It's NOT QUITE The Lens I Hoped For... Tamron 17-70 f2.8 Sony APS-C Review

[@yoankolev91]

Still looking for that 8mm - 2000mm, F1.2 that costs about $50-$100

[@Amogh-Dongre]

Lol

[@dunnadidit]

Constantly refreshing the rumor pages waiting for it

[@yoankolev91]

The date it comes out would be 3021

[@leokeller]

Has to be a pancake lens with image stabilisation

[@yoankolev91]

@@leokeller Will not complain for a body like 70-200, definitely OSS is a must! AND weather sealing, 10 custom buttons would be a bonus. Not to say it should be the sharpest lens ever... built in NDs. I would pay $150 no problem 😅

[@phucmapvlog]

I sold my 18-105, and bought this lens as soon as it came out. For me, I noticed a huge difference with that f/2.8 vs the f/4. Definitely satisfied with the results, especially when compared to the other options that are availabe. This will be my main zoom lens until the upgrade to full frame.

[@davidtran6475]

This is definitely my favourite lens coming from the 18 to 105 as well Love your videos By the way

[@JamesBondage]

i been seeing you everywhere. i can’t wait for the vietnam 14 day quarantine to end so me and my gf can fly there for a few months.

[@dunnadidit]

That’s awesome! Glad you’re loving it!

[@phucmapvlog]

@@dunnadidit hard to beat those primes though 💪🏻

[@phucmapvlog]

@@davidtran6475 cảm ơn bro

[@treyxaviermusic]

Why are all the best camera youtubers Canadian? Something in the maple syrup...

[@ezamabona7940]

lmao, im south african but this is hilarious

[@khoafish]

It's the bagged milk. And free health care. Yeah. The free health care. That's it.

[@Moshe_Dayan44]

I can't believe Americans don't have milk available in bags, too. So much cheaper per ml than cartons, and you get to have a milk jug in whatever colour you want for your milk bags.

[@iamLucid]

The way you condensed all of the information I needed to make an educated choice on the lens in 8 minutes was amazing. Keep doing just that bro

[@drwalka10]

Ball licker

[@Cwookie_]

I'd say your lens is back-focussing at 70mm. If you pause at 4:32 there is a clear difference in sharpness. But if you look at the 70mm shot, the hairs in front of your ears are as sharp as can be. The focus is simply slightly behind your eyes.

[@dunnadidit]

I actually thought that too for a bit. But I shot a ton of tests with all sorts of different focus attempts (manual, af, front, back didn’t matter) and kept finding the same results of it being quite a bit softer at 50-70mm. I also heard this from a handful of other people too so it wasn’t just my unit. Unfortunately, the example that I chose to show maybe wasn’t the best one to demonstrate the point... that’s my bad 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@bellabellabellabella]

im going with the tamaron -- for my field documentary work, the stabilization + f/2.8 seems more valuable to overall footage quality than the slight degrading image quality of shots pushing 60, 70 mm. really appreciate your videos

[@carloenix]

You were the one who brought this lens to my attention in your reply to one of my comments. I have since decided to make it my first lens purchase and I'm currently saving up for it. Can't wait to get my hands on it! 🙂

[@dunnadidit]

Nice! I'm sure you'll love it!

[@venkatramanprasadnarumanch2245]

For me price is a very important aspect. If this lens were available at around 450-550$, it would enable many hobbyists like me will be willing to buy.

[@7784000]

Did you get the sigma 18-50 instead now?

[@zerowanted1]

Same here and the reason I ened with a 16-70 f4 from sony that I got for 400 and still have some old lenses to sell

[@eddiejafarian9284]

It's only sold for $555 in Japan. US imposes higher tax on Made in China products and as a result this is more expensive in the US and some other countries. I managed to get the similar price in Hong Kong, I think the seller imported from Japan.

[@Fraaankiee]

The time is now, you can get this under 500 😂

[@damianlopez6583]

2024 and I just bought a brand new for $480 shipped from eBay for my A6400!

[@JordanExplores97]

I bought this lenses not too long ago and it just does everything great. It’s the best all around lens for the price, quality and APS-C, my only complaint is the weight and how it fits on most a6000 cameras. The body to lens ratio is a bit much, but you get used to it. Either way, it’s worth every penny and you cannot go wrong with the f/2.8. It’s a huge difference compared to the f/4

[@dunnadidit]

Thanks for sharing!

[@Settoautofocus]

OSS is a must for me. I always do everything I can to find OSS and then the low aperture

[@WildBushGrit]

I paused at 4:32... and took some time to compare.... I feel the focus is slighter further on the 70mm shot. If I look at the details in the green rim light... its looks pretty sharp to me... sharper than the 35mm. Maybe this is not the best image to compare image quality, any thoughts?

[@ShizuoDai1]

To me the 17-70 is by far the best lens I've bought which can easily substitute all my primes and pack lightly on a trip. Primes are a different story ( love the sigma 56mm 1.4 ) but I am very pleased with this lens performance this far. It is very sharp, VC is a good addition to my a6500's in-body stabilization which lets me shoot still in a lower shutter speed.

