Tamron 17-50mm f/4 Di III VXD (Full-frame!) lens review
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- Yes, the world's first 17-50mm FULL-FRAME lens - let's see what it can do!
All pictures taken by me on a Sony a7R III and a5100 camera.
Find it here (Amazon affiliate link - thanks for your support!):
geni.us/Tamron...
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonE...
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonE...
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma5...
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonR...
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/Marumi...
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020...
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSm...
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC...
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1...
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMin...
Music:
'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons....
Dude you are killing it with all these reviews!
Thanks man! My pleasure.
Sony's lineup gets more expansive and interesting!
We now have standard zooms, a 20-70 f4, a 17-50 f4 and a 20-40 f2.8 besides the 16-35.
I am a simple man.
I see a new Christopher Frost video. I drop whatever I am doing and just watch.
I have this lens. Perfect for travel with an A7CR. With apsc mode, I basically get 17-75mm field of view. The corners are soft but not useless. Good enough for what I am using it for.
apsc mode is no different to cropping in post.
@cbflazaro Yeah but with A7CR still have 26mp with the apsc mode.
@@cbflazaroand?
@@cbflazarotechnically true but it’s very nice for composing in camera
@@cbflazaroBut you lose no quality in video, only in photos
I can see this being a mainly video lens as it is plenty sharp for 4k resolution and the focal range is ideal for video shooting.
Really cool to see a lens like this being made. I really would love a 35-70mm f/2.8 made very compact. Or something weird like a 40-60mm f/2.
You'd sacrifice a stop of light for 2mm of zoom? Ehh... I got feet.
@@TheMetalButcher I'd take the 42-60 f/1.4 any day of the week!
@@JoshJourney I think that's called a 50mm f/1.4 and a couple steps backward or forward 😂
I first thought why one would need another 17-50 type apsc lens with a smaller aperture. Then i realised that this was an ff lens. WOW! Nice competition to Sonys 20-70mm lens.
This is not a lens someone should buy for apsc, there are f2.8 options available, but it would be incredible to have on a trip where you dont know what lens to pack.
The wide angle is horrendous, but after the sony 20-70 it is what i would expect.
I love that Tamron takes the risk with these weird focal ranges (see the 35-150mm or 50-400mm lenses)!
Happy to see Antalya(Turkey) shots in your test photos
Had high hopes for this lens, given how great my 50-400 is. Now I'm not convinced it's for me.
I'm surprised to see the image quality on 17mm is on par with Leica Q3 😅
Very charitable of you to give a “recommended “ to a lens that is only really good at f8!
You are right but only partly: even if the optical quality is not the best, this optic is really versatile (there is no other lens on FF that can go from ultra wide angle to medium telephoto almost)... for those who travel and want to keep only one optic attached to their camera at all times (and especially if they use a Sony A7III or similar with 24mpx) it could be a very smart choice!!!
Had to send it back as even at f8 the corners were really soft !
Probably a faulty one !
Great review as always. is it okay for A7ii?
can we have sony 50mm f2.8 macro? 👉🏻👈🏻
Thanks for your video. I bought this lens and i will probably sent it back. The corners are too soft even at F 8 and the edges are not perfect. I hope the Pz 16 35 will get better results.
Bought this lens a while back, only using it for daytime landscape at F11, nothing more
Amazing, been waiting for this review! As someone who only does landscape photography, this lens is looking really good!
I need to replace my Sony FE 16-35 F4 and will do it with this lens. The extra reach to 50mm will make this lens great for using as primary lens. I already have the Tamron 28-200, but 28 is just not wide enough to have as a single lens. But the combination of those two lenses will be great, the overlap of 28-50 is really comfortable as it means less switching lenses.
I took a look at my information in Lightroom and the majority of my photos are under 70mm, while my photos taken with my Sony 16-35 has a distribution of 1/3rd at 16mm, 1/3rd at 35mm and the rest in between. So the Tamron 17-50 would cover the vast majority of the ranges I shoot in. Which is nice if I want to go extra light for a long hike!
