Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 Review (vs Sony 16-55mm f2.8 G)

If you want one lens that can do everything with your A6X00 camera, you buy the Sony 16-55mm f2.8 G. But the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 is $600 cheaper. So is it any good?
Tamron 17-70mm f2.8
bhpho.to/2OLMiUt
Sony 16-55mm f2.8 G
bhpho.to/2NEtqGB

[@edc5338]

One of the most straightforward reviews I've ever seen! I have the 16-55 and love it.

[@TrueDragon13]

Thank you for this, I can always count on you to have a clean, thorough review!

[@BrianDeane-rd7zj]

First time watching your reviews. I appreciate your honesty . Most reviews flip flop to the point you’re more confused than when you started. Will be following.

[@Lukaz1989]

Most helpful comparison I've seen for these two lenses, thanks!

[@bassinabus]

Best review I've seen comparing these two lenses. Excellent job!

[@danielhuang2488]

this is the best lens review/comparison i've seen in a while. excellent job.

[@Magi604]

This was a great review! Like someone else mentioned the comparison of the cropped 55 vs the 70 was great.

[@merijn_yestra]

This is for sure the best review comparing these two lenses! I tried both and I come to the exact same conclusions. Especially the jerkeyness with the VC on the Tamron really surprised me. And not in a good way...And the crop test is really really interesting! Thanks for this video man, really helpful!

[@ExclusiveTravelReviews]

Great comparison, so useful. I like your voice tone.

[@artmaltman]

Excellent review. Thanks especially for comparing 70mm vs 55mm cropped.

[@networm64]

Yeah that ridiculous razor sharpness on 55mm even at 2.8 justifies sony price itself!

[@tkermi]

But unfortunately that info isn't accurate - or more correctly doesn't represent most use cases. That shown Tamron's softness is only there with very close focusing distances (closer than typical use - and for "macro" f/8 is often even preferred). I consider it negligent not to clearly mention this 😐. From "normal" distances sharpness between these lenses is almost identical - Sony slightly better in corners. Please see other sources like Christopher Frost's comparison.

[@Yesmad]

Great review. A lot of people refer to VC as Vibration Control but according to TAMRON, it stands for Vibration Compensation.

[@HyunRalphJeong]

Wow I didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know haha

[@Artbymykell]

Awesome review, thank you

[@JosephHaubert]

Great review!

[@av6004]

Great comparison

[@jothamlim2684]

Greetings from the PH 🇵🇭,Hyun!

[@rj1107]

Hi Hyun, great comparison video! 👍 Really enjoys watching your reviews, they're always well structured and straight forward 💯 Just a question though, here in Canada the Sony 16-55 G costs $1350 (CAD); while the Tamron costs $1150 (CAD). In your opinion, do you think that $200 difference is worth going for the Sony lenses? (if I have a camera with IBIS like the a6600)

[@smccarthy7088]

If I had the 6600 I would buy the Sony. I have the 6400, so I got the Tamron with VC.

[@rj1107]

@@smccarthy7088 thanks for your insight!

[@therealdante]

I think one important thing to point out to people that have anything but top-range Sony APSC with IBIS (so a6000, 6100, 6300, 6400 instead of a 6500 / 6600) the vibration control can make a huge difference in handheld video. It will not give you gimbal like smoothness, but just standing handheld can look very shaky without any stabilization. I'd be interested to know if that also means the photo hit rate would be much more different without IBIS.

[@TrueWren]

So for still photos or if you have a gimbal, it won't make alot of difference?

[@ColinBenjamin]

Great video! I'm really shocked by the difference in sharpness. Similar to what Dunna found in his review, with the Tamron becoming noticeably softer after ~50mm. But, there are some other great reviews that show the Tamron performing exceptionally well at the end of its zoom range, even at 2.8.... very confusing. Wondering if the Tamron is perhaps suffering from some quality control issues early on here like the Sony 10-18 (for which I've seen WILDLY different results). Curious if B&H would be willing to send you another example to test against this one side-by-side.... anyway, great video!

[@istiakalam7429]

Actually this Tamron is soft at 70mm 2.8 at closer ranges, but sharpness is drastically improved along with subject distance increment, just at f4 at 70mm it's very sharp at normal distances, but one thing always stays with it at 70mm 2.8 is lower contrast

[@michaelnoah3795]

One small note regarding your testing methodologies, at 70mm you focusing much closer to the subject so the lens is less sharp, try shooting into a subject slightly further away and the sharpness differences diminish.

