DPReview TV: Tamron 17-70mm F2.8 lens review

a6600 has same video spec, same IBIS, better menus than the a7III. The larger battery grip makes it better to hold. Overall it's a big upgrade from the APS-C Canons I was using, and lighter which is better for gimbal and handheld video.

Jan 24, 2021permalink

cxsparc

@Jl: ergonomics: I'd claim that is a matter of personal taste. You use a XT2 and apparently like it.
I on the other hand find this retro design with mechanical dials built into each other cluttered and uncomfortable to hold. Also, Fujis traditionally lack any sort of decent grip (the XT4 only now has come into normal range here, the XT2 is far away from such a grip).

So as I said, it is a matter of taste and becoming used to it.
I can operate and shoot my A6x00s single handed most of the times. Most settings are only one click away in the FN menu.

And I once assisted a Fuji saleswoman in a shop demo'ing the camera portfolio in setting the language of a Fuji to the local one. It didn't strike me as being less obscure in its structure.

Jan 25, 2021permalink

KevYo

Chris, are those winter gloves worth the price-tag?! I've admired them, but dang...that price tag is essentially the Noct of gloves.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

AdamT

Finally a decent Stabilized standard zoom for Sony E APS_C .. only took 11 years and from a 3rd party !

Jan 21, 2021*permalink

I think the sums it up nicely!

Jan 21, 2021permalink

And this 17-70F2.8 RXD costs nearly as much as the FF 28-75F2.8 RXD, which covers both 18-50F1.8 eqv. and 28-75F2.8 in crop mode. I mean, any FF lens on a high-res FF camera is worth at least two crop lenses.
I don't get it ... It's pointless. Same size, same weight, same price, only much less capable than the FF alternative.
"Good enough"? - Well, who cares?! More is more. Better is better.
Horses were "good enough", but then we made cars. Wake up people!
Crop is dead.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

I don't understand, the 28-70 is a 42mm equivalent FoV at the wide end on a crop body and the 17-70 is 25mm? The Tamron isn't a lens for FF users to use in crop mode, just for crop users (they just used the FF body as they didn't have an APS one).

Jan 21, 2021permalink

Jon, ecka is correctly comparing the Tamron 17-70 on APS-C with the Tamron 28-75 on FF. The latter of course offers the option to crop it to APS-C, which is the second bit of ecka's comparison. (in fairness, the APSC_17-70 is a bit wider than the FF_28-75, so if you really need that, then this might be a point for the APSC lens.)
In another reply you made a similar comment - no one (as far as I can see) is suggesting the 17-70 is a FF lens, they just making comparisons with competing FF lenses.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

It's a valid comparison if you ignore the price differential (the cheapest FE body is going to cost you the same as an A6xxx body plus this lens). Also, unless you spring for an A7R, you're losing a tonne of resolution in crop mode. Having said that, I agree with Ecka that the crop formats is losing its raison d'etre outside a few niches. I only pull my m4/3 setup out if I'm going hiking or if I want to go *really* small when I travel.

For everything else, the shooting envelope to price ratio is just so much larger with a modern full frame body.

Jan 21, 2021*permalink

Dave Oddie

" I agree with Ecka that the crop formats is losing its raison d'etre outside a few niches."

I am sure this is a perception shared by many but if it is, then it is triumph of marketing over common sense.

The format that doesn't have a raison d'etre outside of a few niches (basically professionals) is in my opinion full frame. The vast majority of amateurs simply do not need it. APS-C is more than good enough with modern sensors yet they have been persuaded they need to buy into FF and lumber themselves with large lenses or if they want smaller ones have to justify the fact they are optically not as good by saying they have "character".

I got a Sony RX100 VII for Christmas and I am astonished at the quality that pops out of it's one inch sensor and lens.

FF is in my opinion just a vehicle to sell more kit. There is no rule that says the optimal dimension of a sensor is 24mmx36mm. Olympus realised this years ago but have been out-marketed.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

A single increase or decrease in sensor size isn't very meaningful. 2 steps is more so. So APS-C and 35mm are largely interchangeable (differences are visually noticeable in low light), but M4/3 to 35mm is a nice boost in noise performance. Personally I have 1" and APS-C and the size and weight benefit over 35mm full frame is enormous. In good light the raw files from a 1" sensor are great for even fairly large prints and certainly web. I've shot side by side with Nikon, Canon APS-C and Nikon FF and processing the raw files they are close to indistinguishable. Nikon 810 at base ISO does have more dynamic range.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

David, it's not a triumph of marketing. The point is that thanks to the third party lens makers, the price and size is so close now that there is no next to no penalty for going with 35mm over APS-C. Put something like the Sony A7C with the Samyang FE 45 f/1.8 beside Fuji X-S10 and Fujinon XF 35 f/1.4. They are nearly identical in size, mass, price and optical performance. The only differences (excluding handling and colour science) is that the A7C gives you a wider shooting envelope when the light starts to drop.

On the other end of the spectrum, the higher resolution full frame sensors have basically obliterated any argument for APS-C giving you more reach. The A7R and Z7 in crop mode give you just as much resolution (if not more) than their APS-C family members and the same reach.

