I currently have a Tamron 17-28mm f2.8, and I'm contemplating the idea of upgrading to the newer Tamron 16-30mm f2.8.
I absolutely love my Tamron 17-28mm f2.8, and I have zero complaints. It's probably one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned! However, it would be nice to have the wider reach plus the extra reach on the long end.
Is it worth the upgrade?
Current cameras I own are a first generation A7c and a A7iv.
I almost never use my 17-28 in my usual "locations." There are some areas I'd use it a lot more. The 16-30 doesn't go enough wider or longer to really change that "use" pattern. I've added the 20-70 to reduce swapping at 28mm in urban walk-around and a 14mm for the infrequent "even wider" opportunities.
Craig Gillette wrote:
I almost never use my 17-28 in my usual "locations." There are some areas I'd use it a lot more. The 16-30 doesn't go enough wider or longer to really change that "use" pattern. I've added the 20-70 to reduce swapping at 28mm in urban walk-around and a 14mm for the infrequent "even wider" opportunities.
I currently have the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8, Tamron 20-40mm f2.8, and the Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6. So, the wider angle would be of more use to me.
Just buy the 16-30 and shoot them side by side since you have a good copy of the 17-28. It's never worth selling off a great lens for an unknown, especially when all you're gaining is a measly 3mm.
RoamingScott wrote:
Just buy the 16-30 and shoot them side by side since you have a good copy of the 17-28. It's never worth selling off a great lens for an unknown, especially when all you're gaining is a measly 3mm.
If I do end up getting the 16-30, I'd most likely give the 17-28mm to my kid. The 17-28mm is definitely a keeper regardless of whatever other lens I get.
This may be the wide zoom for people who can’t afford the Sony 16-35 2.8, or don’t want the weight. I’m certainly tempted.I'm one of those people who can't afford the Sony 16-35 f2.8 GM, and I prefer the lighter weight anyway.
To be honest, it seems really hard to get a great copy of the GM II. Some people went back to GM I because their II copies were subpar, AFAIR.
So, the Tamron might be a good alternative, if it's easier to produce with less variability...
This may be the wide zoom for people who can’t afford the Sony 16-35 2.8, or don’t want the weight. I’m certainly tempted.I'm one of those people who can't afford the Sony 16-35 f2.8 GM, and I prefer the lighter weight anyway.To be honest, it seems really hard to get a great copy of the GM II. Some people went back to GM I because their II copies were subpar, AFAIR.
So, the Tamron might be a good alternative, if it's easier to produce with less variability...
I honestly don't know how Tamron does it, but all the Tamron lenses I've owned so far have been amazingly sharp! The only Tamron I didn't care for was the 28-75mm f2.8 G2 because of the excessive vignetting. Other than that particular lens, I absolutely love my Tamrons!