The Best Lens Showdown: Tamron 17-50mm F4 Vs 20-40mm F2.8!

[@EasyTigerCreative]

So which lens would you pick between these two? Let me know below 👇 😊

[@MohammadEhsanYousaf]

i will pick 20-40 f2.8 on a7iv specially for low light shoots.

[@EasyTigerCreative]

@@MohammadEhsanYousaf I feel you on that!

[@keysignphenomenon]

20-40mm f2.8

[@MohammadEhsanYousaf]

@@EasyTigerCreative hahaha bro you knew it ☺

[@EasyTigerCreative]

@@POW.CREEPER what do you want to use the lens for? That could help me share some thoughts! But I used the 35-150mm to film the more talking videos while I used the 20-40 and 17-50 for the comparisons.

[@kadongmwangi]

Which camera and lense did you use to shoot this video sir?

[@EasyTigerCreative]

I used my a7iv and Tamron 35-150mm as my a-roll video setup.

[@kadongmwangi]

@@EasyTigerCreative following from kenya.can you advise me between sony a7iv and canon r6 mark ii...its giving me a headache

[@EasyTigerCreative]

Well I can only speak from my experience with the a7iv. Never used the r6 II but from what I know, Sony tends to be better for low light, great photos, auto focus and lens options. With simply lens options, you can save a lot of money and still get amazing lenses. Canon sadly has very expensive lenses and I can’t justify the cost of them for what you’re getting honestly. They don’t allow third party lenses which Sony does and I shoot only third party lenses right now and haven’t had any issues!

[@kevenspargo6829]

You were not moving much at all, which means there wasn’t much motion blur to capture, which means ND’s weren’t needed. Using shutter speed to control exposure instead would give results that are more true to the lenses because there wouldn’t be extra layers of glass that could potentially compromise image quality.

[@EasyTigerCreative]

Will keep that in mind next time 😊

[@selishots]

I think I liked how you exposed the 17-50 more but the image from the 20-40 better

[@EasyTigerCreative]

Yea the sun started peaking through in some parts that hit the 20-40 differently but definitely can understand that! Haha

[@EasyTigerCreative]

Yea the sun started peaking through in some parts that hit the 20-40 differently but definitely can understand that! Haha

[@bizpixvegas7651]

Nice side-by-side test. I have had the 17-28 for almost 18 months. I have shot with the 20-40 and the 17-50 for a few days on separate occasions. They both did great and produced fantastic images. I was gonna sell my 17-28 in favor of one of the two lenses but cannot decide which way to go. BTW, I shoot landscapes stills mostly. I do not do any videos currently but that might change in the future.

[@EasyTigerCreative]

I think with landscapes stills the 17-50 f4 is perfect! Plus for videos is great too!

[@bizpixvegas7651]

@@EasyTigerCreative I agree. Paired up with my 50-400, it is the perfect two lens set up for landscapes. Tamron is giving us too many choices!!

[@EasyTigerCreative]

@@bizpixvegas7651 that would be too perfect honestly!

[@JonathanBarrow]

a 17-50mm vs 16-35mm f4 with clear image zoom on, would be an interesting comparison obviously optical zoom is best but the sharpness, and faster AF of native glass plus shorter size can offset the Tamron advantages.This is in the view point of someone wanting one lens while vlogging/traveling for leisure

[@EasyTigerCreative]

I can definitely understand that! I’ve considered the Sony 16-35 pz f4 and the 20-70 f4 instead of the 17-50 haha currently still debating myself which route to go down on 😂

[@tanapolpusanapanya9276]

Thank for comparing, If you can pick only one lens for travel, which one will you choose?

[@EasyTigerCreative]

Out of these two I’d probably use the 17-50 for travel if I needed to condense down!

[@tanapolpusanapanya9276]

And, if I add more choice between sony 20-70 f4 and 17-50 f4 which one?, thx@@EasyTigerCreative

[@EasyTigerCreative]

@@tanapolpusanapanya9276 I would get the 20-70 between those two. I’d prefer more range in the 50mm to 70 than the wide honestly. That’s why I just picked one up actually haha I’ll have a review on it this weekend!

[@tanapolpusanapanya9276]

I can hardly wait, thx @@EasyTigerCreative

[@jpblahblah]

Got the 20-40 for 550 usd as my main general purpose lens. Not as sharp as a prime but the size and convenience to shoot anything is perfect for me.

[@EasyTigerCreative]

That’s awesome! I think it does the job perfectly! I don’t like having overly sharped photos so I’m ok with it not being as sharp as a prime!

[@vladimirkarphotography]

Had the 17 50 for a week and send it back as the corners were really soft and the borders were not that good ! Unfortunately !