Jan 21, 2021*permalink

Craig Gillette

Except to get the 26 mp similarity to a 24 mp aps-c, one needs to buy the $3500 A7Riv. I'm not going to buy an A7Riv to use aps-c lenses on it. I can put this lens on an A6400 for what an A7c costs. Putting the 24-105 on an A7rc is $3000. Putting the 24-105 on the A7Riv is $4700, this lens, $4300.

The 18-135 is kitted on the A6400 at $1300, the Tamron 28-200 on the A7c is over $2500.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

Garyster

@ Dave Odie: this topic has been discussed ad nauseam, but I will sum up what most conclude.

All things being equal, a larger sensor *is* better. Better in low light, better DOF control to name a few key elements. Remember... you can always crop a FF sensor image, but impossible to go the other way around!

As for Olympus, many people think they missed the boat on charging FF prices for their latest crop sensor camera.

Referring to your statement, "FF is in my opinion just a vehicle to sell more kit. There is no rule that says the optimal dimension of a sensor is 24mmx36mm. Olympus realised this years ago but have been out-marketed."

Jan 22, 2021permalink

Yes, Craig, I acknowledged that. The last bastion of the smaller formats is size (at the extreme end) and cost-for-resolution. Having said that, outside of wildlife, when's the last time you've needed your full sensor resolution? I print pretty regularly (I just did a 16x20 for my mother's 65th) and I could get away with 8 MP.

Jan 22, 2021permalink

@rogerjp The point is that light isn't always good and the cost/size differential between formats is shrinking. I have several 5 ft x 7 ft windows in my living room. If the shears are drawn, even midday, my m4/3 camera can easily be at ISO 1000+ with a f/1.7 prime lens.

Given how close the price and size of low-end full frame is to mid-high end APS-C, the value proposition of the smaller sensor is getting nebulous.

Jan 22, 2021permalink

JenR - I think if you are considering this lens you shoot Sony crop cameras. It's not a "buy this" or "buy an A7r4 and another lens" decision... the lens isn't pointless if you don't have an A7r4.

Jan 22, 2021permalink

Jon, just because some considerations in a discussion are irrelevant to some people, this doesn't render the discussion pointless. Yes, some people will never consider an FF camera, but others might. It is a good idea to examine your equipment, how much use and capability you get for what money and bulk.
Also, it doesn't have to be the A7Riv: Someone might be interested in shallow DOF at wide and standard focal lengths, not high resolution at tele.

Jan 22, 2021permalink

Dave Oddie

@Garyster "All things being equal, a larger sensor *is* better. Better in low light, better DOF control to name a few key elements. Remember... you can always crop a FF sensor image, but impossible to go the other way around!"

No one is saying they aren't technically better. The same was true in the days of film when you had half frame, 35mm and medium format. That is not in dispute. What I am saying it's got to the stage where this is irrelevant for most people - if they would only admit it.

Modern APS-C sensors are excellent even in low light and while you will at some point get better out of a FF sensor, for most people in my option you will not tell the difference between a large print from a 24mp APS-C of FF sensor. I don't even accept the D of F control argument. D of F the depth of an eyelash is pointless to me. You can easily isolate your subject on APS-C. As to cropping FF, who goes around composing using the centre of the frame? I never do. Very unnatural.

Jan 22, 2021permalink

"No one is saying they aren't technically better ,,, it's got to the stage where this is irrelevant for most people - if they would only admit it"
Now imagine if those film formats you mentioned would cost the same (not the camera body alone, but with some lenses) while being same size and weight. That's what most people fail to admit. They keep repeating mantras about the enormous FF gear size while demonstrating huge DSLRs and massive lenses which have no equivalent alternatives on crop systems. They have this silly idea that they must always get the largest toys, because those must be the best. And the fact that crop systems don't offer any similarly large (largest) equivalent optics makes them believe (somehow) that crop systems are smaller. Which is stupid. I'm fine without the largest FF optics.
The brain failure number two - Yes, the crop might be good enough for many, but if it isn't any cheaper or smaller or better or more convenient, then it's a pointless waste of money.

Jan 22, 2021permalink

Sure ... there are very small crop cameras with tiny little kit lenses. But then they are not much better than premium point&shoot cameras like RX100 series. They don't compete with FF. They compete with compact cameras and phones.

Jan 22, 2021permalink

https://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2018-mirrorless-camera-2/april-june-2018-newsviews/is-m43-still-a-viable-choic.html

@ecka84 I think the smaller sensors can hold up pretty well against full frame when the light is good. The problem (as you well know) is that the shooting envelope is much smaller. That trade-off of size vs shooting envelope used to be a legitimate decision problem, but now that we have bodies like the A7C and those ultra compact Samyang and Tamron lenses, the trade-off is nearly gone.

