p.2 #1 · Tamron refreshes its original 17-28/2.8 with 16-30/2.8 G2.
Could this be the ideal lightweight daily carry lens and a solid complement to my Tamron 35-150? I initially thought the Tamron 20-40 would fill that role, but the reviews didn’t quite win me over. I’ve been enjoying the 20-70mm f/4 as my go-to lightweight option, but this one offers f/2.8, a wider field of view, and no overlap in focal length.
p.2 #2 · Tamron refreshes its original 17-28/2.8 with 16-30/2.8 G2.
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
Could this be the ideal lightweight daily carry lens and a solid complement to my Tamron 35-150? I initially thought the Tamron 20-40 would fill that role, but the reviews didn’t quite win me over. I’ve been enjoying the 20-70mm f/4 as my go-to lightweight option, but this one offers f/2.8, a wider field of view, and no overlap in focal length.
Yes, I also want something really wide for those dramatic shots.
I'm still a bit disappointed Tamron didn't go for something with variable wider aperture or even larger range though...
On the other hand, it's gonna be weird switching from 35-150 to a lens this small & light.
I think 20-70/4 is perfect as a single (and smallish) lens though .
p.2 #3 · Tamron refreshes its original 17-28/2.8 with 16-30/2.8 G2.
So this seems to be the third entry into the lightweight, sub 1-lb f2.8 wide angle zoom arena with the Sony 16-25 and the Samyang/Rokinon 14-24 being the other two. Wouldn't it be great if someone could do a decent video comparing all 3, rather than deferring to the heavyweight versions, like the G Master.
I asked Dustin Abbot how the Samyang compared to the Sony and he said he had never reviewed the Sony (which I thought was odd). Price-wise, there isn't a whole lot of difference between these three, but I guess the odds of anyone getting all 3 lenses at once to do a 3-way comparison is next to zero?
For us backpackers who count ounces (especially at my age), that would be useful information. For the time being, I have the Sony - the lightest at 409 gr (but also the narrowest range)
p.2 #4 · Tamron refreshes its original 17-28/2.8 with 16-30/2.8 G2.
graytrekker wrote:
So this seems to be the third entry into the lightweight, sub 1-lb f2.8 wide angle zoom arena with the Sony 16-25 and the Samyang/Rokinon 14-24 being the other two. Wouldn't it be great if someone could do a decent video comparing all 3, rather than deferring to the heavyweight versions, like the G Master.
I asked Dustin Abbot how the Samyang compared to the Sony and he said he had never reviewed the Sony (which I thought was odd). Price-wise, there isn't a whole lot of difference between these three, but I guess the odds of anyone getting all 3 lenses at once to do a 3-way comparison is next to zero?
For us backpackers who count ounces (especially at my age), that would be useful information. For the time being, I have the Sony - the lightest at 409 gr (but also the narrowest range)...Show more →
p.2 #11 · Tamron refreshes its original 17-28/2.8 with 16-30/2.8 G2.
Take Sony Alpha Blog's resolution table and summaries with a big grain of salt. Better to go to his flickr and find all of the high resolution samples that he's using and see if you can come to your own conclusion.
Here are the center shots for 16/17mm at f5.6. These were all shot on the 61MP sensor, but at different times with pretty different lighting. The shooting angle is noticeably different on the older Tamron shot. Different WB and shutter speeds.
Marc's resolution categorization puts the Sony at "Outstanding", the Tamron 16-30 at "Excellent", and the Tamron 17-28 at "Very Good". I don't really see how he came to that conclusion. I actually find the 17-28 to be pretty equal to the Sony 16-25, while the new 16-30 looks very slightly softer. But IMO, it's hard to split hairs when images weren't taken in more controlled conditions.
p.2 #12 · Tamron refreshes its original 17-28/2.8 with 16-30/2.8 G2.
How do you compare your Tamron 17-28 with your Voigtlander?
I don’t know if I’m overthinking it, but I feel like Sony lenses are doing really well with colors and contrast relative to Voigtlander and Zeiss. I’m not sure how Tamron (and Sigma) measure up Sony vs CV in terms of my preferences in image quality.
