This and the 50-400 would probably be the most versatile full frame kit for travel and landscape. I just sold my 50-400, though, as I rarely travel, and I tend to lean more towards manual focus primes. Might rent these two for a longer trip, though.
Tamron 17-50/4 indeed is great travel lens, but isn't 50-400 too bulky to carry it around while wandering here and there with friends or family, during vacations?
BeatX wrote:
Tamron 17-50/4 indeed is great travel lens, but isn't 50-400 too bulky to carry it around while wandering here and there with friends or family, during vacations?
The short answer is no, but the personal experiences can be very different depending on whether one has the habit of using telephoto lenses and depending on how the camera system is carried. For the latter, when the camera system is in a holster bag, over a shoulder, I can go on a 10 km hike without problems (and I am 60+ years old).
hasenbein wrote:
The Tamron 50-400 is the lightest and most compact way to have up to 400mm in your landscape/travel zoom kit.
Yes, but it's still neither light nor small.
Anyways, if I had to describe 17-50/4 with one word, it would be "fun". It's not a lens that can replace your primes when it comes to ultimate resolution (like 14-24/2.8DN can) but it's so versatile and easy to carry around (perfect balance with modern non-compact Sony FF bodies).
If I had to nitpick:
* I wish it was a bit shorter, like 20-70/4G contracted, but retaining internal zoom. Yes, I know one can wish
* similar to 50-400, I wish it didn't have that yellow/warm cast, which can be seen on AWB
* I wish it retained sharpness up close, like native Sony lenses do, as you can see some contrast loss on the long end
* I wish the manual focus ring was less stiff and zoom ring more smooth (it's not as buttery smooth as I'd expect from an internal zoom design)
... but at this price (400€ vs 20-70G, 1875€ vs 16-35GMII), it's hard to argue with how good this lens is .
j4nu wrote:
Yes, but it's still neither light nor small.
Anyways, if I had to describe 17-50/4 with one word, it would be "fun". It's not a lens that can replace your primes when it comes to ultimate resolution (like 14-24/2.8DN can) but it's so versatile and easy to carry around (perfect balance with modern non-compact Sony FF bodies).
If I had to nitpick:
* I wish it was a bit shorter, like 20-70/4G contracted, but retaining internal zoom. Yes, I know one can wish
* similar to 50-400, I wish it didn't have that yellow/warm cast, which can be seen on AWB
* I wish it retained sharpness up close, like native Sony lenses do, as you can see some contrast loss on the long end
* I wish the manual focus ring was less stiff and zoom ring more smooth (it's not as buttery smooth as I'd expect from an internal zoom design)
... but at this price (400€ vs 20-70G, 1875€ vs 16-35GMII), it's hard to argue with how good this lens is ....Show more →
The design of the zoom is extending at 17 and 50, it trombones, so “internal zoom” makes the most sense, rather than having it compact at 24mm for instance.
BeatX wrote:
Tamron 17-50/4 indeed is great travel lens, but isn't 50-400 too bulky to carry it around while wandering here and there with friends or family, during vacations?
I have hiked with the 70-200GMii, which is similar in weight. I dont think its a problem, but you probably want a backpack which holds the lenses vertically to accomodate longer lenses, and not one of those side loading models.
I have hiked with both the 70-200 GM II and 50-400 Di. The 70-200 feels noticeably lighter, probably due to superior balance of weight. The output from both impressed me, but I'm not sure how often I need tele zooms unless I travel. Maybe I will give the 70-200 GM II a try again, add the 2x when needed, and have the extra speed for other situations. That lens was very lovely to use, but then again, it's more GAS than need, and I sold all of my GM lenses for the same reason. It just felt lighter and sleeker, and the interval zoom is nice. But these aren't directly comparable, of course. I still have a Contax 100-300, which I sometimes use for landscape and cityscape, but I'm probably selling it as well for the same reasons.
The 50-400 is very attractive indeed, and so is the 17-50. I don't find any of them too big or heavy for travel, as I appreciate the versatility. Although I prefer primes at home for several reasons, where I just bring one or a few, to locations I can visit whenever, zooms make more sense for locations where the scenes are unexpected, as I otherwise would bring a whole kit of primes anyway.
Well, my favorite travel lens is 35-150/2-2.8 because I like what it brings to the table, but I still find it ridiculous that Tamron advertises it as a "travel zoom" and "a top lens for the whole trip". Every lens can be a travel lens this way, but unless your travel primary goal is photography, then things like weight and size come into play. A lens that is 1kg+ and ~18 cm long is not something most people would recommend for lugging around for the whole hot day .