I think Thom Hogan does a great job of explaining why the smaller formats are increasingly making less sense. I will probably end up replacing my entire m4/3 travel/hiking kit with an A7C and Ricoh GR III once the price comes down a bit.

http://www.sansmirror.com/articles/the-problem-with-near-equiv.html

Jan 22, 2021*permalink

Well, I find it unreasonable and silly to own multiple cameras/systems for situations when a lesser tool "can hold up pretty well against full frame". While FF alone can handle it even better with no extra cost or considerable size penalties. People fail to realize that FF is better at all ISOs, not only high. FF is better in all sorts of lighting conditions, not just the low light. See, those anti-FF mantras are making people waste money and stay ignorant.
Surely there are many who buy overkill gear for what they do with it. But let's not draw any conclusions based on their irrelevant opinions. If someone tells me that his FF and MFT are same good, the guy doesn't know what he's talking about, that's all.
The only argument for the smaller sensors is the "good enough while smaller and cheaper", but it doesn't compete with FF at all. Because, if we ask FF or MF shooters who actually utilize their camera potential, such "good enough" levels are synonymous to crap quality and useless.

Jan 23, 2021permalink

135 is better in all conditions, but let's not be hyperbolic about "crap quality" or "useless". There are many professional photographers who use crop formats for their (award winning) work. Off the top of my head, Benjamin Kanarek, Petr Bambousek, Georgina Steyeler, Zack Arias, Tihomir Lazarov and Ming Thein. I am sure there are a bunch more out there.

Jan 23, 2021permalink

Professional photography occupation doesn't really make one an ultimate expert in everything related to photography. Great professional photographers know how to make money with it more efficiently. But it doesn't necessarily mean producing highest quality images. It rarely does, actually. Because there's a rather low demand for that. People buy "good enough" (junk food), "cheaper" and "unique".

Let's not talk about any "award winning" work here. It has little to do with gear or "work", True award winning imagery is mostly about luck and experience. The rest is just business and fakery.

"let's not be hyperbolic about "crap quality" or "useless" ..."
- Sure. Then let's not confuse "image quality" and "quality mages" as well. Using the "quality image" argument in gear talk is a quite desperate move (irrelevant too). Good gear can't be replaced with bare photography skills. Wishful thinking doesn't magically produce higher quality images. Some are bashing better healthcare standards too

Jan 23, 2021permalink

At this point, the differences are marginal. By 2005 National Geographic photographers switched to the Canon 5D according to a photographer talk I went to. This Nat Geo photographer missed the look and flaws of slide film, but accepted the benefits digital brought. By today's standards the 5D is considered ancient, and technically bested by every modern M4/3 to 35mm DSLR, but it was good enough for Nat. Geo cover photos or inside spreads for years. I try to remember that- good enough.

The photos people remember weren't necessarily taken with high quality equipment. Daido Moriyama shot half-frame because 35mm film was too clean for him. Sally Mann literally used faulty antique large format lenses. What matters most is intention and having something to say, diligence in going back again and again to get the shots you need, judgment in culling the pictures into a cohesive whole, and having the technical skill in shooting and processing to realize your vision. The rest is artifice.

Jan 25, 2021*permalink

Well, I'm not going to spend good money on modern camera gear to shoot tiny little magazine size snapshots or something a phone camera could handle. That would be silly. But there are many silly people out there no doubt ... buying all that overpriced crop gear ... bragging about their toys being the best ones, the smallest ones, or whatever, and how there's no need for a real camera ... It's a sad story.
They simply can't tell the difference between "quality image" and "image quality".

If you think that all the best pictures get to NG, you are so wrong about that. Many photography gems stay unpublished, for various reasons. Including "looking too good to be true, fake, overdone in photoshop", despite being absolutely authentic, genuine and unstaged. Or "potentially hurting someone's feelings", "politically incorrect", or "too eye-opening".

Jan 25, 2021permalink

Actually, I'm more interested in art photography which is done with a plethora of cameras, many of them obsolete or inadequate by purely technical standards. It's all about the right tool for the job.

A humanitarian photographer colleague needed weatherproof and lightweight as she travels extensively to war zones and refugee camps. She ended up with micro 4/3 and that's the right choice for her. We exhibited together, with me on a APS-C camera and others with 35mm.

Jan 26, 2021permalink

And which MFT cameras and lenses are weatherproof? Have you ever read the actual manual for your "weatherproofed" MFT gear and what it says about dust and moisture resistance? Well, clearly you have not. Because it says that it's not weatherproof, it only has a tiny little bit of splash protection for a few drops of liquid, so when the rain starts you have the time to hide it somewhere safe.

Cameras can handle some liquids and temperature for a short time, without promising any degree of weatherproofing. But that's only until you decide to change the lens. Once you remove the lens you can kiss your resistances goodbye and it will all depend on how careful you are. Dust and moisture resistance means that it can be used outdoors in good weather. Even when it says "weather" resistance somewhere, it never says "bad weather" resistance. It's only like IPX1 level protection, which is worse than a plastic bag. No matter what camera you use, bad weather conditions will kill it eventually.

Jan 26, 2021permalink

The plastic bag works. You can "weatherproof" any camera with it. Some special bags can even work underwater (if you know what you are doing).

"the right tool for the job" - Yes, of course. Except that it's unreasonable to have a different right tool for each job when a single tool can do all those jobs well. Photography is not about playing with tools. That's fetishism. Photography is about the picture.