I do a lot of serious backcountry mountaineering. The Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 is one the reasons that keeps me glued to full frame despite being aware of outstanding APS-C alternatives and having a spinal compression. Bringing a Sony a5100 with a Samyang 12mm f/2.0 (eq to full frame 18mm f/2.8) has treated me well weighing just slightly more than the Tamron 17-50 f/4. The whole kit that is (APS-C body + lens). I know it sounds crazy, but carrying one "semi big camera" and one small one has been game changing without the need to swap lenses.
I'm surprised you didn't do a video on the Canon 24-105 2.8 yet.
Then again, it is a very pricey lens 😅
AFAIK It's not yet released for sale.
My dream FF lens:
10-25mm f1.2-f2.8
200-500mm f2.8-f4.5
Very dreamy 😂
20-100 f/2.8-4 would be more realistic and practical.
@@frankfeng2701 I got 35-150 f2-2.8 so... well, 10-20 f2.8 would still be good.
But rumored 150-400 lens feel n9t so good, its either f4 or f2.8-5.6 I think - its far away from 600mm and too slow at about 250mm, as in both.
Transition F2.8 for up to 250mm, then f4 to 400mm, f5.6 to 500mm would be ideal.
@@explodingheavens I'm talking about that one lens that you would need or bring on your own.
@frankfeng2701 it's impossible to cover everything, even that 35-150 goes beyond what you would normally get.
There are 24-240mm or for apsc 18-300mm, but every lens got some downsides.
Even classic slow 16-50 apsc lens are nothing special, but it got ois, power zoom, it's wide to tele for almost nothing and you can get it in your pocket.
Depends on usage and price.
Found recently 20€ lens too, nothing special but even those can make nice pictures.
Important is to have a choice, there is a lot of lens we would wish to have, but what we can have is another matter.
I got 35-150 2-2.8 and it covers 90% of what I need, of course at the cost of price and weight.
I hope you will find yours too. 😁
I received this lens last week. I don't usually put on a UV filter, but the mechanism on the front of the lens made me do so. My copy also has very poor sharpness in the corners. I originally intended to use this in conjunction with my 50-400mm. However, I am neither satisfied with the sharpness of this lens nor am I confident with the autofocus of the 50-400mm. I would not recommend other people to get this combo.
Thanks for headsup
Have you updated the firmware of the 50-400? I did, and the AF is very good.
@@edc641 I have. AF-S is snappy but subject tracking AF accuracy is poor when used with both my a1 and a9.
Oh really? I had this combo on my head. You speak about the accuracy of the 50-400. I heard bad comments about the sigma 100-400 about af accuracy and tought the 50-400 would be better option. Could you precise youe experience about the af in the 50-400? Thank you!!
@@oscarcrendeful if the subject is stationary, AF is very accurate. If the subject is moving, the accuracy drops. What's worse, when you zoom in or out, the focus distance also shift greatly, making it even more difficult for the camera to track the subject.
I want this lens. Could you considere to show vignette with filters in this type of lenses plese? It would be very useful. Thank you for the video, I love your tests.
waitting for tamron 17-28mm f2.8 review
Old lens
Better this or combo 17-28 and 28-75?
Filter on the front should prevent any dust coming in or?
at first i was certain it was an aps-c lens. certainly a step forward.
All pictures are from Türkiye Antalya. So i hope you have got nice and good vocation in Antalya 😊
Have you reviewed the 17-28 f2.8?
when your subject is beautiful, the lens doesn't matter that much (yes i am from Turkiye 😍)
Just like the olympus 8-25mm but larger (and worse image quality?)
Real estate will be perfect for this
Only reason staying with Sony is LENS SELECTION. Its HUUGEE.
Tamron Lenses produce little warm colors in my usage of last 2 years.
I mostly shoot in good light/day light as a hobbyst and landscape shooter, i mostly use f7-f10
On an APCS I would buy it in a heartbeat
Why? There have been plenty of 24-105/120 lenses over the past decade.
@@BoxxyFan Not at all. On an APSC it would be a 12-35 mm for the same field of view.
@@clementc7297 No, this is 25.5mm-75mm on APS-C.
@@BoxxyFan you have to divide not multiply by 1.5. Trust me I'm an engineer ;-)
@@clementc7297 You might want to change careers.
