p.2 #1 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
jharter wrote:
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.
p.2 #3 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
Well, it doesn't relate to the 16-35 4.0 but I would advise you all to have a look at the comparison with the 2.8 GM available trough https://www.cameralabs.com/tamron-17-28mm-f2-8-di-iii-review/
The tester compares sharpness both at close and long-distance. To visualize the images and results of the comparisons just click on the crops of each focal length in the Quality chapter.
The conclusions (well supported by the images) are that at close distance the GM has a better periphery... but at long distance, at least at 2.8, there is a tie between the two lenses at 17mm and 20mm focal lengths ... but the Tammy beats the Sony GM at 24mm and 28mm.
p.2 #4 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
jharter wrote:
Just asking: why do you hate that? I do prefer internal zoom like the Tamron but don't really care which way the extension goes.
Just because I had the tendency to shoot most often at 16mm, and then I would have to zoom to 35 to store, and it annoyed me. Similar to the very old 24-70L, I really hated that behavior.
p.2 #8 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
The Tamron. Forget using the polarizer, there is hard vignetting well past 20mm. If you're just using regular slide in filters, you'll have some vignetting at the edges if you orient the filter holder exactly aligned with the framing of the sensor. If you rotate it, you'll get hard vignetting in the corners. So probably about 20mm or longer you can use the slide in filters and you want to be able to orient a grad in any direction. If you add the polarizer you're probably at 24mm or longer.
If you need to me to tell you exactly when the vignetting disappears, I'll have to do more controlled testing. But based on the above, it just not really viable from my perspective.
-Tim
Fred Miranda wrote:
Are you referring to the Tamron or Sony?
p.2 #9 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
tsdevine wrote:
The Tamron. Forget using the polarizer, there is hard vignetting well past 20mm. If you're just using regular slide in filters, you'll have some vignetting at the edges if you orient the filter holder exactly aligned with the framing of the sensor. If you rotate it, you'll get hard vignetting in the corners. So probably about 20mm or longer you can use the slide in filters and you want to be able to orient a grad in any direction. If you add the polarizer you're probably at 24mm or longer.
If you need to me to tell you exactly when the vignetting disappears, I'll have to do more controlled testing. But based on the above, it just not really viable from my perspective.
Thanks for letting me know. I mainly use ND filters with the Seven5 and was hoping there was no vignetting at 17mm when the filter holder is aligned either horizontally or vertically (not diagonally)
p.2 #10 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
Thanks for the heads up on making a square polarizer, that is definitely interesting.
I'll try to test again this weekend, but i think I noticed a hair of vignetting on the sides even when oriented to match the sensor. I didn't try both orientations though.
Tim
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for letting me know. I mainly use ND filters with the Seven5 and was hoping there was no vignetting at 17mm when the filter holder is aligned either horizontally or vertically (not diagonally)
p.2 #11 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
I just rented the Tamron 17-28/2.8 and did some test shots around the house to pixel peep and compare with my FE 16-35/4 which is my most used lens.
Previously, I rented a GM 16-35/2.8 and compared that to the FE. The GM was sharper but not by much and from 16-28 mm both zooms were very close to one another with the GM just slightly sharper at most apertures. The GM pulled ahead between 28-35 mm but I already have an FE 35/2.8 which was generally sharper than the GM. For the extra cost, bulk, weight, 82 mm filters, I did not consider the GM worth it for my needs.
On to the Tamron. Very impressed! It does feel less solid in the build department, more plastic, but as previously stated "good plastic." I found it very smooth for zooming. Focusing with a WA Zoom is always so-so and I did not see much difference between the two lenses. I tried to zoom in the FE slightly to 17 mm but in Lightroom it still recorded the focal length as 16 mm but the images were very close in perspective.
The Tamron basically blew it away. It was sharper at all apertures at all focal lengths throughout the frame and much sharper in the corners. I will say that the gap between the two lenses decreases and the focal length increases so that by 28 mm the Tamron is not compellingly better. But I think I am sold.
I also rented the GM 24/1.4 and compared the two at 24 mm. Obviously, the GM was sharper throughout from f2.8 on but not by a ton and much less so than the difference between the two zooms. The GM is two stops faster and that is the reason to get it but for landscapes I would hesitate given the versatility of the zoom.
Tomorrow I will be out taking real photos and will reply again if I see anything remarkable beyond what I have observed so far.
p.2 #12 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
Now just a comparison between this zoom and the new Sigma 14-24. I should have my Tamron on Monday. Dustin Abbott tested this zoom and it's sharper than the Laowa at f/2.8. Not bad!
p.2 #14 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
jharter wrote:
I just rented the Tamron 17-28/2.8 and did some test shots around the house to pixel peep and compare with my FE 16-35/4 which is my most used lens.