Jan 26, 2021permalink

Weatherproof m43 cameras have as good /better water resistance as anything:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2020/03/13/how-to-really-weather-seal-a-camera-olympus-behind-the-scenes
" While the E-M5 III doesn't quite match the weather-sealing of the flagship E-M1X, I've tested it to a higher level than any other camera I've run through the IR water-soaker..."
"... and Olympus E-M1 Mark II), neither one showed any effect from our water challenge. We found no water in any of their compartments or viewfinders, and neither had any operational difficulties"
https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2020/03/13/how-to-really-weather-seal-a-camera-olympus-behind-the-scenes
http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/olympus/om-d-e-m1x/olympus-om-d-e-m1x-full-review.html
"We personally tested the E-M1X in the rain, watched one get hosed off after falling in the mud, let an overflowing rain gutter pour over another, and witnessed an Olympus employee dunk a review unit in a hot tub. "

Jan 26, 2021permalink

Please read the manual.

Jan 26, 2021permalink

Please see the tests... also no camera company makes claims about water resistance, other than saying they have tried hard (well, strictly Oly say IPx1, which is more than anyone else and meaningless (as it's a lot more in reality) at the same time.

Jan 27, 2021*permalink

All cameras have been thoroughly tested by the manufacturers in the first place. And if it's really "weatherproof", then why would they not put this information into the user manual or state it right on the product box? Hiding such essential camera features is stupid. Therefore it seems more like a fanb0y fantasy than reality. And the IPX1 is nothing to brag about (for everyone except Oly). Unless they have nothing better to offer. Which is sad. Why not make some waterproof MFT cameras then? I think that would help selling more cameras. Instead of preaching anti-FF mantras and telling everyone to stop caring about getting crappier results for the same price because it's "good enough". Well, these BS lies got them where they are now. Life is fair.

Jan 27, 2021permalink

The only cameras that have waterproof in the manual are designed for actual underwater use. For example the new top-end Sony A1:

"As with most pro-targeted camera bodies, Sony says the camera is extensively weather sealed, but doesn't promise it's either dust or water proof."

I don't get all the FF comments. This is a lens designed for people who have a Sony APS camera. People aren't going to buy a 6600 to use the lens with it. People are also not going to upgrade to FF just to use a FF version of the lens.

I don't own an Olympus camera (I can't recall ever owning one).

Oh and I have two FF cameras within 2m of me as I type.

Jan 27, 2021permalink

Given the prices mentioned for the various Sony lenses in APS-C, I've learned that Fuji is quite competitive-both optically and in price, with even Fuji's excellent 16-55 2.8 being cheaper than Sony's offering.

Tamron should come out with this lens for X mount.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

KandN

I think Tamron has got their priorities right and the sales will prove it. The don't-step-on-Sony's-toes strategy has given them very creative thinking.

I've ordered mine and am expecting it in a few days.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

FuhTeng

I like it. The flare is unfortunate but I'd deal with it. Very appealing lens for a Z50 shooter!

Jan 20, 2021permalink

Is it really coming out for Z mount?

Jan 21, 2021permalink

BrentSchumer

Probably not, but if it did it would be a bright spot for the dead-in-the-water Z50.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

FuhTeng

It could, but will it? No indication yet.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

Toni Salmonelli

Would be a nice fit for my X-T2 in X-mount.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

A most disappointing lens from Tamron for me. Besides the flaws Chris mentioned, the barrel distortion at 17mm as seen in one of the photos is extreme. Sigma makes a variable aperture 17-70 lens for DSLRs. I used the version made prior to the C for years. Really nice bokeh. Good central sharpness. Not bad in the corners at 17mm but not close to this lens. It had a great close-up shooting capacity and nice max magnification that made it very good for shallow depth of field nature shots. Nothing is said here about the Tamron's minimum focusing distance or max magnification. I think Sigma would do so much better with an updated version of their lens for mirrorless.

Jan 20, 2021*permalink

I think you're being a little hard on the Tamron. The much beloved Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 Pro has something like 6.5% barrel distortion at the same focal length. The Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 is a bit better at 5.8% at 16 mm, but it's still a lot. The reality these days is that manufacturers are emphasizing sharpness over the frame and relying on software corrections for distortion.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

I hope Tamron can take it! I don't think the barrel disortion is a type that is easily completely corrected. Even if it is, correcting it will make it more like a 20-70 lens. Might as well shoot at 20 to begin with. I like using the entire image I took. Chris already criticized it for not being 24mm equivalent. I am also including the flaws Chris mentioned in my overall evaluation. That bokeh has terrible onion rings and one of the images showed considerable bokeh fringing. Software can't correct those things. For my purposes, the poor bokeh alone is a deal killer. I like sharp images, too. But, not at the expense of overall balance and beauty. If one doesn't shoot shallow dof images, then this may not be an issue at all. I own several Tamron lenses. The 35 1.8 is similarly flawed and I might sell it. It is very sharp however. Great close focusing and max magnification which keeps it in my toolbox. For now.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

The barrel distortion is common for zooms of this type. My Sigma 17-50 2.8 and Tamron 17-50 2.8 were similar. In photo mode it's easily correctable as a raw file. I assume the camera's distortion correction will work in video mode, though?

