id trade 17 for the 50-70 every time because if you need more than 50 same rules apply you usually need more than 70 too! So, any prime or zoom from their will give the better pop, Samyang 75, Sigma 65 or 90 or any number of 85's will compliment this zoom imo, including something even wider or even in the 17-50 range too.

For many 20mm is plenty wide enough, there definitely people out there who would prefer coverage in between the 50-70mm range over the additional “3mm” gain on the wide end.

I'd disagree, but we are all different.

There aren’t loads of lenses that start at 50mm so it’s either compromising the in between or have the 35-50 coverage in two lenses. Hopefully Tamron will release more of these odd range to take care off it and not just the 50-400.

I think a 70-200 is a good match for the 17-50, makes more sense than 20/24/28 to x.

The size is that of 28-75mm lens, weight is 460g it’s not extending when zooming.

That's very impressive if confirmed.

I do think it looks interesting enough, but all depends on actual performance, if it around PZ 16-35G I might consider getting one

Also portraits it’s too slow, so a prime is necessary

Depends on each individual imo, 50mm f4 can work quite well.

 

[SafariBob]

A very interesting uwa/wa/normal FF zoom lens ?

• Completely eliminates need for 16-35/

yes

• 24-70

no, ~70mm is where classic single person portraits start, 50 is not enough

• Partners well with any combination tele - zoom or a single prime or two

yes

• Better solution than 16-28,16-35, 17-28 or new 20-40/

yes

• 20-70, essentially replaces them all.

No

• Hopefully will follow Tamron's new design ethos, vxd af/button etc.
• Should be huge success if not too large and great from f4.

I think it should be ~400g, and is actually a great urban walk around lens. Pairs well with the tamron 50-400 for example. The downside is that it is a 2 lens team lens, there isn’t that many situations where a slow 50 is sufficient at the long end.

another thing I would add, is just how demanding wide angle photography can be in terms of lens quality, primes do really shine

Hmm, I'm actually more worried about the long end tbh...

agreed.

Most modern UWAs prioritize the short end and can often match or come reasonably close to primes,

yes, but not new higher end primes, and the difference is surprisingly large.

but they tend to be weaker at the long end and with a longer long end that could be worse. Agreed on all other counts.

agreed. But at 50mm corner sharpness is maybe not as critical as at 35. For me though, the sigma 14-24 makes a lot more sense.

 

[Malling]

1. Malling wrote:

A very interesting uwa/wa/normal FF zoom lens ?

• Completely eliminates need for 16-35/24-70
• Partners well with any combination tele - zoom or a single prime or two
• Better solution than 16-28,16-35, 17-28 or new 20-40/20-70, essentially replaces them all.
• Hopefully will follow Tamron's new design ethos, vxd af/button etc.
• Should be huge success if not too large and great from f4.

I'm in!

Unless you use 16mm a lot and Tamron 17mm ain’t no 17mm, it’s in fact actually closer to 18mm, those two mm is rather noticeable in FOV

If I was on Tamron design team I'd pushed for 15-45 2.8-4, 3.5 @24mm but hey I'm not and still its pretty compelling lens, on the end of the a7c r will be very much a single body/lens landscape solution

I’m satisfied it hit 50mm, as I tend to use it enough.

Honestly I could live with a 20-50mm, If I wanted wider I could just take my 14mm with me.

This range could potentially show to have some issues at borders not just sharpness, distortion but also aberration.

I agree it partners well with the longer zooms, I don’t agree it’s better then 20-70mm it really depends on if one prefer the additional 3(2)mm wide over the 50-70mm range it doesn’t cover.

I found 20mm on both Tamron and Sony 20 to x a bit lacking, the 40mm was definitely a tad short on the too on the 20-40 so the 50mm will work for me and Id trade 17 for the 50-70 every time because if you need more than 50 same rules apply you usually need more than 70 too! So, any prime or zoom from their will give the better pop, Samyang 75, Sigma 65 or 90 or any number of 85's will compliment this zoom imo, including something even wider or even in the 17-50 range too.

My point is that’s personal preferences, some like you like wider then 20mm, but there plenty of people out there who never has or never will shoot wider then 20mm. I even met plenty who never shot wider then 24-28mm and have little desire for it.

It all depends on preference, shooting style and subject.

I even seen landscape photographers not shooting wider then 35 or 50mm! Some almost exclusively shoot tele in the plus 100mm range!

For many 20mm is plenty wide enough, there definitely people out there who would prefer coverage in between the 50-70mm range over the additional “3mm” gain on the wide end.

I'd disagree, but we are all different.

That’s because of your own personal preference

There aren’t loads of lenses that start at 50mm so it’s either compromising the in between or have the 35-50 coverage in two lenses. Hopefully Tamron will release more of these odd range to take care off it and not just the 50-400.

I think a 70-200 is a good match for the 17-50, makes more sense than 20/24/28 to x.

Again personal preferences

The size is that of 28-75mm lens, weight is 460g it’s not extending when zooming.

That's very impressive if confirmed.

I do think it looks interesting enough, but all depends on actual performance, if it around PZ 16-35G I might consider getting one

Also portraits it’s too slow, so a prime is necessary

Depends on each individual imo, 50mm f4 can work quite well.

F4 on 50mm is definitely a bit limited you get a rather noticeable DOF, it works for something but won’t look nice for everything. For 50 I generally prefer to be able to stop down to f2/1.8. But this lens are not really made to be a portrait kinda of lens.

F4 are just given noticeable DOF. The rendering of out of focus tend to be more busy, bokeh not as rounded other then fully open. Manufacturers just generally don’t use the best finished elements for this type and it shows up as onionrings in the bokeh etc.

 

[Dave Oddie]

The pictures of this lens I have seen on other sites (assuming they are genuine) shows a lens that is quite long so therefore bulky.

I have to say it doesn't excite me much anyway. 50mm is a focal length I have no use for at all I always want something a bit wider wider or a bit longer. So the only use I would make of this lens is the extra 3mm compared to the Tamron 20-40 or Sony 20-70.

It will be interesting to see of any tests show how wide it really is as the Tamron 17-28 has a bit of a reputation of being not really 17mm.

A 16-35 is more interesting to me than a 17-50.

 

[thunder storm]

A very interesting uwa/wa/normal FF zoom lens ?

• Completely eliminates need for 16-35/24-70
• Partners well with any combination tele - zoom or a single prime or two
• Better solution than 16-28,16-35, 17-28 or new 20-40/20-70, essentially replaces them all.
• Hopefully will follow Tamron's new design ethos, vxd af/button etc.
• Should be huge success if not too large and great from f4.

I'm in!

Unless you use 16mm a lot and Tamron 17mm ain’t no 17mm, it’s in fact actually closer to 18mm, those two mm is rather noticeable in FOV

I agree it partners well with the longer zooms, I don’t agree it’s better then 20-70mm it really depends on if one prefer the additional 3(2)mm wide over the 50-70mm range it doesn’t cover. For many 20mm is plenty wide enough, there definitely people out there who would prefer coverage in between the 50-70mm range over the additional “3mm” gain on the wide end.

There aren’t loads of lenses that start at 50mm so it’s either compromising the in between or have the 35-50 coverage in two lenses.

Overlap can be a good thing if you prioritize avoiding lens changes.

If you don't care about lens changes a gap isn't always a problem.

Hopefully Tamron will release more of these odd range to take care off it and not just the 50-400.

The size is that of 28-75mm lens, weight is 460g it’s not extending when zooming.

I do think it looks interesting enough, but all depends on actual performance, if it around PZ 16-35G I might consider getting one

Also portraits it’s too slow, so a prime is necessary