[@EasyTigerCreative]

Ah im sorry to hear! What other lens do you plan to try out?

[@vladimirkarphotography]

@@EasyTigerCreative i bought the Tamron 17 28 instead.

[@EasyTigerCreative]

@@vladimirkarphotography a great lens!

[@johnmarkreed]

My tamron had bent vertical lines when shooting wide ! I returned mine asap

[@EasyTigerCreative]

That’s definitely not good! Might’ve been a factory error or something!

[@m.bauer2024]

Great comparison, thanks. The bokeh seems to be a bit more busy with 20-40, or is it just me?

[@EasyTigerCreative]

Thanks for watching! And busy how? Not sure what you mean.

[@m.bauer2024]

@@EasyTigerCreative When you focus for example on time 4:08, the out of focus rendering of 20-40 seems to be much more textured and contains sharp edges on the bushes behind you or on the trees x sky. 17-50 out of focus area is more pleasant to watch. I wonder how often it might ruin the photo in real life situations.

[@DuskToDawn-D2D]

For daytime landscape photography, I would always pick 17-50. I normally shoot at F8 or F11.

[@EasyTigerCreative]

That makes sense! Of course if you shoot landscape it’s nicer to have the 17-50 despite being an f4!

[@DuskToDawn-D2D]

@@EasyTigerCreative Pair it with Tamron 50-400 4.5-6.3 and they pretty much cover usual focal length for daytime landscape photography. 😃

[@EasyTigerCreative]

@@DuskToDawn-D2D so true!

[@Wistbacka]

I'm aiming for the new tamron trinity +1 Tamron 150-500 Tamron 35-150 Tamron 20-40 +1 Viltrox 16 mm f1.8 (And always keeping my Tamron 28-200 +body as my "compact travel pack)

[@EasyTigerCreative]

@@Wistbacka that’s a good setup!

[@markofadljevic1975]

What do you say about heavy vignetting on wider end of 17-50?

[@EasyTigerCreative]

Honestly nothing too crazy to me. Vignetting can be easily fixed in post for the most part in photos and even in video but didn’t notice anything drastic.

[@markofadljevic1975]

Would you pick this tamron 17-50 over the sony 20-70?

[@JZWANSHEYING]

20-40 seems more sharper？

[@EasyTigerCreative]

I think both are good and sharp. With the minor differences of sharpness it’s not worth to pixel peep to me haha but it’s all up to preferences.

[@v.demchenko]

❤Support channel. Great video🎉

[@EasyTigerCreative]

Thank you 🧡

[@danfarmer_photo]

The issue with the lens test, is the answer isn’t in the video. The 20-70 Sony wins hands down, and worth the extra money.

[@EasyTigerCreative]

The reason I didn’t use that lens it’s because it doesn’t compare to the 17-50 in price range like the 20-40 because they’re both Tamron.

[@Kevodabomb_Media]

I would say it doesn’t win hands down. If you need 2.8, the Sony doesn’t win. I use my 20-40 for hiking and brought it on a 4 day hike in the Grand Canyon a few weeks ago. The 2.8 came in handy when shooting the stars at night as well as shooting early in the morning and at dusk.

[@danfarmer_photo]

@@Kevodabomb_Media I do take your point, but don’t fully agree. Mainly due to the fact that noise reduction software is so great these days, the difference between f2.8 and f4 doesn’t mean the shot is unusable as it was in the past. However, making up the difference between 40mm all the way out to 70mm is more of a stretch. But, if you don’t need the reach, yes of course the Tamron is the choice. I sold my 20-40 soon after I got the 20-70 because whilst I didn’t have an issue with the auto focus of the Tamron, after using the Sony, it really did highlight that the Tamron was a fair bit slower by comparison. Not a big deal though…

[@Kevodabomb_Media]

@@danfarmer_photo in many scenarios I agree, but Noise reduction doesn’t work well with every scenario, such as Astro photography. It tends to remove stars or you can notice a lot of really weird artifacting if you zoom in between the stars, looks like someone literally used a noise reduction brush between all of them. I took some star shots at f4, did noise reduction and they were nowhere near as clean and crispy as they were at 2.8. I do love the noise reduction though in most scenarios, and agree you don’t need 2.8 as much anymore especially with how clean high iso looks on the newer bodies. Both are excellent lenses, but the Tamron checked more boxes for me.

[@frankfeng2701]

17-50 has internal zoom, that wins "hands down" for many gimbal users 20-40 also has a smaller footprint than 20-70. The 2.8 gives you shallower DOF at 20 and 40, both of which come in handy for street photography. Personally I just prefer 67mm on Tamron lenses.