I wish he had an APS-C sensor Sony (or at least similar form factor a7C to test it on as handling is more important than knit-picking bokeh or fringing.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

Nit-picking? You have your priorities. Why dismiss mine? The bokeh is objectively awful. Whether or not that matters to someone is subjective. As I noted in my comment. It would be disastrous for own photography. I do prize handling but will not sacrifice the image quality I need for it. Your needs are different. Not better.

Jan 21, 2021*permalink

It's fine if bokeh is that important to you. I was more questioning the video's overemphasis on LOCA and bokeh characteristics than your comment. As any lens in this class is more than adequate, I think DPReview is making up their own distinctions just to have some basis by which to judge the lenses.

The bokeh is *subjectively* awful. There is no one standard for what is acceptable or attractive. It's reasonably round and uniform and not especially obtrusive.

It would be irrelevant for my photography as if people are pondering the subtleties of the background blur, I've failed to make any kind of meaningful statement with the image.

I think for a portrait session you'd bring a portrait prime (~50-60mm on APS-C) or longer f2.8 telephoto rather than a general purpose zoom like this. I have some classic soft MF lenses I use for those times.

Jan 21, 2021*permalink

I did not note an overemphasis. I think they pointed out this particular issue fairly well. I disagree with your assessment that any lens in this class is more than adequate. Depends on one's style and needs. This lens is less than adequate for me. Decidedly so. I don't think DPReview is 'making up' distinctions. They are simply pointing out strengths and weaknesses. The poor performance of this lens compared to others in terms of the bokeh is not fiction.

Oh, there are standards for bokeh. The texture of the interior of the bokeh circles is one criteria. Exterior fringing another. The shape and uniformity, which you and Chris point out are nice, are two others. Folk's tolerance for lesser bokeh varies, sure. You don't find the awful bokeh obtrusive. I do. One's feelings about the bokeh are, yes, subjective. One can compare the specific attributes of the bokeh circles to that of other lenses just as one can compare coma or barrel distortion.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

For what kind of photography is the aesthetic quality of bokeh important to the overall meaning or impression of the image? Some subset of commercial portraiture?

I can't think of any pictures I've seen in a gallery where it's a meaningful part of the composition. That's not to say there aren't shallow depth of field shots- lots of large format film portraiture is like that. But the circles you're so passionate about are just specular highlights, which is a little unusual to have be prominent as it draws attention from the subject. The other blur is well, blur.

The Japanese word boke wasn't even a concept in English or photography until a few decades ago, let alone a consideration to use to compare lenses.

As old issues like distortion and vignetting and chromatic aberration are increasingly corrected by lens design and software, I wonder if we're just looking for problems that are largely irrelevant to meaningful photography.

Jan 26, 2021permalink

What did you think of the Canon 200 f1.8 blur compared to this one? I found it more obtrusive, and being limited to wide open without hard geometric shapes is less practical. What about helios swirly bokeh? Catadioptric lens? They are all quite different. This lens is mostly vanilla.

Jan 26, 2021permalink

Rogerjp: cool that bokeh isn't important for you. I am speaking for myself in particular but there are many other photographers I am aware of who also prize excellent bokeh. The bokeh circles you refer to do distract from the subject . . . if they have onion rings, fringing, etc. As I said, this problem is a deal killer for me. I do try to speak for myself.

Jan 26, 2021permalink

Being a Nikon user, I know nothing about that Canon lens. Catadioptric? Never heard of it. Helios images I take on a case by case basis. Like I do most images.

Jan 26, 2021permalink

The importance of the aesthetic quality of bokeh is no more apparent than in cinema and television. Defocusing the background to create shallow dof effects is so common. A subset of portrait photography? A large subset. What about wildlife and sports where pros use the fastest lens possible to effectively blur the background? Watch camera and lens reviews. How important is eye af seen these days. Why does one need perfect focus on the eye? A lot of times it's because one is shooting with a very fast lens wide open. Saying that I am 'passionate' about bokeh circles feels dismissive. I notice them just as I notice other elements in a composition. A tilted horizon, unnatural blues in a sky, excessive saturation, sensor dust spots, etc. Lots of things can throw an image off and, equally, can make one excellent. I guess I am passionate about the art of photography.

Jan 26, 2021permalink

davev8

i think Jordan should shoot video with a canon eos M mki

Jan 20, 2021permalink

FBoneOne

Fuji X-Pro1 with 56mm f:1.2 and velvia film simulation... that will cure anybody from trying to do video :-)

Jan 20, 2021permalink

Swerky

This lens makes a good case for itself as Chris has pointed out despite its few flaws. Good range with an f2.8 constant aperture, sharp, weather resistant, vibration compensation, fast focusing. Would pair well with something like an A6400. What’s not to like? I actually find the flare not too distracting with usual sharp edges. These soft blobs are fine if flare has to be there. Ok bokeh quality not quite there, specially with a fast aperture lens that should be strong in that area. I guess we can’t ask for more from a lens with those specs at that price point.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

migus

Tamron deserves praise for an APS-dedicate lens!
However, it's a bit in-between the pro (mainly FF today) and enthusiast (APS, yet a bit too heavy in absolute terms) markets. I'd love a better zoom than the old overpriced Zeiss f/4 zoom, but smaller and lighter => not an f/2.8

Jan 22, 2021permalink

BackToNature1

Chris Niccolls, great job on the Video Review. Quite refreshing.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

TonyC5D

17-70 f2.8 Di III-A VC RXD?
That may be my new computer password!