[@damonluvisi]

Do you keep a wide angle handy? What other lens would you keep in your bag with this one?

[@schnubbel76]

@@damonluvisi The one i always carry around as an addition is the Sony 35mmm 1.8 OSS. It is super small, nice sharp pictures, nice bokeh, stabilisation and not too expensive. The focal length of 35mm (52,2 mm on fullframe) allows for almost anything except animals or super-wide landscape. A must have imo for all Sony APSC users. One could argue that the Sigma 30mm f1.4 would be a better choice, but i saw a comparison between those lenses with focus on low light situations and it turned out that the 35mm 1.8 performed better than the sigma 1.4 even if the sigma has the faster aperture, but the stabilisation of the sony compensated for that and allowed a shorter time of exposure with the same ISO and lighting conditions. You can find that comparison on the channel of "that1cameraguy" Long story short: if i feel the need for a bit more sharpness and more soft bokeh without having a heavy backpack - Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS it is.

[@nikolouizos6818]

@@schnubbel76 I don't understand how did you come up with this conclusion.. Yes okay, if you don't have IBIS on your camera and adjusting your stutter speed in a dark room.... and still very close! But in overall the Sigma 30mm 1.4 is a sharper lens and the 1.4 gives creamier bokeh.

[@schnubbel76]

@@nikolouizos6818 I explained how i came to my conclusion, i dont know what else to tell you.

[@Forzaguy5]

@@schnubbel76 i was really wondering if stabilization helps … when did it come in handy ? Stills? Low light?

[@Aidehua03]

After focal length, I’m always looking at f-stop first, as I always find myself in low light and just prefer that shallow DOF look. After that, generally my biggest concern becomes can I get a used copy, which helps with price and also makes it less of a bummer if I have to sell it. Stabilization is becoming more important for me, and pretty much everything else after that point I just assume one can make up for in post.

[@dunnadidit]

Good to know!!

[@Wyoutside]

I saw all the reviews that made mention of the long end sharpness shortcomings and bought it anyways. I personally haven’t found any problems with my copy for my use or standards.

[@dunnadidit]

That's great to hear! Maybe you got a lucky one haha.

[@aelbiltagi]

True! Its perfect lens no complaints for sure

[@Wyoutside]

@@dunnadidit that brings up a good point. There is something to be said with consistency and perhaps I do have a good copy, while others don’t. Hate that it’s a roll of the dice on which box is pulled from the shelf for shipping.

[@dunnadidit]

Yeah, manufacturing inconsistency in lenses isn’t unheard of for sure. But like you said, that’s a tough one as a consumer.

[@tobeecreative7007]

I think they deliberately sacrificed some sharpness in order to keep the lens at its price.

[@dainjah]

there is no better and more versatile lens in this price range. It's just a must have if you need only one lens.

[@SebSej]

I very rarely comment anywhere on KZbin, but i needed to here: Something is wrong with that softness at tge long end, I have this lens, and have been testing it about 1000 shots. Im telling ya, your copy has an issue. Check it out. I love your honesty though, you have to review the unit you review you know… Needed to share this. Thanks for your content.

[@dunnadidit]

Thanks for sharing! Unfortunately I’m not the only one having this issue so it’s not even just a one off problem. Maybe some QC issues?

[@rodrigofernandezgajardo5348]

Same here!

[@the_anxiousphotographer]

I have had no issues with mine at the long focal length. Is a beauty of a lens compared to the kit lens.

[@longrider9551]

TJ I rented it for a week from Lensrentals and I agree with you, when you weigh in the extra stop of light and lower ISO available its a wash, it is slightly better at the short end but barely noticeable unless you pixel peep

[@SebSej]

@@longrider9551 Also check out Froknowsphoto´s review. His copy is tack sharp at 70mm.

[@Jennlist]

I really appreciate your honesty because when it comes to lens I’m a complete beginner!

[@dunnadidit]

Thanks for saying that! I’m glad to hear that it’s helpful!

[@AlienDrones]

Hey friend, I dug the B-roll at the end, I think you should have featured it in the beginning, it was excellent! 👍

[@dunnadidit]

Haha glad you liked it!

[@bradfordskeldorado]

I wish I could upload my receipt for my purchase of this lens solely based on the b-roll footage at the end. You win this time!

[@dunnadidit]

Haha! There is no Dunna Did It rebate unfortunately lol.

[@bradfordskeldorado]

@dunnadidit just picked it up and will be shooting a video tonight! Great content man!