Anyways, I wanted to post some samples from 17-50/4 but the light is a bit weird (starting to get that wintery harsh) around here lately, so I don't have much. Here are a couple wider shots with basic processing (Cobalt, highlights, shadows, a bit saturation here and there + light NR to get rid of that Adobe grain) in LRc *without* lens profile (so distortion is uncorrected, but vignetting should carry on from in-cam compensation I think), open in new tab for fullsize: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53279671367_6c232f4462_o.jpg
ƒ/4.0 17.0mm 1/800s ISO100
(it gets visibly less wide after distortion correction, as I can see in the jpegs)
aCuria wrote:
I have hiked with the 70-200GMii, which is similar in weight. I dont think its a problem, but you probably want a backpack which holds the lenses vertically to accomodate longer lenses, and not one of those side loading models.
I have a Pgytech OneMo (first edition), and I can put the A7III with the Tamron 50-400 attached INCLUDING attached lens hood into it horizontally. And it's not a massive backpack, so there should be no problem usually. Length of the whole combination is 28.3 centimeters. With lens hood in reverse position it's 24.5 centimeters which definitely should fit in any backpack.
An interesting lens for sure. I'm surprised it doesn't get as much discussion here as the 20-70/4. I certainly would take the extra 3mm on the wide end and non-telescoping design.
I have the 17-28, which I find to be a very good lens, but 28mm on the long end can feel still too wide at times and leave me wanting a lens change. I just came back from a trip taking the Tamron 17-28 and 70-180, where the 17-50 would have been great. Hmm, we have so many good zoom options available (and now a 24-50/2.8 coming), it's hard to decide!
I’ve got a 17-50 on the way, I normally shoot with 17-28 and a 24-105 but often find myself changing lenses. On the coast with spray and sand blowing lens changing is a nightmare, so I’m hoping the 17-50 will fit the bill. I’ll pair it with new 70-200/4ii
I'm sorry but I don't have anything interesting to show .
I've been shooting less recently and there's still no profile for this lens in LR (though I've recently discovered DxO has one already). I can post some jpegs with in-cam corrections I guess, but I always find it hard to expose them properly on a wide angle in harsh winter light ...
Assuming it’s half the price of the 16-35G as per the review, the lens looks very attractive as a budget zoom lens.
However I have noticed Tamron lenses sell at a high markup for me in Asia (more than B&H pricing) while the 16-35G does not (less than B&H pricing) This makes the Tamron somewhat less attractive for me but this would not apply to every country.
It would be the best Tamron lens to go for if one wants to eventually add a medium telephoto like the 50-400, 70-180, 70-200 or 70-300 for a 2 lens kit. I’m not sure if it would be acceptable with a 100-400, as this would require the 17-50 to be particularly sharp at 50mm in apsc mode
If we ignore the price, the 16-35GMii is a better lens as it comes in at a similar weight, and is slightly wider and one stop brighter. We can produce the look of a 50/4 by shooting at 35/2.8 and cropping. The increase in noise in apsc mode willl be offset by shooting at a brighter 35/2.8 instead of 50/4, so overall the 16-35/2.8 GMii is a more versatile lens, and should be optically better at the same settings.
Even though the GMii has a magnification of 0.32x and the Tamron ranges from 0.21 to 0.26x, I haven't encountered any issues achieving focus at my desired framing with a magnification of 0.23x (16-35G). Therefore, the Tamron is likely perfectly acceptable in this regard.
On the other hand lenses like the 55ZA (0.14x) are particularly annoying, I would very often have to frame wider than I would like. The 50/2i (0.14x) is in the same boat. Even the 50/1.2GM (0.17x) and 50/1.4GM (0.16x) are only marginally better. That said, at least all of these lenses are sharp wide open at their respective MFDs
DA’s review indicates peformance at the MFD is decent, but he does mention loss of contrast in certain shots. At the price point I think this level of peformance is quite acceptable
The main disadvantage of this lens is the added length and weight (expecially over the 15-35G), slower autofocus and the usual limitations imposed by Sony (no 15+ fps), possibly slower AF update rate.
It remains to be seen if Active stabilization works as expected, previous Tamron lenses (20-40 for example) had this issue where active stabilization yielded jerky looking video compared to Sony glass. I have long suspected this could possibly be caused by the lens reporting the focal length inaccurately
Well, had a day trying his lens around London on Saturday.
Handling is great, flare control seems good, range is great.
What I'm less thrilled by is the distortion at 17mm which is really way more than I'd like
.
.