Jan 20, 2021permalink

otto k

Not a good password. Too complicated and too hard to remember /s

Jan 20, 2021permalink

Photodog2

TonyC5D, like you're going to remember it if you don't use your computer for 3 days. Oh well, you can always write it on a yellow sticky and stick it to your computer. Pro tip: stick it under your computer table. :)

Jan 22, 2021permalink

TonyC5D

I had it engraved round the rim of my new lens :-)

Jan 22, 2021*permalink

Photodog2

Good one.

Jan 22, 2021permalink

BrentSchumer

Man, this really needs to come out for XF, EF-M, and Z-DX mounts.

XF is full of slow and/or insanely expensive zooms, so this would be a breath of fresh air.
EF-M could use a nice fast zoom with weather sealing.
And Z-DX could use...well more lenses in general, but especially a nice fast zoom to replace the primes that the mount lacks.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

io_bg

Agreed. I'd get this if it was available on the X-mount as the 16-55 is quite bulky and expensive, also lacks OIS.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

nandbytes

According to Dustin Abbot's review its optically better than the fuji 16-55mm too.

This would sell nicely on pretty much any mount. Considering they all basically have the same 18mm flange distance I don't see why they don't make it especially EF-M mount which uses a protocol same/similar to EF mount.

Jan 20, 2021*permalink

davev8

pointless having a weather sealed lens for M mount when no M bodys are weather sealed

Jan 20, 2021permalink

marc petzold

The XF 18-55/2.8-4 is the best Kitlens for the Priceclass from Fujifilm, small, decent Optics, when buying with a Fujifilm Body, it costs usually only about ~300 EUR more. Fujifilm does have the biggest APS-C LineUp in the Business with the X-Mount Series from all APS-C Brands.

The 18-55 It's perfectly fine on my E1, or T1, and i've never noticed Onion Rings into it's Bokeh all these Years since 2012, like the new Tamron 17-70/2.8 RXD.
It's close to 900 EUR into Germany, which is awful much for just an APS-C Standard Zoom Lens. Think Tamron 17-50/2.8 (nonVC) which especially excels a lot on Nikon DX F-Mount, i have both the A16N, A16NII since Release, both are very sharp, and the BIM Version hella fast focusing via D7K.

A Nikon Z Version for the Z50 would be nice, but perhaps Tamron might think, Z50 Sales are too low from Nikon, and the 16-50, 55-250 DX Lens Duo are two very good Zoom Lenses, for that little Money, when being bought as Kit.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

@marc petzold
Sorry but the Tamron is way sharper than the Fuji 18-55. Not to mention far more flexible with the constant F2.8 and broader range

Jan 20, 2021permalink

cheenachatze

EF-M mount is absolutely lacking any lens of this type. I think Tamron has a real opportunity here.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

Ad12

Yeah I’m very disappointed with the Fujifilm zoom options. Price/performance ratio is nowhere near as good as Tamron.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

marc petzold

panther, ....as long as there is no 1:1 comparsion, its FUD what you say here.
2nd, the Tamron 17-70/2.8 is way big, almost too huge for a always-on APS-C sized Lens for a bricket Style A6x00 Body, that's what it was being made for.

You should let the Church in the Village, before making unproofed Claims like this. I've yet seen no Christopher Frost, or anyone else 1:1 Sample Comparsion, and further, the XF 18-55 is smaller than the 17-70, and for Fuji Users perfect.
You can't compare Oranges vs. Apples simply here, but you're that kind of Person , which like others, always demands being into Right, which is not the Case always.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

https://dustinabbott.net/2021/01/tamron-17-70mm-f2-8-di-iii-a-vc-rxd-b070-review/

Fuji's 16-80mm zoom is WR, made of metal, has a real aperture ting, $799 brand new, works and feels great, and has a lot less distortion to optically correct. It's a stop slower at f4 but the OIS is downright excellent, esp. when paired with a stabilized Fuji body like my X-H1. It also wouldn't be quite as sharp in the corners wide open, but since I have been shooting real photos and not roof shingles and test charts, things even out there.

Sony's unstabilized 16-55 f2/8 GM is more expensive than Fuji's version, and the prices Chris quotes for other similar Sony offerings are very much in line with what Fuji charges. Plus the fact that Fuji cameras are actually enjoyable to use :-D

Now that Sigma's doing Fuji X mount glass, maybe Tamron will follow. I'd sure enjoy having the option!