[@georgekamenov_]

As soon as I saw the announcement for this lens I knew I was going to get it. Picked up the 879th copy in the world as soon as it was listed as "In stock" at a local photo store while B&H still had it listed as "expected delivery". I had seen a few reviews talking about it underperforming in terms of sharpness past a certain point towards the long end and was worried that having such an early copy of it might mean mine is like that too, so I did a bunch of testing and my specific copy I'd say is just as sharp at 70 as it is at 17 and just generally across the entire range. I feel like the sharpness issue is one of those "you got unlucky with your copy" problems. Either way, for the price and feature set I'd say even if you get one that's a bit less sharp at the telephoto end, as long as you're not zooming into 300% and pixel peeping this lens will still be the best option (for this type of lens) for Sony APSC shooters on the market to date. But that's just my humble opinion 😅

[@dunnadidit]

Could be for sure! But I’ve heard enough people saying the same thing that they seem a bit too unlucky.

[@georgekamenov_]

@Dunna Did It Definitely possible, maybe it's just a case of me getting overly lucky but I'll take it haha 😁

[@euphoricmonk]

How to tell which Copy # you get? Does it say in the SN?

[@JustinYarborough]

I've been shooting with my 18-105 for the past year and was looking forward to this lens. It came in last week and I've done a couple photoshoots with it so far and I'm happy with it. Spot on about when it starts to go out to the end of the range. I'm digging it and can't wait to do some more outdoor stuff with it. Nice B roll!

[@dunnadidit]

Glad you’re liking it so far!!

[@GallaghersGrub]

My a6400 w the Sony 18-135 looks bad when compared to my A7iii with the Tamron 28-75. I need to bump sharpness up to 100, bump vibrance way up and saturation. Thinking I need this Tamron

[@pow9606]

What does the Tamron 28-75 look like on APS-C? obviously is will be a 42 - 112.5. IQ?

[@sleepycuber]

Always top notch reviews. Love the B Roll.

[@ultrapogi]

Bought it today and love it. Sharp, versatile, and perfect for my A6300. Total weight is around 950g for this lens with the A6300, while an A7C with equivalent FF lens is around 1.5kg. Overall the Tamron and APSC body is the better choice if portability is important to you

[@dunnadidit]

Awesome!!

[@JudgingKitty]

the equivalent for ff would be the 24-105 f4 from sony. the combo with a7c would weigh 1170g, and you get slightly wider. but I still like the tamron A6000 combo!

[@TwDfp2010]

I just bought this today. I’ve been shooting an a6400 with just the Sigma 30mm 1.4 (which is quite literally the perfect crop lens IMO). I was really interested in a 24-70 but the overall performance vs. value really sold me.

[@dunnadidit]

Nice!

[@trialobite8573]

How does it compare after a month?

I'd like see a directly com-paison of the 18-105mm f4 and the tamron to see the pictures differences

[@JimKopriva]

The shot at 4:32 looks to be a result of missed focus rather than optical softness. A few sideburn hairs appear to be in focus, so it looks like the plane of focus is behind your eyes. I can also tell from how the tail of the eyebrow appears sharper than the front. Did you see the same pattern of softness in other photos?

[@dunnadidit]

I thought that too at first but after a ton of different shots both autofocus and manual focus making sure that focus was as accurate as possible I was still seeing softness. The self portrait is tougher cause I’m relying on the eye autofocus, but for the other examples there is no doubt that I nailed focus and it was still soft.

[@hawaiianhaole]

I love my 18-105. Sold a few others but kept that one because it always comes in clutch.

[@videoart1496]

So true.. 18-105 is a must

[@kaylaandmarkalan]

We have the 18-105 and we LOVE that lens!

[@alexhering1462]

For an all rounder budget lens I've always been happy with the Sony FE 28-70 F 3.5. About half the price but just got to make compensations to get similar shots. BTW the B Roll was great.

[@RY1991]

For the Sony Zv-e10 which lens is better the Tamron 17-70mm or the 28-75mm please?

[@Leukick]

Surprised you didn't cover that this lens is also practically a macro lens! You can get a crazy close focusing distance for macro shots; that's an insane feature

[@JoseTheRover]

I think that for everything you get I’ll be able to get over the sharpness issues at the long end. At the end it seems to be sharp enough.

[@dunnadidit]

Yeah I think that a lot of people will come to that same conclusion. Even with the drawback... its super unique on the market.

[@JoseTheRover]

@@dunnadidit word, that stabilization is clutch

[@jmckmedia6377]

Great review, and the B roll at the end had the best punch line to close it all out haha!

[@dunnadidit]

Haha thanks!

[@MarcosSanchess]

I started traveling a lot, right now I'm with a a6400 with a Sony 11mm F1.8 for vlogging, this Tamron 17-70 for most of the shots and a Sony 70-350mm G for telezoom wildlife and plane spotting, I am very satisfied with the results so far because my lenses almost fill the gaps in image quality of each other, although carrying 3 lenses is not ideal, I would prefer to only carry 2, but I am satisfied nonetheless.

[@smoke362]

B roll was awesome thanks for the review

[@konradkuch6507]

Been waiting so much for this video!

[@dunnadidit]

Hope you enjoyed it!

[@konradkuch6507]

Sure! And btw i use sony 18-105mm, but really looking forward to get this one. F4 is painfull sometimes..

