Tamron 17-50 f/4 Perfect Travel Lens… Except One Thing

[@TheBrowneTown]

As someone who travels with the 17-28mm f/2.8 and the 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6, totalling 995g (plus filters), I wish Tamron would combine these two lenses somewhat. A variable aperture for me is fine on the long end, with f/2.8 at the wider angles I would be happy if they could make a travel lens combining the above two lenses into one. They would save weight by it all being in the one body and could change the focal length to be 17-105 or something if they needed to save more weight for gimbal compatibility. Get it to around 700g and I'd take it as a single lens for travel in a heartbeat. 17-50 f/4 just doesn't do it for me.

[@ItsBrianMadeit]

I have a Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 and I sold it. I want to know if the 17-50mm would be good for one lens vlogging. Ik it’s f4 but I’d rather have one lens.

[@kylemeshna]

if you're mostly looking to vlog with it, I think this will be a great option. The 20-40 is also another great vlog option as well

[@Manniac]

I was trying to find out if 3rd party lenses like Tamron and Sigma do support lens compensation for vignetting, chromatic abberation and distortion, when turned on in Sony cameras. Some sources (forum discussions) say, that they do, but I could not find any official cofirmation. So I watched your video and you mention the vignetting and chromatic abbertion at the 17mm end. Does this mean, Sony's lens compensation is not available for this lens? I'm a hybrid shooter just like you and not having the option to correct in-camera when using 3rd party lenses with video would be a deal breaker for me.

[@kylemeshna]

Just double checked -- Lens compensation does work with this lens. My understanding is it works for all E Mount lenses. That said, I DID have it enabled for vignetting and chromatic aberration (for some reason it was disabled for distortion in my testing). Also heads up, lens compensation only applies to JPGs (not RAWs) on the photo side unless you use Sony Image Data Converter... but that's a huge hassle.

[@Manniac]

@@kylemeshna Perfect! Thanks for the reply! So I guess automatic lens compensation does not correct the full amount of vignetting in all cases - but that's still better than nothing. And yes, distortion compensation is off by default. I'm not sure why that is, but my current 24-240 Sony lens does have problems with a loose connection, so the image sometimes flutters during zooming, which makes the image unusable. Maybe this happens for many lenses and Sony decided to turn it off by default? I don't know :D

[@valjdakosta]

​@@kylemeshnadoes lens compensation work in any kind of video?

[@santoshvk]

Great video, but I think you missed to mention the terrible distortion at wide end, which upon correction you lose resolution and effective fov

[@chrisbrockhurst]

Great video fella.

[@kylemeshna]

Very much appreciated sir!

[@JonnyRoams]

focus and zoom switcharoo gets me all the time

[@felipeandjess]

Would you prefer this or the tamron 20-40?

[@LizzDimaano]

The vignette threw me off and was bummed about it! I still think it’s a great and versatile lens!

[@kylemeshna]

Can’t believe how pronounced it was. Definitely the most I’ve ever seen

[@wongsimstudio]

what do you think compared to Tamron 17-28/2.8?

[@tsizzle]

I was just there in Banff and Jasper. Beautiful fall colors in early October. We saw lots of camper vans (one from Karma camper vans) on the ice field parkway, wonder if that was you? Anyways, I might lean more towards the Sony 16-35 PZ G lens. But if you were to get 17-50 f/4, it would pair very well with the Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3. Did you get a chance to try out that telephoto lens?

[@kylemeshna]

Haha I was in a Karma Campervan so coulda been me! I’ve used the 50-400, but not as rigorously as I’d like to to give a full proper review. I did like it, but that was only a first impression

[@Pfagnan]

Great review thanks!!

[@jiffcia]

wait for mark ii ?

[@Olliegroot]

Is it worth it?! ;) My bet would be on the 20-70, that's such a banger of a travel lens

[@kylemeshna]

Love that lens for sure. It’s just twice as expensive is the main thing

[@twoblink]

Whereever the location; amazing!

[@djrightonbeat]

What are you using for de noise ??

[@kylemeshna]

Davinci resolve

[@stkuj]

I may have missed it, but was this lens par focal?

[@kylemeshna]

It is not. But it’s not too bad at refocusing when zooming. Not very noticeable

[@BelowZero]

Try Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8...that might do the trick.

[@kylemeshna]

Already have a review of that lens on my channel as well ☺️

[@g_lantos]

First of all I think there is no such a thing that a one and done lens in my opinion...(not even the 35-150) You need at least 2 lenses... a wide angle/mid-zoom to a telephoto most case scenario... and for that I think the Tamron 20-40 f2.8 or Sony 16-35 F2.8 with a Tamron 70-180 f2.8 G2 is just a better combo, than lets say this 17-50 F4 with a 70-180 f2.8... What do you think Kyle? Do you prefer this over a 20-40/16-35?

[@kylemeshna]

I agree that ONLY having one lens isn’t really a true option. But you can limit yourself to just one for travel or hikes. If there was just one. I’d have a hard time choosing between this or the Sony 20-70. As a two lens kit (it money isn’t a factor) I still think the 16-35GMII and 24-70GMII can’t be beat.

[@g_lantos]

@@kylemeshna honestly I own the 16-35 GM I. and 24-70 Sigma very happy with both but the more I used my 70-180 Tamron… it just became way more interesting than a 24-70 focal range… traveling with a wife and a telephoto lens gave me way more versatility than a 24-70. Now to be honest the 16mm is something I use only for real estate other than that mostly use 20mm and for that reason I think the Tamron 20-40 compared with a 70-180 is the best budget, lightweight travel combo currently for Sony system. Also the weight of my 27-70 Sigma (880g) just made me not use it as much. The perfect balance having a 650g camera with a 650g lens… 💁🏻‍♂️

[@RichardoBrit]

Nice summary. My go-to travel lens is the 16-35 2.8 (GM I). It and my A7RIII are pushing 6-years old, but they work so well.

[@Imagesbymaddy]

Why the hate for nikon

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

I don't like this lens. The corners are too soft at f/4. I deeply regretted buying this lens. When stopped down to f/5.6, sometimes it's still weaker than the kit 28-60.

[@npigatto]

D'accord avec vous j'avais aussi des problèmes de map avec ce 17-50 je l'ai revendu pour le 20-70 depuis

[@eprohoda]

good evening- very incredible - 🤓

[@kylemeshna]

Cheers

[@MyFriendlyPup]

F4 is that one thing.

[@sijilo]

😊

[@techr9186]

blablabla, no any mention of the brightness changing over the zoom range

[@vladimirkarphotography]

Why would it change as the aperture is the same ?!

[@techr9186]

@@vladimirkarphotography in matter of fact it changes, first lens I see like this

[@vladimirkarphotography]

@@techr9186 i ll check it these days. Thanks for the advice