[@cheickhdieng7529]

Merci beaucoup from Paris

[@kiwi1911]

If I get both the lenses at the same price, which one do you recommend. I don't do videos that much and am confined to vacation photos. I want the images to be as sharp as possible.

[@danielurenabenitez2777]

Wich lens have better color reproduction? I recently bought a 16-55 and I see that colors are very similar to kit lens or maybe a bit cooler. Sky colors are a bit worse for me.

[@janjamesramos247]

The stabilization would help a lot in low light shooting. I didn't believe your comment. 🤔

[@sadeemathil6078]

great review. I have a question after what focal length exactly does the tamron gets softer compared to the sony?

[@HyunRalphJeong]

Thanks, the Sony is sharper at every length but the Tamron is more soft at 70mm

[@ShinDongJi]

I think Tamron's new lens is a welcome addition to any Sony APS-C shooter. I agree that most of the differences VS the Sony are negligible for most people. The zoom range is really nice for an all rounder. If I will be really nitpicking, I wish it could've been smaller. But for the price, it's something I can understand. I also read that Sigma is planning to make a contemporary zoom lens of their own. Curious to see if it will be for APS-C or just a cheaper alternative to their already good 24-70 ART.

[@sharikmarius]

What about comparing both the Sony and the Tamron at 55mm for sharpness?

[@MatthewGore]

Very interesting! I also reviewed this Tamron lens and shot quite a bit with it... but mine was remarkably sharp! And was sharper at the 70mm end than the 17mm end. I tested it against my other sharpest lenses for Sony and found that it was just as sharp as my Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro. I suppose that this is just normal variation, but it does make me wonder whether Tamron specifically sent me on that was especially sharp, knowing how I'd be testing it. Anyway... there's no way that the Sony at 55mm would have been sharper than the Tamron's 70mm, on mine, so I hope that people understand the range of variation in performance that they may experience with this lens.

[@HyunRalphJeong]

Thank you Mathew, I’ve always enjoyed your videos btw. That is very interesting. I wonder if I had a bad copy of the Tamron but it was still plenty sharp. It’s good to know that it can outperform the Sony.

[@RocZi]

how is possible that there is variation sharpness? is that the norm for lenses where there is a manufacturing lottery of a slight performance difference, whether better or worse? Well, this reminds me of electronics eg. like graphics card. where there is a "lottery" chance of getting a card from a batch where there is higher noise level of coil whine due to nature of manufacturing. The technical is not important, all i want to say is that these cards still functions the same as others, with slight performance difference, pass quality checks, but it's just much louder when in use and some people dislike that. so wondering if you or anyone has face the same with lenses, where multiple people experience different sharpness with the same brand and model and specs of lens.

[@theonewhoroars]

what camera do you use for youtube? real nice color i see right there

[@HyunRalphJeong]

Thanks, this was shot with a6600.

[@clarhettcoalfield3616]

Hyun you should check out an older but pretty good alternative to the Tamron for more than half of that as far as costs go, Sigma's contemporary 17-70mm f2.8-4 DC designed for APSC its a Sigma SA mount, I use it on my Sony a6500 with my MC11 adapter. It's sharp, and versatile and it does have image stabilization, so does my camera. There are two versions of this lens, one with image stabilization and one with out. You can get it in the Sigma SA mount or Sony Alpha mount, but not the Sony E mount, so you'll need a Sony or Sigma adapter to use the auto focus. I loved the video by the way, and I'd love to here your personal take on the Sony a6600 (I saw your review on it, but I mean now that you've used it for a while) Cheers mate.

[@HISPEKK]

All I needed to know, Sony for me extra sharpness means I can crop the zoom difference.

[@frankfeng2701]

It's frustrating that Sony IBIS doesn't work with lens IS.

[@tkermi]

❗6:48 Tamron's softness is only there with very close focusing distances (closer than typical use). You should clearly point that out. From normal distances sharpness between these lenses is almost identical - Sony slightly better in corners. Please see other sources like Christopher Frost's comparison. Thanks for the video.

[@TheJaniable]

Thanks for your comment, it really seems to be the case

[@maxgioviale1433]

Which lens are you using while recording the "head talk" please, have a good day, Max

[@HyunRalphJeong]

Hi, I use Sigma 16mm f1.4 with Sony a6600

[@maxgioviale1433]

@@HyunRalphJeong Thannk you :)

[@dgross2009]

Why did you compare Tamron at 70 and Sony at 55? Why no comparison of both at 55?