[@dunnadidit]

Yeah it’s tough hey. I’d say 80% of the time f4 is fine. But 20% of the time I wished I had the f2.8

[@JayLippman]

I recently got the Canon Ef-S 17-55 2.8, and its got everything I need. Super sharp, image stabilization, constant aperture, perfect zoom range for APSC, and the colors don't shift (at least not noticeably) at the long end. Its basically everything I want in a lens. Especially that stabilization. The pocket 6k doesn't have ibis, other wise id be getting that 18-35 Sigma. Oh and that B-Roll sequence was freaking incredible.

[@dunnadidit]

That’s a killer combo for the pocket 6k!

[@followthefocusofficial]

And also has a bucket load of focus breathing which the tamron 17-70 doesn't

[@philreises]

I bought it for my 6600, because of the 2,8 Aperture and stabilization. I wanted one lens only to have a light setup that i can bring anywhere i go ( we do lots of hiking, ski mountaineering etc.). So far it has really impressed me to be honest. I use it mostly for filming and with the 6600 ibis and auto focus this lens is amazing. Fast, sharp, stabilized. I can see that it's not the sharpest as 70mm, but there is no other lens that checks all the other things. Was considering the 24-70mm GM, but it's way more expensive, not stabilized and heavier. Plus it's for full frame cameras.

[@dunnadidit]

Totally, I think lots of people will make the same decision

[@damonluvisi]

I made this same decision. I’m a hobbyist and have no clue what I’m doing. I think my wife and I will learn a ton from this Lense

[@dessa.almeida]

I recently upgraded my old Nikon 7100 to an A6500 + Viltrox 23mm F1.4. I used to photograph, but my goal now is to dive into filmmaking. I was doubtful about Tamron 17-70 versus a duo Viltrox 13mm 1.4 + Meike 85mm 1.8, both with autofocus. After your review, I decided I'll stick with the duo. I don't mind having to swap lenses to get better cinematic results and sharper scenes, and I'm thinking I'll have a great range covered with 3 small lenses (13, 23, and 85). Active stabilization won't be a missed, as my camera already has it and I work mostly with a gimbal (or tripods when I'm self-recording). Thanks for helping me set up my mind with this detailed video. I just subscribed 😀

[@markfleming9253]

Dunna, is there any possibility that you were reviewing a pre-release version because I am seeing so many reviews that don't seem to have such extreme concerns at 70mm? I mean I understand the idea that it might be getting softer when zoomed in, but most reviews don't seem to think it is enough softer to much criticize the lens; most everybody is highly praising it?

[@MsHaeda]

lol I wasn't expecting the dubstep B-roll at the end rofl like an end credit scene from watching a Marvel movie but I am virtually clapping LOL thanks for sharing this review

[@creator.exchange]

Great review Dunna. I came here because the Tamron is now only $600 on Amazon. That's 25% off! It sounds like a no-brainer at this price and will fill a gap between my Sigma 16mm and Tamron 70-300mm lenses.

[@jacoborozco4585]

Sharpness and vignette at most apertures possible, is key for me. Constant aperture is badass

[@dunnadidit]

Good to know!

[@Cloudie9ae]

Excellent video, really informative! Loved the B-roll at the end!

[@dunnadidit]

Thanks for watching!!

[@neiltuiza7095]

The B- roll sequence kinda cool sir dunna. 🤎 Great Video sir. 🎉

[@dunnadidit]

Haha thanks!!

[@campa_t]

i wish you showed us this lens in a size comparison next to with the 18-105, the lens that i bought after your review

[@dunnadidit]

Unfortunately I no longer have that lens. But I did give you the dimensions so you could measure or look up specs to compare.

[@daindoboy]

When you don’t have the money to buy full frame I found out this lens will give your apsc sony (A6100) a major update!! So I guess this is the lens to buy, not to expensive, stabilisation and that 2,8 in the full range! With the 35mm F1,8 and this lens it makes my photography so much nicer as a allround setup. Especially when you compare it to people that stuck with the stock lens…. they are missing out mayor. First lens that I bought was the 35mm F1.8, happy to shoot without zoom because of the perfect image quality. Now with the Tamron as an addition it makes shooting everyday life with our small baby a little bit easier but still with a decent quality! Especially comparing it to lenses with a non constant amperture.

[@sharikmarius]

My question is, how does the Tamron compare to the Sony 18-105 f4 or the Sony 18 -135 f3.5-5.6 when set to the same aperture?

[@sergiolandz6056]

for the price i would go with the sony lens, where i live you cant get tamron under 800 bucks, you can get the sony one for 650

[@BJGray7]

I feel like people are sleeping on that Sony Zeiss 16-70. I got one used (like new) from KEH for $775 and it's awesome! Yes it's only f4 but that hasn't really slowed me down.

[@dunnadidit]

Thanks for the input!!

