Tamron RF-s 17-70 2.8 VC lens
p.1 #1Tamron RF-s 17-70 2.8 VC lens
This could be a one lens solution for a lot of people. Time will tell...
Jim
https://www.canonrumors.com/tamron-adds-to-their-rf-lineup-with-the-17-70mm-f-2-8-di-iii-a-vc-rxd-for-aps-c/
Jim
https://www.canonrumors.com/tamron-adds-to-their-rf-lineup-with-the-17-70mm-f-2-8-di-iii-a-vc-rxd-for-aps-c/
Jun 24, 2026 at 04:40 AM
p.1 #2Tamron RF-s 17-70 2.8 VC lens
jgoetz4 wrote:
This could be a one lens solution for a lot of people. Time will tell...
Jim
https://www.canonrumors.com/tamron-adds-to-their-rf-lineup-with-the-17-70mm-f-2-8-di-iii-a-vc-rxd-for-aps-c/
Not sure what’s going on with Tamron
I have a few of their lenses
The older style with the gold band never give me any issues.. but the newer G2 lenses seem prone to failure. The 90mm G2 macro has to be the most unreliable. The AF just gives up?? Tamron did offer a repair service (Germany) but I read they ran out of parts years ago - so now if it goes wrong it’s a paper weight!! The EF-m Tamron 18-200 was also fraught with issues. It’s now actually put me off buying their newer stuff. Yet the older gold band series just keep going… odd!!
Jun 24, 2026 at 05:14 AM
p.1 #3Tamron RF-s 17-70 2.8 VC lens
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Jim
https://www.canonrumors.com/tamron-adds-to-their-rf-lineup-with-the-17-70mm-f-2-8-di-iii-a-vc-rxd-for-aps-c/Not sure what’s going on with Tamron
I have a few of their lenses
The older style with the gold band never give me any issues.. but the newer G2 lenses seem prone to failure. The 90mm G2 macro has to be the most unreliable. The AF just gives up?? Tamron did offer a repair service (Germany) but I read they ran out of parts years ago - so now if it goes wrong it’s a paper weight!! The EF-m Tamron 18-200 was also fraught with issues. It’s now actually put me off buying their newer stuff. Yet the older gold band...Show more →
I had their 17-50 2.8 lens years ago, and used it on my old X-Ti and 40D without issue. I must have had a good copy with good sharpness and contrast. Their 100-400 VC lens was also good. My son uses it now on his RP.
Jim
jgoetz4 wrote
This could be a one lens solution for a lot of people. Time will tell...Jim
https://www.canonrumors.com/tamron-adds-to-their-rf-lineup-with-the-17-70mm-f-2-8-di-iii-a-vc-rxd-for-aps-c/
I have a few of their lenses
The older style with the gold band never give me any issues.. but the newer G2 lenses seem prone to failure. The 90mm G2 macro has to be the most unreliable. The AF just gives up?? Tamron did offer a repair service (Germany) but I read they ran out of parts years ago - so now if it goes wrong it’s a paper weight!! The EF-m Tamron 18-200 was also fraught with issues. It’s now actually put me off buying their newer stuff. Yet the older gold band...Show more →
I had their 17-50 2.8 lens years ago, and used it on my old X-Ti and 40D without issue. I must have had a good copy with good sharpness and contrast. Their 100-400 VC lens was also good. My son uses it now on his RP.
Jim
Jun 24, 2026 at 05:23 AM
p.1 #4Tamron RF-s 17-70 2.8 VC lens
Would be interesting if they swapped the zoom direction to the correct one
Jun 24, 2026 at 05:50 AM
p.1 #5Tamron RF-s 17-70 2.8 VC lens
johnctharp wrote:
Would be interesting if they swapped the zoom direction to the correct one
Yeah, I have used a few Tamron primes in the past but this is the main reason I've never acquired a Tamron zoom.
Jun 24, 2026 at 06:48 PM
|
p.1 #6Tamron RF-s 17-70 2.8 VC lens
Pretty much the lens that Canon should have introduced with the R7 in the first place.
Jun 24, 2026 at 08:29 PM
p.1 #7Tamron RF-s 17-70 2.8 VC lens
I had this lens on Fuji X mount and it is a solid lens. I am not sure, however, that I would trade my EF-s 15-85 for it. I think the wider angle especially, but the wider range in general of the EF-s lens is nice to have. The EF-s lens is an incredible bargain and this point. What I would like Canon to do is make an RF version of that lens.
Jun 24, 2026 at 09:26 PM
p.1 #8Tamron RF-s 17-70 2.8 VC lens
17mm is not wide enough for the puny Canon sensor, but the 15-85 is too slow at the long end.
Unfortunately there is a lack of good APS-C f/4 zooms that are equivalent to the 24-105 or 24-120 range in FF/FX.
EBH
Unfortunately there is a lack of good APS-C f/4 zooms that are equivalent to the 24-105 or 24-120 range in FF/FX.
EBH
Jun 24, 2026 at 09:47 PM
p.1 #9Tamron RF-s 17-70 2.8 VC lens
Very true. If someone wants a compact and light setup whilst still having a decent range covered and we leave price out of the equation it's hard to beat FF at the moment. The 2021 Tamron apsc 17-70 2.8 is almost exactly as heavy as the ff 2025 Tamron 25-200 F2.8-5.6 which is absurd if you think about it.
Btw wouldn't a apsc zoom need to be F2.8 to be a F4 FF equivalent?
Btw wouldn't a apsc zoom need to be F2.8 to be a F4 FF equivalent?
Jun 25, 2026 at 02:06 AM
p.1 #10Tamron RF-s 17-70 2.8 VC lens
Ryzbor wrote:
Very true. If someone wants a compact and light setup whilst still having a decent range covered and we leave price out of the equation it's hard to beat FF at the moment. The 2021 Tamron apsc 17-70 2.8 is almost exactly as heavy as the ff 2025 Tamron 25-200 F2.8-5.6 which is absurd if you think about it.
Btw wouldn't a apsc zoom need to be F2.8 to be a F4 FF equivalent?
Yes it would be approximately equivalent for DOF if used wide open. I prefer good DOF and sharpness throughout the field without excessive Airy discs, so like f/7.1 ± 1/3 stop. For those that prefer the borkahs, then FF makes more sense.
EBH
Very true. If someone wants a compact and light setup whilst still having a decent range covered and we leave price out of the equation it's hard to beat FF at the moment. The 2021 Tamron apsc 17-70 2.8 is almost exactly as heavy as the ff 2025 Tamron 25-200 F2.8-5.6 which is absurd if you think about it.
Btw wouldn't a apsc zoom need to be F2.8 to be a F4 FF equivalent?
Yes it would be approximately equivalent for DOF if used wide open. I prefer good DOF and sharpness throughout the field without excessive Airy discs, so like f/7.1 ± 1/3 stop. For those that prefer the borkahs, then FF makes more sense.
EBH
Jun 25, 2026 at 06:16 AM