Jan 21, 2021permalink

nandbytes

@marc petzold: according to Dustin Abbott it's sharper than Fuji's 16-55mm/2.8, so I'd imagine it's sharper than 18-55mm too. In his words:
"On Fuji, my favorite zoom I’ve reviewed thus far is a competing lens, the Fujinon XF 16-55mm F2.8 WR. The Fuji lens is a pro-grade zoom with a lot of great features, but the Tamron lens is lighter, cheaper, sharper, has less distortion, and has better autofocus while also having a bigger zoom range…and image stabilization!"

@Mr Bolton: Sony's 16-55mm/2.8 is smaller than the tamron and much smaller than Fuji 16-55mm/2.8.

Jan 21, 2021*permalink

@nandbytes but Sony's zoom isn't any cheaper. And yes, there are a lot of zooms in this focal length range that are sharper than Fuji's scrappy little 18-55-which still manages to punch way above its weight. Can be had new for $400 yet is made of metal and feels/shoots/focuses nothing like the plastic garbage of most f4-6 coke bottle kit lenses.

Still it sounds like I should buy a Tamron. Perhaps they should make it in X mount so as to facilitate this..?

Meanwhile, I was sticking with like to like as in comparing first party to first party lenses (Sony vs Fuji) in terms of price.

Jan 21, 2021*permalink

BrentSchumer

This guy trying to pass off a 16-80 F4 vs a 17-70mm F2.8 because of a Fuji logo.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

Since EF-M is basically just EF electronically it should be pretty simple for Tamron to support it, no big reverse-engineering of the interface required... just needs the mechanics to work, which is simplified as the flange distances of EF-M and E are both 18mm...

Jan 21, 2021*permalink

phouphou

Great choice for A6xxx users.
For A7riv its not really interesting since its priced too closely to 24-105f4 and is not much differnt in size. And most of all you gain 60MP back with the FE24-105 over 26MP with the Tammy...
This lens proofs again that laws of physics still apply. 24-105f4 equivalent in APSC is gonna look alot like the FF lens. Theres just no magic involved, sorry apsc/m43 users.

Jan 20, 2021*permalink

Sony A6100 + This tamron 17-70 f2.8 is $750+799 = $1,550
Sony A7III + 24-105 f4 is $2,000 + $1,200 = $3,200

Still more than twice as much. To me, this Tamron makes Sony's APS-C body options even more compelling, particularly because it's stabilized. The A6100's AF is actually a generation ahead I believe and the resolution, focal range, and equivalent aperture of those setups are very comparable. Main difference to me is the viewfinder but seems a steep price to pay. The A7III's viewfinder is pretty dated anyway...

Jan 20, 2021*permalink

@mosc
To be fair the A6100 is very "underfeatured" and most probably enjoy the slightly higher featureset the A6400 or even the A6600 offers.

And even with the A6600 the obvious comparison point would be the A7c.

That said even then the APS-C setup is cheaper if you want no other lenses

Jan 20, 2021permalink

MikeRan

FF definitely gives you some other options, and some of those options can’t be matched in APS-C. That said if you’re looking for a small kit for travel and/or family shots this lens attached to a 6100 is tough to beat.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

@panther fan I actually think it's the opposite: the A6400 and A6600 do not bring enough to the table to justify the premium over the A6100. Sony's IBIS is...not great and the killer feature of the A6xxx cameras is Real Time AF, which the A6100 gets.

Regarding phouphou's original post, I am not sure what his point was. That a 17-70 f/2.8 lens on APS-C will look the same as a 24-105 f/4 on full frame? Well, duh.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

" That a 17-70 f/2.8 lens on APS-C will look the same as a 24-105 f/4 on full frame? Well, duh."

Well, in the past the "faster" f2.8 APS-C lens would cost MORE than the FF lens equivalent or at least similar. This is 33% cheaper. Delivering the same for less on an inherently smaller platform begs the comparison. Certainly for many other applications, FF has clear advantages but not when it comes to extremely popular FF 24-105 f4 lenses any longer...

Jan 20, 2021*permalink

@unhappymeal
"the killer feature of the A6xxx cameras is Real Time AF"
which the A7c also has

-Only the A6600 has the big battery of the A7c the others use the old tiny one
-The A6100 has cut down menu options, no Auto ISO min SS for example, no AWB lock and many other things
-The A7c has a much faster clearing buffer, all Sony APS-C cameras are UHS-I
-The A6100 has the lowest res EVF for all of them, only 1.44mdot
-IBIS in the A7c and A6600 is very useful for primes
-The A7c has a much bigger buffer, than the A6600 and A6400 which have a larger buffer than the A6100
-ergonomics of the A6600 are much better with better grip and two more custom buttons than the A6100

The A6100 is not a bad camera, but every camera above it is a clear upgrade

Jan 20, 2021*permalink

MikeRan

Clearly the battery life that was such an issue 6 years ago is no longer an issue now that everyone is tolerating short battery life on their nikon and canon Mirrorless cameras.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

I don't know why the A7C was brought into the discussion when we were originally talking about the APS-C bodies, but any who. Yes, the A6600 and A6400 have advantages, but I really don't think they're significant (save for the battery life) enough to merit the price premium over the A6100.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

@unhappymeal
The min Auto ISO setting alone makes the A6400 worth it over the A6100, especially for beginners.