[@FastRedPonyCar]

I just sent this lens back to Amazon after ordering both it and the Sigma 18-50 f2.4 to try with my ZVE10. The Sigma has less range and no IS but it's cheaper and I don't really need the IS that much. Also, the sigma is razor sharp all the way at 50 and I also saw some softness at 65~70mm on the Tamron and if I'm paying for that extra reach, I want it to be as clean and sharp as it is everywhere else. Also, the Sigma is TINY vs the Tamron. I feel like for the time being, the Sigma and the sony 15mm 1.4 that I bought with the camera make a great pair. Only lens I'm considering later on is maybe Sigma's 56mm 1.4 for portraits where I really need more light or bokeh than the f2.4 can give me @ 50mm.

[@rossscobievideographer53]

Broll was class....thinking about this lens for video and weddings...

[@iandavis1355]

I was out shooting yesterday. I strapped on my snowshoes, put my camera backpack over my shoulders and headed into a park to shoot photos and video. There, the limitations of my current setup became very apparent. For my A6300, I have the Sigma trio of primes (16/30/56mm) and these are amazing f/1.4 lenses. They aren't the Art series hence they are not weather sealed and this proved to be an issue. Yesterday, the temperature was just below freezing and snow was falling lightly. Of course, as soon as a snowflake landed on my kit it melted. And changing lenses proved to be challenging as I really didn't want any moisture entering the camera (sensor dust is a real issue for me as I change my lenses a lot). I can't afford to have 4 lenses so I was seriously considered selling the Sigma lenses and getting the new Sony 16-55mm at $1550 in Ontario including taxes. I shoot mostly outdoors in low light conditions so while the constant f/2.8 is great it isn't the Sigma's f/1.4 Then along came the Tamron with image stabilization and a longer reach for $200 less (still at f/2.8 though). Hmm...decisions, decisions, decisions. Hey Dunna, have you had the chance to print any images taken on the Tamron? I have a Canon Pro-10 and print large regularly. If the image quality isn't nearly as good as the Sigma's then the 17-70mm isn't in the picture, pun intended.

[@PowerHippoStreams]

Cool to hear you’re from Edmonton, me too! Haha. Thanks for all the info brother. Looking to upgrade my streaming gear.

[@AlYuDesign]

Focus error @ 70mm not optic! The 70mm example at 4:32 back focus so the hair behind the eyes and in front of the ears are as sharp as the 35mm.

[@dunnadidit]

It does kind of look that way. That said, the issue I was talking about where it’s soft on the long end persisted through many many tests both auto and manual focused with and without peaking. It was pretty consistently softer at the long end. Which I also found to be the case(getting softer at the long end) in my recent video of full frame midrange zooms across all 3 that I was testing. So maybe that’s more of a regular thing with zooms than I knew.

[@yenchunlin1204]

Nice review!!!

[@JoshConnectMedia]

Thanks for the review dude, but looking at what you showed.. is that really bad??? When you are aiming for cinematic shots telling a story? How zoomed in would you doing with story telling ? 65mm or 70?

[@artistjoh]

I’d like to see a comparison with the Tamron 17-28 and 28-75 f2.8’s. They might be for full frame but they are small by ff standards and a good choice for Sony APS-C.

[@german2s]

I would take this lens anytime if I own any discontinued a6*** lineup or even the a6400. It is the best option for a f/2.8 on a budget. Also, if you are just moving from the kit lens you get this all-around, fits-most focal lenght, you would probably need to consider that any of those a6*** are less than usd 1000 (used), it would make sense for me.

[@dunnadidit]

I hear you for sure!

[@timmyflew]

The only issue with my copy is the same issue a lot of people have and that is the lack of sharpness @ 70mm. Well the lack of sharpness @ 2.8 that is. It is super sharp @ 2.8 from 17 to around 50 but falls short the rest of the way. However, @ F4 it is tack sharp @ 70mm. So at least all is not lost @ 70 mm.

[@jpobrien1973]

what I am currently looking for right now is best all around qualities for not too crazy high a price point.

[@PaulFeinberg]

Great ending LOL.......I think I would go with the Sony 16-55mm and then the tamron 2nd. That 16-55mm is a great lens. Nice overview, not everything is sunshine and rainbows.

[@dunnadidit]

Haha thanks dude. Yeah, I think thats the call for certain people. I definitely wanted to make the "BEST LENS EVER" review but it didn't feel right haha.

[@jochenpaulissen]

I think this is a perfect replacement for the 16-50 kit lens. If you already own the 18-105, it's harder to justify imho. Only one stop faster and you lose 35mm of reach... I'll stick to my 18-105 and Sigma primes ;-)

[@dunnadidit]

I agree 100%

[@ProgramistaNaBudowie]

You get +72% of magnification choosing the Tamron 17-70 (0,2083x on wide end and 0,19x on short end) instead of Sony 18-105 (0,11x). If I am correct 70 mm in Tamron would be equivalent of 121 mm on this Sony lens. I think this is better for e.g. amateur product or food photography. Looking myself for quite universal lens that I could walk around as well as record some cooking and do presentation of the food.