[@nic3537]

yessssss

[@JonathanChasr]

He explained at 4:05 mark of the video. On the shorter focal lengths the difference between 1mm is noticeable. However on the tighter ranges such as 55mm and 70mm it’s less noticeable. The angle of view is only a few degrees off from each other. Thus the extra 15mm on the tamron doesn’t make much of a difference from 55mm. But the focal length differences still has an significant effect on compression as stated by the OP.

[@sharikmarius]

@@JonathanChasr Nope. I still want an apples to apple comparison. If the Tamron' sharpness closely matches the Sony at 55mm, I think that needs to be stated.

[@singyangchai4469]

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

[@HyunRalphJeong]

Depends on what you're looking for. I've only tried the 18-105 a long time ago but the image quality probably isn't that different, but I would personally choose the Tamron because of the 2.8 aperture.

[@matic2601]

Did you experience lens flares with the Sony 16-55? I bought the 16-55 a few days ago but the lens flares were quiet strong. Especially at night... :(

[@HyunRalphJeong]

I didn't notice it was particularly bad but I guess that depends on what you shoot.

[@Princeton_James]

Ive never noticed it.

[@109eh]

dear, have you the Sony 18-105mm f4? I had this and I'd like to buy this Tamron. I'm searching a comparative of the sharp of them

[@TheJaniable]

Did you buy a new lens? What are your thoughts? I also have the 18-105 and looking for a similar upgrade.

[@109eh]

@@TheJaniable I really think in: a) the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 with electronic adapter (like sigma mc-11) because of the bokeh and sharp quality b) Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 -> because of the aperture (I'm a freelancer wedding videomaker and I shot in night). But this Tamron has a good sharp in me middle range and NOT EXCELLENT at 17mm and 70mm. The 28-75mm is fantastic in all range. I never find a comparison image between the Sony 18-105mm f4 and the Tamron 17-70mm and because of this, I can't be sure about the Tamron purchase It's my opinion for my reality (money and job and needs)

[@makhmalistudio7379]

Aoa Allah ap ko kamyab kare aur khush rakhe ameen ap kese hai mai ap ki new friend 🌹🌹

[@cyrilbrunner8375]

How is that possible that these two lenses are sold in the same price in Switzerland ? The Tamron costs 1100 USD in Switzerland... and the Sony same

[@thatguyoverthere54]

Does OSS work with Tamron's VC? I thought OSS only worked with lens IS if it's a Sony lens

[@keystonebrotherb]

Works in conjunction.

[@HSNG10]

The a6600 IBIS will work with the Tamron's VC, just as it will work with Sony lens with OSS.

[@JmartiStudio]

you use Tamron?

[@michaelbeiruty]

Will the Tamron work properly on the Sony A7III ?

[@HyunRalphJeong]

It will work but this is an aps-c lens so it will be cropped

[@britishrose9417]

$600 less and the ability to handhold at 1/40. No OSS on a lens that costs as much as the Sony is ridiculous, the Sigma 18-50 is a better option for less money.

[@carllouisward9105]

Understood

[@Alex-ps5ok]

Anyone else think he stacked it at 7:54? 😂

[@gdjaybee742]

You know where these lenses really makes a hit? Your wallet. If you buy a Tamron, you can actually get a cheap Sony body and have full set to use. If you get the Sony, and still need to fork out 1000+ for the body because the cheap bodies do not have VC, IBIS, the Sony becomes a paper weight until you get the body 9 months later. Also bottom line, getting the Sony is spending a premium for a crop set close to the price line of full frame set. Is that really worth it? When you are talking about crop users, usually you are talking about practical users who are not thinking to use their camera for professional purpose, sooo yeah.

[@istiakalam7429]

Hahaha, you are indirectly saying, "don't buy the tam"😁, this tam's one of major weakness is poor sharpness in closer range at 70mm f2.8... just comparing tam's weakest parts to Sony's strong points, completely disregarding it's actual strengths ... That VC is related to low-light scenarios, try the sony with unstabilized body in low-light then see what happens 😂... If one has a6600 then probably he/she has enough money for sony g, that sony is intended to use with a65/6600...at this 1300$ one can get the tam,sigma 16 & 56mm, and this combo of three throw the "Sony G" to another dimension 🤣🤣🤣, you'll not be able to find the Sony 🤣🤣🤣 ... Sony has quite a handful of reasonably priced lenses, most fairly priced is the great 200600G.... this sony is diffraction limited at 2.8 , means it's highest sharpness in center is at 2.8... and what do you saying about cropping, if it is then 600mm f4 shouldn't exist while there is 400 2.8, just crop to 600mm not a big deal 🤣🤣... Just buy a Zeiss batis 135 and use it for all the telephoto work 😂