Previously, I rented a GM 16-35/2.8 and compared that to the FE. The GM was sharper but not by much and from 16-28 mm both zooms were very close to one another with the GM just slightly sharper at most apertures. The GM pulled ahead between 28-35 mm but I already have an FE 35/2.8 which was generally sharper than the GM. For the extra cost, bulk, weight, 82 mm filters, I did not consider the GM worth it for my needs.
On to the Tamron. Very impressed! It does feel less solid in the build department, more plastic, but as previously stated "good plastic." I found it very smooth for zooming. Focusing with a WA Zoom is always so-so and I did not see much difference between the two lenses. I tried to zoom in the FE slightly to 17 mm but in Lightroom it still recorded the focal length as 16 mm but the images were very close in perspective.
The Tamron basically blew it away. It was sharper at all apertures at all focal lengths throughout the frame and much sharper in the corners. I will say that the gap between the two lenses decreases and the focal length increases so that by 28 mm the Tamron is not compellingly better. But I think I am sold.
I also rented the GM 24/1.4 and compared the two at 24 mm. Obviously, the GM was sharper throughout from f2.8 on but not by a ton and much less so than the difference between the two zooms. The GM is two stops faster and that is the reason to get it but for landscapes I would hesitate given the versatility of the zoom.
Tomorrow I will be out taking real photos and will reply again if I see anything remarkable beyond what I have observed so far....Show more →
Thanks for sharing. Do you think the rule of transivity applies? If the 16-35 f/2.8 was barely better than the 16-35 f/4, but the Tamron blows away the 16-35 f/4, from what you can make out are you saying that the Tamron would pull ahead of the 16-35 f/2.8 (especially in the corners)?
p.2 #15 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
I am just going from memory (although I could try to look back at the files in a different catalog now), but I would say yes that the Tamron is at least as good as the 16-35 GM I had.
p.2 #16 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
It's not difficult to "blow away" the 16-35 f4.
It was for a longer time the only wide angle zoom choice in the FE universe, so people had to work with it and it's limitations, and some dudes apparently developed kind of a Stockholm syndrome for it :-)
I think it's one of the most overrated lenses in the FE system, especially at the price point. Very average IQ and boring rendering, horrible MF ergonomics. Easy victory for Tamron.
p.2 #18 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Just out of curiosity has anyone compared the Tamron at 28 to the Sony 28mm prime?
I tested it against my Sony 28/2. Testing at infinity, I found the Tamron resolved better across the frame at both f2.8 and f8. Both lenses look good in the center. By mid-field though, the Tamron is far better at f2.8. At f8, the difference is less, though still significant.
But I don't use the 28/2 as a landscape lens, it's a walk-around/people/family shot lens for me. I would say 95% of my Sony 28/2 shots are people shots at f2 where center sharpness on the Sony is great. I've been very happy with the results I get with the Sony. Bokeh-wise, compared at f2.8 the Tamron is a bit cleaner, but the Sony of course has f2. Comparing f2 vs. f2.8, I think the difference is small enough not to matter to me, but the smaller size of the Sony still feels like a compelling additional reason for me to keep the prime for now.
p.2 #19 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
hasenbein wrote:
It's not difficult to "blow away" the 16-35 f4.
It was for a longer time the only wide angle zoom choice in the FE universe, so people had to work with it and it's limitations, and some dudes apparently developed kind of a Stockholm syndrome for it :-)
I think it's one of the most overrated lenses in the FE system, especially at the price point. Very average IQ and boring rendering, horrible MF ergonomics. Easy victory for Tamron.
Haven't used the 16-35mm f/4 myself, but according to this article by Roger Cicala - the Sony is pretty much as good as a 16-35mm f/4 lens gets at the moment.
Plus, it has very nice sunstars in my opinion.
p.2 #20 · Tamron 17-28/2.8 compared to FE 16-35/4 ZA at Admiringlight
hasenbein wrote:
It's not difficult to "blow away" the 16-35 f4.
It was for a longer time the only wide angle zoom choice in the FE universe, so people had to work with it and it's limitations, and some dudes apparently developed kind of a Stockholm syndrome for it :-)
I think it's one of the most overrated lenses in the FE system, especially at the price point. Very average IQ and boring rendering, horrible MF ergonomics. Easy victory for Tamron.
Agree. Add what seems to be high sample variance into the mix, and it's a hard lens to recommend.