[@jochenpaulissen]

I don't understand. 70mm = 70mm. What do you mean by 121mm?@@ProgramistaNaBudowie

[@ProgramistaNaBudowie]

@@jochenpaulissen With Tamron 17-70 you can get as close to the object as 39 cm at 70 mm focal length. On Sony 18-105 you can focus at 18 mm focal length when lens is 45 cm from the object and 95 cm when you shot at 105 mm focal length. Thus, the magnification of the 18-105 is lower even on 105 mm. So taking photo with Tamron at 70 mm standing 39 cm from the object gives you a lot bigger object in the photo, than when you stand 95 cm from the object at 105 mm with Sony. So basically the Tamron let you get closer to the object and it will ocuppy more space on the photo. You'd need 121 mm on the 18-105 (impossible) to have the same size of the object that you would capture with Tamron at 70 mm. Hope that is clear now. Not always greater focal length will end up with bigger object on the photo compared to shorter lenses, because of the minimum focus distance.

[@jochenpaulissen]

@@ProgramistaNaBudowie Aha. But that's in case you CAN get closer to your subject (or want to).The compression of the image is also something to consider when comparing these lenses. Plus a native Sony lens will always focus better than any 3rd party lens imo. If you want to get this close to your subject, you might be better of looking at macro lenses. In the end, I sold my 18-105 and bought the 16-55 f2.8 and never looked back :D

[@tomsezerietis]

Thanks for the review 🙏 How about sharpness comparision at 70mm between tamron and sony 18-105? Is the sony sharper at this focal range despite being softer in general?

[@filipedeoliveira5196]

I have a Sony FX30. Should I use a Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 (APSC) or a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 (full frame). The choice for the full frame lens would be for the following reasons: 1. Optical quality; 2. Being able to use this lens on a full frame camera that I intend to have in the near future. Do these reasons justify the biggest value I'm going to pay for the Sigma 24-70mm lens?

[@keystonebrotherb]

Sold my 18-105 for $400. I have no issues with IQ on mine. It’s perfect more my all arounder. I have a great 17-50 with sharpness from corner to corner. 50-70 was a bonus over the Sony anyway. I’m happy and that’s what matters. It’s $800, a lot cheaper than my FF GM glass with nearly no noticeable quality loss. No better option for me.

[@samsison1025]

therre is a problem when he compares 35mm vs 70mm shot at 4:31, on 35mm (left side) focused on his eyes to his beard while the 70mm (right side) is not focused on his eyes at all it is focused on furthest part of his jaw in which you would notice that it is the sharpest part of his face. i don't know if i am seeing this right but it's up for you.

[@FenzirL]

The broll was epic! 🤩

[@dunnadidit]

Haha thanks!

[@FenzirL]

@@dunnadidit 😁 Could have added in the beginning itself 😅

[@mulone214]

Good information and I liked the "B" role.

[@joshua4578]

I'm glad I already have the 16-55 because I would be so torn making the choice here. I love the quality of images the Sony produces.

[@dunnadidit]

Yeah the 16-55 is great!

[@WilliamWallaceRoss]

Price is my main concern for making a lens purchase, then, sharpness. I have seen many reviews on the Tamron and since I mainly shoot landscapes, along with cityscapes, this lens, at least for me will outperform my Sony 18-135mm, which I am trading in.

[@scottiebumich]

you should get the Sigma 18-55 if you shoot landscapes since you're using a tripod anyways. Better optics.

[@asch3]

owning a 6500 (with IBIS) and my eyes are still on Sony 16-55, though it's kinda pricey, but that sharpness.. oh man

[@mrflash6158]

Now you have to compare it with the new sigma 18-50 2.8 dc dn !!!

[@richardberke4539]

I already own the Sony 18-135mm OSS. My only two gripes are I have to go to high ISO in low light with no flash, and I would like closer focusing on objects. Yes, modern noise correction software is excellent, but there are limits. The Tamron 17-70mm minimum focus distance is significantly tighter than my current Sony. I like the idea that the Tamron can hold aperture steady as I zoom. However, if I want more depth of field than achievable at f2.8, or even f4.0, I'll be right back into the range that my Sony can handle. There's not some magic of the glass that the Tamron lets through more light for a given aperture. In post I am able to selectively blur/de-focus as if I shot at much wider aperture. I appreciate your many examples of shots side by side. I have low enough vision that I couldn't discern some of the 'softness' you were describing. So for me there isn't enough image quality boost for me to either add the Tamron, or replace my Sony.

[@AsifulIslam-mf1oz]

Should I buy Tamron 28-75 or this one? 28-75 will be futureproof if I shift my system to full-frame. Or should I go for sigma 28-70 f2.8?

[@GaryJahman]

Nice video man. Audio is also crispy, new mic?