Alternatives I’m considering in this range are the 16-35 f4 PZ, 16-35 f2.8 GM, Batis 18, Sony 16.
grahamgibson wrote:
I’m still using my original 17-28 that I bought on release. Hard to believe it’s been 6 years. Great lens, and this looks like it has some nice improvements.
p.2 #13 · Tamron refreshes its original 17-28/2.8 with 16-30/2.8 G2.
akashyap wrote:
How do you compare your Tamron 17-28 with your Voigtlander?
I don’t know if I’m overthinking it, but I feel like Sony lenses are doing really well with colors and contrast relative to Voigtlander and Zeiss. I’m not sure how Tamron (and Sigma) measure up Sony vs CV in terms of my preferences in image quality.
Alternatives I’m considering in this range are the 16-35 f4 PZ, 16-35 f2.8 GM, Batis 18, Sony 16.
They're close enough that I consider them roughly equal. My current CV15 has excellent corners though, and there is some YMMV with that lens. I think the Tamron is maybe slightly sharper.
I think the CV has more saturated colors OOC, and of course the sunstar is different. Much easier to get a nice sunstar from the CV at pretty much any f-stop. The Tamron 17-28 actually can make a nice sunstar, but it requires stopping it down almost all the way (f16+ usually). My flickr has an album for this lens with a few samples. Actually, I haven't seen a good sample of the 16-30 producing the same pointed rays the way the 17-28 does. The review above has one at f16 but it's not great.
I keep the CV15 because it's so small and I like the metal handling. But the Tamron is not much bigger for all the advantages it has. I'd strongly consider the 16-25 if I were buying today, since that is even a bit smaller and has a bit nicer build quality. But the 17-28 can be found for maybe $450 used these days, so I think that's the best value out there.
p.2 #14 · Tamron refreshes its original 17-28/2.8 with 16-30/2.8 G2.
I have the 17-28 and love it. I also picked up the Sony 24-50 and unexpectedly really took to it as well, particularly for traveling very light with my A7c2. While I think it’s tempting to compare lenses by weight (especially for backpacking/hiking) I feel like the physical dimensions are a bigger priority for me. It’s more about what fits into my bag vs how I can save 10 grams. That’s probably the biggest reason I’d go for the 16-25 (smaller, equal or better performance) and would need to see some seriously better performance from the 16-30 to consider it as a replacement.
If you’re starting from scratch though, what an embarrassment of riches.
p.2 #17 · Tamron refreshes its original 17-28/2.8 with 16-30/2.8 G2.
In the unlikely event that anyone who picks this up also shoots infrared, I’d love to know how it behaves in that environment. The 17-28 is stellar there, along with most Tamron zooms (but not the 17-50 unfortunately)
p.2 #18 · Tamron refreshes its original 17-28/2.8 with 16-30/2.8 G2.
aCuria wrote:
The aperture at which diffraction starts, is caused by sensor pixel pitch.
Nothing to do with the lens.
To add to this, in real life, that is for prints and for viewing images on an electronic display, we are more concerned about the circle of confusion than the pixel pitch. Thus, diffraction is a problem in practice when the Airy disc exceeds a CoC. A CoC contains a number of pixels, around 10 photosites might be typical, on average, but can be more.
Ultimately, yes every lens should produce diffraction softening when closed, at some point, and for high megapixel sensors some softening is expected from f/8 when pixel-peeping. Whether this should be noticeable without pixel-peeping would depend on the size of the display. It is probably safe to say that in most cases a slight diffraction softening at f/8 should not be noticeable.
p.2 #19 · Tamron refreshes its original 17-28/2.8 with 16-30/2.8 G2.
Well... technically, diffraction begins immediately as you begin to close the aperture. It's just that most lenses suffer from aberrations at wider apertures and diffraction effects are "eaten" by them. But the best lenses, think process lenses, are generally sharpest wide-open and diffraction limited at all smaller apertures.
.
...