I don’t really understand this lens considering Tamron’s 20-40 f/2.8… 17mm is pretty significantly wider, but is that width worth the the stop of light and worse ability to shoot wide open? For a couple hundred extra, Sony’s 16-35 f4 would be better for a couple hundred extra (cheaper used) and if you want the more normal focal range, Sony’s 20-70 f4 offers a better value with a very similar cost proposition to the 16-35 f4.
I don’t think the lens is bad, necessarily, just that you could spend your money a bit better
I've seen some comparison videos between these 3 lenses, and it seems like the sharpness is similar enough that what really matters is the zoom range, and for me personally I need that wide angle, so this Tamron lens is the clear winner 👍
I had the Tramron 20-40, took it on holiday to Reunion island with my 28-200 and found 20 mm was definitely not wide enough. Sold it and will get this lens instead.
What a shame! I had high hopes for this lens
I own it and it’s great for video!!
I much rather have the 28-200 for travel
I'll never fault a manufacturer for taking big swings in product development, but this one feels a bit like a swing and a miss. Although it has it's high points, the negatives seem to outweigh the positives. It certainly would have been a game changing lens if it performed well across it's zoom and aperture range, but instead it feels more like a kit lens that's a jack of (almost) all trades but a master of none.
Oh dear
For landscape work autofocusing is pretty much not required. You can get a bunch of fix focal length manual focus lens at a dirt cheap price with a great image quality.
Better spend the money on a good tripod, cpl filter, and a high quality ND filter.
I like Tamron lenses but this release is clearly very poor indeed. One to avoid in my opinion.
🤔 not impressed. Maybe we’re just spoiled as we gotten other great lenses. Maybe our expectations have gotten very high. Sony 20-70 seems better but I wouldn’t get that lens either
Poor sharpness at the corners . If it makes a difference for you . Put your money on something else . Great review !
Sony 20-70 f4 is a much better lens, regardless of the price it makes this lense a no-go. (For me)
How can dou take price out of the equation?
That‘s like saying „no point in buying a VW if you could get a Mercedes“, oh really? This lens is half price and street prices will go even lower
@@ArteUltra1195if the quality is bad enough people won't use it even it costs nothing😂
The internal zoom and 17mm alone can be a deal maker for a lot of gimbal users.
The difference between 17mm and 20mm is significant enough that it's denoted by the word "ultra". They're very much not equivalent lenses
Sure. Any zoom lens whose optical edge rendering peaks at f11 at one end and looks quite weak overall at the other should be relegated straight to the dustbin of lens history these days.
I'll stick with my Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 lens. I rarely go wider than 20mm and I can crop a tiny bit to reach 70mm.
So this lens is basically a 17-50mm F8 Lens for $699...!!!
Much bigger than 17-40 F4 L, much more expensive, marginally better in most real-world use cases
Considering the cost difference, I personally won't sit waiting for it to come to Canon RF mount
Doesn't make sense on a crop either, since there's cropped 17-50 with optical stabilization from Sigma and Tamron.
Quite the opposite. Tamron is 40 grams lighter, smaller filter thread, faster and faster & quieter AF, better IQ, and still costs $100 less at launch.
Really wanted this focal range to pair with a longer zoom for travel - not sharp and not fast… this is a pass for me. I do really appreciate Tamron giving it a try, keeping the filter threads the same size, and keeping these cheap. But i don’t want a crappy FF lens, i have mft for that
Disappointing from Tamron.
720 euro for f4 lens ???? hell no
There are tons of better f 2.8 lenses for that kind of value.... f4 will never be sharp...
The corners are bad. Trash lens from Tamron.
Perfect for travel /landscape where you stop down to f/8 or further. The zoom range is very useful
@atanuhalder7750 For travel, I wonder though if they could build a lighter and sharper lens that starts at f5.6 instead of f4.
This lens doesn't impress. Too bad, would've made a super nice combo with my 50-400 if iq was on par.
@@maggnet4829 Exactly, I feel travel landscape photographers are minority and thus don’t get much attention. All travel photographers want is a lens that is sharp corner to corner, light ( it can start at 5.6 to make so) and zoom ranges covering useful focal lengths
Had to send it back as even at f8 the corners were far too soft !
It's now selling at less 500 USD in China, brand new. That make it a very good choice of travel zoom lens.