p.1 #1 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
@Jman13 at admiringlight.com, just posted a great comparison between the new Tamron 17-28/2.8 vs Sony 16-35/4 ZA.
Jordan concluded:
"While the changing light prevents me from making any real judgements on color and contrast, it is quite clear that from a resolution standpoint, the new Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 is a cut above the Sony 16-35mm f/4. Of course, sharpness is only one part of a lens, and I’ll be doing a full review on the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 in the coming weeks and will fully evaluate the image quality and operation of the lens. However, in my short time with it so far, it appears to be a winner."
p.1 #2 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
Certainly looks like a winner. Have you compared the focal lengths at 17mm to verify the lens is actually 17mm and not narrower? From the crop comparisons to the Sony that appears to be the case but just checking to make sure the FOV of those wasn't adjusted to make them match (such as zooming the Sony to be a tad narrower). Asking because the lens already gives up 1mm vs the Sony and wanted to see if the focal length compromise was actually limited to that.
p.1 #3 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
17mm appears to be 17mm. However, the 28mm end is a bit shorter than the 28mm on the Sony. Whether that's because the Tamron is closer to 27mm or the Sony just hits Exif at the wrong spot, it's hard to tell.
p.1 #4 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
Jman13 wrote:
17mm appears to be 17mm. However, the 28mm end is a bit shorter than the 28mm on the Sony. Whether that's because the Tamron is closer to 27mm or the Sony just hits Exif at the wrong spot, it's hard to tell.
Thanks. Great comparison shots btw. You're one of my go-to guys/sites for early evaluations of new releases. Always appreciate the work you put into these.
p.1 #5 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
snapsy wrote:
Thanks. Great comparison shots btw. You're one of my go-to guys/sites for early evaluations of new releases. Always appreciate the work you put into these.
p.1 #6 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
Jman13 wrote:
17mm appears to be 17mm. However, the 28mm end is a bit shorter than the 28mm on the Sony. Whether that's because the Tamron is closer to 27mm or the Sony just hits Exif at the wrong spot, it's hard to tell.
Jordan,
Your review is very promising. One question I have is how does this focus manually? I read it has "Direct Manual Focus (DMF)" but not sure what that means?
Dave
p.1 #7 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
DMF is just like any other Sony lens, where you can AF, but then after locking with AF, you can adjust focus manually before taking the shot. Normal MF is done like any other native lens...just selecting manual focus as your focus type. Also, the Tamron firmware does the 'standard' manual focus of varying focus by how fast you move the focus ring, so it isn't a linear manual focus response. This can be good or bad depending on your needs.
p.1 #8 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
Jman13 wrote:
DMF is just like any other Sony lens, where you can AF, but then after locking with AF, you can adjust focus manually before taking the shot. Normal MF is done like any other native lens...just selecting manual focus as your focus type. Also, the Tamron firmware does the 'standard' manual focus of varying focus by how fast you move the focus ring, so it isn't a linear manual focus response. This can be good or bad depending on your needs.
Jordan,
Does the 17-28/2.8's focus by wire have a linear response like we see on recent Sony lenses?
p.1 #11 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
Thanks Jordan - enjoyed looking at the comparison tests. Really looking forward to seeing your flare and sunstar results ! Definitely a front runner for me, the GM being too expensive.
p.1 #12 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
I can give you a hint: Sunstars are subtle. It has rounded aperture blades, so you need to stop down far to make them prominent at all.
Flare performance is very good. I can get it to ghost if the sun is at the very edge of the frame, but that only produces two tiny green ghosts that are very unobtrusive.
Frogfish wrote:
Thanks Jordan - enjoyed looking at the comparison tests. Really looking forward to seeing your flare and sunstar results ! Definitely a front runner for me, the GM being too expensive.
p.1 #14 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
jharter wrote:
Any vignetting with filters at 17 mm?
I just tried...with a standard circular polarizer (so pretty thick..mine is roughly the size of two normal filters), there is a bit of vignetting at 17mm that is completely gone by 19mm. It doesn't appear to be a hard edge, just some darkening at the very extreme corners. The darkening is worst at f/2.8 and recedes when stopping down, but is still present in that last little touch of the corners.
If using a standard depth filter (ND, UV or a slim polarizer) there's no vignetting. So slim CPols will be needed to completely avoid vignetting with the lens.
p.1 #15 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
Jman13 wrote:
I just tried...with a standard circular polarizer (so pretty thick..mine is roughly the size of two normal filters), there is a bit of vignetting at 17mm that is completely gone by 19mm. It doesn't appear to be a hard edge, just some darkening at the very extreme corners. The darkening is worst at f/2.8 and recedes when stopping down, but is still present in that last little touch of the corners.
If using a standard depth filter (ND, UV or a slim polarizer) there's no vignetting. So slim CPols will be needed to completely avoid vignetting with the lens.
p.1 #16 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
Jman13 wrote:
I just tried...with a standard circular polarizer (so pretty thick..mine is roughly the size of two normal filters), there is a bit of vignetting at 17mm that is completely gone by 19mm. It doesn't appear to be a hard edge, just some darkening at the very extreme corners. The darkening is worst at f/2.8 and recedes when stopping down, but is still present in that last little touch of the corners.
If using a standard depth filter (ND, UV or a slim polarizer) there's no vignetting. So slim CPols will be needed to completely avoid vignetting with the lens.
I have the zeiss 67mm CPL I can test, I think it's the thin variety, and my lens finally comes in today! In all honesty, I rarely use CPL's, 6 stop ND will probably live on this lens if I were to do landscapes.
p.1 #19 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
Hmm, I already own a Sony 16-35mm f/4 ZA. I'm wondering if the Tamron is worth the trade? The 2.8 and fixed barrel would be nice, but I also like the extra range I get with the Sony lens. Decisions!
p.1 #20 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
Jonathan F wrote:
Hmm, I already own a Sony 16-35mm f/4 ZA. I'm wondering if the Tamron is worth the trade? The 2.8 and fixed barrel would be nice, but I also like the extra range I get with the Sony lens. Decisions!
Same situattfor me. I could live with the 17 vs 16 mm. I would be happy to save 100 grams. I especially like the 67 mm filters because I could ditch the 72 mm filter wallet and use 67 mm filters from another lens (Batis 85). The 2.8 vs 4 would be great but I don’t want the Tamron if it is not sharper than the Sony through the more limited focal range.
I already carry a 35/2.8 anyway so I don’t think I will miss the longer focal lengths.