[@bicizizilla6242]

Currently, I'am looking for a lens for my A6700 for family video shooting. So I need a lens for indoors, outdoors, dark, sunny, fast moving subjects (dog, wife xD). I need razos sharp and stabilized 4K footage with perfect focus - all relative to the capabilities of the A6700. I was thinking that this Tamron lens is sharp enough for 4K footage (no still image pixel peeping will happen), but many reviews point out that there is a lot of geometric distorsion with this lens. I dont know whether these are corrected in-body or not, but the expected softness after the correction (in-camera or post process) scares me a bit. The other thing I'm not sure about is whether or not I need the f2.8 for low light video.

[@2b_outdoors182]

Just a got used Sony a6300 looking for my first lens and I'm still torn between the Tamron and the 18-105 after a ton of research aka KZbin reviews lol How much of a difference in video quality is there actually at low light? Do you have a video showing low light differences?

[@WingItcloud]

I have the 18-105 and I got it for a very specific reason that no one ever mentions - there's a very minimal weight distribution difference and it has power zoom. This means I can stick on a gimbal and have variable zoom that I can control with the gimbal itself.

[@CarthagoMike]

It is a nice upgrade from the Sony 18-105, a huge upgrade from the Sony 18-135 (yes that lens has more telephoto, but god the lack of sharpness at the tele-end makes you rarely use it anyways), and a worthy contender to the Sony-Zeiss 16-70 f/4 _depending on your copy_

[@alvarovids1915]

The comment I was looking for! Thanks, I recently bought a Sony A6400 with the 18-135 and hell I felt that lack of sharpness! Now im looking for the right choice (17-70 Tamron or 18-50 sigma, which is newer than any of the lens mentioned in the video)

[@CarthagoMike]

Congratulations with your purchase, it is a great camera! I sadly have no personal experience with the Sigma 18-50mm, but I have heard good things about it. The Tamron though is one of my all-time favourites for this camera. Have been using it for over a year now and it has become my go-to lens for short trips and quick outdoor photography.

[@Sackbot342]

Awesome review I’ve been waiting for yours on this lens! The sharpness at 70mm is a little worrying but to me it is between the tamron and the Sony 16-55 G that I’m deciding between. I have the A6300 currently, do you think if for example I don’t go all the way to 70 and pretend it’s a 17-56 or something, then would the tamron be the better choice because of VC?

[@josephrossi4062]

For my A6400, I'm planning to buy the Tamron 17-70. VC, more versatile focal range, fast constant aperture. It is softer at 70mm.....ok... So what?... 16-55 doesn't reach 70mm!?!?.... And I think that if you close at f3.5-4 sharpness should improve.

[@pewpewmtndew7000]

When looking for a lens, Price is the biggest concern, then sharpness/image profile, then autofocus, and then image stabilization.

[@dunnadidit]

Good to know!

[@Dawid.Filipczak]

@@dunnadidit 🙃

[@singyangchai4469]

Do you think Tamron 17-70 f2.8 is a major upgrade to my 18-105 f4 for still photography with a6400?

[@dunnadidit]

Tough one, but yeah I do think it's a better lens overall.

[@lifeofdang92]

Do you think this gonna beast for wedding videographer use on A74 4k60 all day without changing lens ? 105mm is good enough for ceremony shot 😅

[@yulandahuang3480]

thanks for your review!! so it's now 2023 and im debating between sony 20-70mm f4 and tamron 17-70mm f2.8 for my sony a7cii. I am a hobbyist shooting landscapes, people, photo walks, etc. curious about your thoughts!! thanks!

[@TheWoolyninja4]

This is interesting because other reviews I have watched suggested it was great sharpness wise except in the corners on the wide end.

[@colinphotovideo]

Can you try this Tamron lens on a gimbal? Really interested to see how it performs for video and can't find a video showing this! Thanks 🙏

[@crisJnoni_9]

do you think the tamron 17-28mm 2.8 is much better? As for video quality, I don't know which one to buy

[@jcanracer]

Man Dunna, thanks for your honesty. So many in the a6400 community have been hyping up this lens. I still plan to replace my 18-135 with this lens, but that fall off in quality is disappointing.

[@dunnadidit]

Yeah, it’s still one of the best options for a6400 shooters since it has the stabilization.

[@scottiebumich]

I have the a6500 and I think the Sigma 18-55 is the way to go. I have the 18-135 but the image quality is never as good as I would like it to be (vs my Sigma 30mm).

[@jcanracer]

@@scottiebumich you know what man, since I commented on the video 10 months ago, I actually bought the 17-70 and its my go-to lens for indoor events now. Since I don't have the IBIS, this was a better choice for me than the Sigma 18-55 which wasn't an option back then.

[@scottiebumich]

@@jcanracer That makes sense! Without IBIS Sigma seems to be the way to go. Have you tried the Sigma 30mm for indoor? it doesn't have IBIS, but with F1.4 you may not need it.

[@jcanracer]

@@scottiebumich I have the Sony 35 1.8 and honestly, it's amazing. Compact size, OSS, and bright enough. If I didn't already have it, I probably would have gotten the Sigma 30.

[@toomanyhobbies400]

When I look for a lens (prime or zoom) I consider the focal length of the lens, and how far the focal length can be extended with Sony's Clear Image Zoom. A stabilized lens is also very attractive.