And the A7c was brought up because the A7c with a 24-105 F4 is the logical FF comparison to this setup

Edit:
All advantages of the A6400 over the A6100
-Higher-res EVF 2.36Mdot instead of 1.44Mdot
-Weather sealing vs none
-Magnesium alloy body vs plastic
-Picture profiles available
-Full set of menu settings including Auto ISo min SS, AWB lock etc... available
-extra custom switch
-larger buffer
-higher shutter cycle rating
-120FPS EVF vs 60FPS EVF
-No 30min record limit
And all that for a price difference of 150$

Jan 20, 2021*permalink

Yeah, the 6400 may be worth it for the viewfinder alone.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

The Fuji X-S10 is even more worth it. Sony's abandoning their APS-C ecosystem by inches, but Fuji's doubling down and staying committed.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

MikeRan

Fuji doesn’t have full frame. Duh.
There is no middle ground for them.
It’s APS-C or MF.

And Sony recently released a few APS-C lenses so I’m not sure it’s fair to say they’re abandoning it although clearly the big three are all focusing on full frame.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

This is a crop lens so the image circle won't cover an FF sensor and it's not intended for FF bodies. DPReview only used it on FF and they didn't have a crop body handy and only shot in crop mode so the image circle wasn't an issue.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

"The Fuji X-S10 is even more worth it. Sony's abandoning their APS-C ecosystem by inches, but Fuji's doubling down and staying committed."

Which is strange considering this is a brand new APS-C only lens release and it comes out for? Only Sony.

Fuji's 16-55 f2.8 is more expensive and significantly shorter.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

And mosc, how many Sony lenses do they debut each year specifically for crop? Fuji also offers their metal, WR, XF 16-80 new for $799. Granted it's f4, but it is stabilized and $100 cheaper so there's that. I have the 16-80 and it's an excellent all arounder with sharper rendering than the 18-55, and snappy autofocus even on last-gen X-H1 body.

Sony has the bucks behind them to throw a bone periodically to their A6xxx users as with the expensive 35mm f1.4, but in no way could it be argued that they're going in on APS-C like Fuji is.

Also, since this is a third party lens, how does that go against my argument that Sony are moving towards full frame for the most part?

Jan 21, 2021*permalink

bluevellet

I got excited when I first read the headline and was wondering:

"how come I have not heard of this potentially awesome FF lens with a killer range?"

And then I realized...

"oh... it's an APS-C lens. "

Jan 20, 2021permalink

Don't be greedy. Sony, Sigma, Tamron, Samyang and Laowa have been giving FE more than enough love. I think it's admirable that Tamron is not leaving APS-C E shooters out in the cold.

Jan 20, 2021*permalink

ChelseaPhotographer

@bluevellet - my thoughts exactly!

Jan 20, 2021permalink

JonB1975

A full-frame 17-70mm constant aperture f2.8 would be enormous.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

@Jon For real. The Panasonic-Leica 10-25 f/1.7 for m4/3 is a 20-50 f/3.4 135 equivalent and it's pretty big as is.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

Interesting the A7R4 packs higher APS-C resolution than any of Sony's actual APS-C bodies.

Great job, seems like a really awesome lens.

Jan 20, 2021*permalink

Well the A7R IV is by far Sonys best APS-C body
-highest MP
-best EVF
-best AF
-fast dual card slots
-endless buffer
-robust body with much better ergonomics

There is a reason not only high res fanatics choose the A7R line. Having a best in class FF body and a best in class APS-C body in the same camera can be really nice and offers many possibilities. With the A7R IVs AF system and endless buffer, it becomes a real sports camera in APS-C mode, it acts as an instant teleconverter. And basically, every prime becomes a zoom

Jan 20, 2021*permalink

~60 shots with a 27 sec. clear time isn't what I'd call "endless buffer." However, that's still pretty legitimate for a camera of this resolution.

For the money, you could get an R5 and as many 33 megapixel stills out of an 8K burst as you like, or 12fps of 45mp stills. Or a pretty fair amount of the 8K video that no Sony can shoot. The AF is also pretty comparable. WRT overheating.. I'd do the copper heatsink mod on mine, solving that problem for $2 worth of copper plate.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

It's a great camera but 3x the price.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

Bolton, Panther is referring to the A7Riv used as a crop body, and in that use, its buffer is at least 200 deep. Not endless, but good for anybody but the most extreme action photographers:
https://dustinabbott.net/2019/10/sony-a7r-iv-review-a7riv/
Buffer grows from 68 to 204 in crop mode, making this an interesting sports or wildlife option.

Jan 21, 2021*permalink

@JensR
204 is a low estimate. With a fast card, you easily get above 250 shots in crop mode and the buffer clears quite quick. So while not technically endless it will be hard to find a situation where you max it out. Especially at the 8-10FPS the A7R IV delivers. That is almost 30sec of uninterrupted burst

Jan 21, 2021permalink