[@dunnadidit]

Nice!

[@RockWILK]

Great review. I have only prime lenses, other than my 16-50 kit lens, and I have been really going back and forth on whether to get this or the 18-105. At the end of the day, for me at least, a zoom lens is more for that spontaneous run-and-gun, you don't know what you're headed to, kind of situation. And so the fact that the 18-105 doesn't get bigger when you zoom in and out, made the decision easy for me. Zoom lenses are supposed to make things easier, and that fact alone makes the 18-105 better for me than the 17-70, even at a slower f-stop, I think with the iso capabilities of all of these cameras, it's not really that big of a deal. Plus, the 18-105 can be had for so much cheaper now, it was kind of a no-brainer for me. Now I have the 18-105 with a good set of primes, (Samyang 12mm, Viltrox 23mm, Sony 35mm, Sony 50mm) and I can make movies with no problem, and I can put any of these lenses on a gimbal if I want to, and not have to re-adjust it at all. If the Tamron didn't extend when you zoom it, maybe I would have spent the extra couple of hundred dollars.

[@videoart1496]

for video shooters, the 18-105 f4 is a must. I would never sell this lens. I m now trying to collect some money for the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 especially for lowlight.

[@JeffCorcelius]

I'm totally picking up the Tamron 17-70mm for my a6400. Ive been eyeing up the Sony 16-55mm since I got my camera and honestly the vibration control will be clutch for me in shooting video. As far as lens reviews. I definitely look for functionality, i like to see tests like you did with the gimbal vs ibis.

[@dunnadidit]

Nice! Thanks Jeff! I appreciate the info!

[@RitianRenaldi]

Hi i'm here for purchase decision, i hope you answer this. I am confused about choosing tamron 17-70 f2.8 or sigma 18-35mm f1.8 with mc 11 adapter. I know the tamron is newer, have stabilization, but i watch a lot of reviews saying the sigma glass is really sharp. My use case is for doing gadget review, so do you think is better to take sigma or tamron?

[@dunnadidit]

Personally, I would avoid the adapter and go tamron

[@RitianRenaldi]

@@dunnadidit thanks

[@JustinShyra]

Nice video! Question! Does the VC always on and working with this lens? I have ZVE10 m2.

[@rollfast7]

I use the following on my a6500: Rokinon 12, Sigma 16, Tamron 28-70, and then the laser sharp Sony 70-350. If I was back at the beginning of choosing lenses for how I shoot most of the time on my APS-C body I could see running a two lens kit of this Tamron 17-70 and the Sony 70-350 - that would be really workable for how I shoot, especially for travel. Love the b roll, by the way!

[@damonluvisi]

What would you add for the focal lengths below 17mm?

[@grumpyhighlander]

Been using the 28-200 for a couple off month as a pro photographer and living the results for full frame.

[@xuanfeng375]

Been waiting for this....😄❤️

[@dunnadidit]

I hope it’s helpful!

[@sundster_1796]

That ending sequence made me subscribe 😂

[@dunnadidit]

Haha well I’m glad I put it in there!

[@mpikas]

I only really considered the Tamron and the Sony 18-135. Since the only real reason I entered the sony world (from Nikon) was for video, nothing I own has IBS, and I've been enjoying some faster lenses recently the Tamron was the only choice, and I've been happy with it (I've only had it about a week now). Interestingly your review about image quality at the long end does not match what I've seen from other reviewers, and even if it did it would not have changed my mind, and I'm not going to go and test my 17-70 to see if mine falls apart at the long end. In the Nikon world, I had a very nice sigma art midrange zoom f/4 which I sold because I rarely used it. My workhorse used to be a Tamron 18-280, and when the Tamron 18-400 came out I sold the older lens and replaced it with the 18-400 which I love. My general indoors do everything lens has been a Nikon 18-140 (smaller and lighter than the Tamron, I know that the colors aren't as nice from it as from the Tamron, but you can fix that on your PC), none of which the pixel peepers liked, while they loved that Sigma Art. For me, it's always been about what gets me the shot, not what's technically the best. I could care less if the lens didn't do well taking a picture of a test card if it got me the picture that I wanted when I'm shooting a bald eagle out of a kayak...

[@markfleming9253]

Hey Dunna, I enjoy your videos. I am a little confused because you have marginalized this lens in your review, but I don't think there is anything else that comes close to what this lens does for the price, right? As you said, its sharpness is as good as the sony 16-55 2.8 at least up to 55. Didn't you say that? So even if sharpness at 70 needs to be stopped down to f/4 to be really sharp, it's still a great option. My extensive experience with the Sony 18-105 is that I try to stop it down a little too to like at least 4.5, so if the Tamron is pretty great at 2.8 from 17-55, then it is clearly a great value over the Sony. I am just confused about why you say it isn't quite what you wanted? I mean clearly everybody would like the best lens for less price, but isn't this Tamron lens almost that exactly?