Great video Jake. I shot this lens for a few days at a Tamron outing. It is sharp with a fantastic practical range. The only caveat, it is an f4. I shot mostly landscapes at f8 or so and the f4 issue was a non issue. I am torn get this or the 20-40. BTW, I am replacing my 17-28.
Nice! Yeah I was kinda in the same boat because I do shoot a lot of low light ultimately I need f2.8 or better but for day stuff this has lived on my camera
I'm not sure if I should get the 17-50 or 16-35 G PZ. I can get a 16-35 G for $850 used, but not sure how much I will miss the 35-50mm range. The reviews of the 17-50 are a bit mixed. Interesting how they can make such an excellent 8x zoom from 50mm to 400mm, but fail with this one. I will be using the lenses on the a7R V, and if the corners are noticeably worse on the 17-50, that will probably bother me. Actually got a GM trio now: 12-24, 24-70 II and 70-200 II, which I bought due to GAS. 😅 I don't need them as an amateur, and I almost exclusively photograph still subjects like landscape and architecture. Sometimes, I might miss 12-16mm, but it's not necessary for me, and I can put the money towards something else. I do wish that somebody eventually makes a 12/14-35 or similiar. Previously, I did own the 16-35 G and 50-400, and was generally satisfied with the image quality.
Nice! Great footage, as always! Especially like the helicopter interior shots--very cool! And the 17 to 400 mm shot seeing that mountain peak very well done..
Nice footage. I own that 17 50 lens and as a landscape photographer i m pretty happy as i close it to f8 or f11.But, in my pov it is the weakest lens vs the latest. (28 75 g2,70 180 g2… )
@@JakeSloan After some hundreds of shots, i will probably replace that lens with the PZ 16 35. I find the corners and even some edges to be too soft unfortunately.
Jake I still use my Zeiss 16-35mm F4, I've had on my previous bodies from the A7S, A7R II, A6500 and now just on my A7 III. It's great lens for both photo and video project for clients it's not the best compared to new gen lenses now especially the G Masters. So how does this Tamron compare to my zeiss 16-35 if it would be good to upgrade to it. Thanks.
@@JakeSloan Right now I'm useing Sigma 16-28 for my travel vlogs. But i hate switching between sigma and my Tamron 28-75, when i Want tighter shot. And i thought Tamron 17-50 would be perfect to switch for those two lenses. But... As I see in spect 17-50 it's almost the same size like Tamron 28-57, and i Was wondering if it's not to long when walking with it and vloging. :) I know there's Sony 20-70 but 20 is to tight for vloging.
Great video Jake. I shot this lens for a few days at a Tamron outing. It is sharp with a fantastic practical range. The only caveat, it is an f4. I shot mostly landscapes at f8 or so and the f4 issue was a non issue. I am torn get this or the 20-40. BTW, I am replacing my 17-28.
Nice! Yeah I was kinda in the same boat because I do shoot a lot of low light ultimately I need f2.8 or better but for day stuff this has lived on my camera
I'm not sure if I should get the 17-50 or 16-35 G PZ. I can get a 16-35 G for $850 used, but not sure how much I will miss the 35-50mm range.
The reviews of the 17-50 are a bit mixed. Interesting how they can make such an excellent 8x zoom from 50mm to 400mm, but fail with this one.
I will be using the lenses on the a7R V, and if the corners are noticeably worse on the 17-50, that will probably bother me.
Actually got a GM trio now: 12-24, 24-70 II and 70-200 II, which I bought due to GAS. 😅
I don't need them as an amateur, and I almost exclusively photograph still subjects like landscape and architecture.
Sometimes, I might miss 12-16mm, but it's not necessary for me, and I can put the money towards something else. I do wish that somebody eventually makes a 12/14-35 or similiar.
Previously, I did own the 16-35 G and 50-400, and was generally satisfied with the image quality.
with the other lenses you have I would go with the 16-35 g PZ. I have a video about it here: ua-cam.com/video/A7UrAkytxpo/v-deo.html
Nice! Great footage, as always! Especially like the helicopter interior shots--very cool! And the 17 to 400 mm shot seeing that mountain peak very well done..
Thanks Mark!
Excellent tutorial video. Thank you Jake.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Nice footage.
I own that 17 50 lens and as a landscape photographer i m pretty happy as i close it to f8 or f11.But, in my pov it is the weakest lens vs the latest. (28 75 g2,70 180 g2… )
Yeah the g2 lenses are definitely better
@@JakeSloan After some hundreds of shots, i will probably replace that lens with the PZ 16 35. I find the corners and even some edges to be too soft unfortunately.
Nice review thanks!! 👏📸
Thanks for watching!
Jake I still use my Zeiss 16-35mm F4, I've had on my previous bodies from the A7S, A7R II, A6500 and now just on my A7 III. It's great lens for both photo and video project for clients it's not the best compared to new gen lenses now especially the G Masters. So how does this Tamron compare to my zeiss 16-35 if it would be good to upgrade to it. Thanks.
Nice! I would say it's a bit sharper and the focus is better
If you had to choose between the Tamron 2040 F2.8 and the 1750 F4, which would you use?
if I didn't need to film in lowlight I would definitely pick the 17-50
Of course! All you gotta do is bump up your ISO and Bob’s your Uncle!! You get a lot more range out of the 17-50.
How parfocal is this when crash zooming?
I have a comparison coming with the Sony 20-70 so I’ll make sure and test/show this in that video
Hi! Is it ok for vlogging, or maybe to long/big? :)
yes it's actually very good for that! I have been using it to film quite a few UA-cam videos since I got it
@@JakeSloan Right now I'm useing Sigma 16-28 for my travel vlogs. But i hate switching between sigma and my Tamron 28-75, when i Want tighter shot. And i thought Tamron 17-50 would be perfect to switch for those two lenses. But... As I see in spect 17-50 it's almost the same size like Tamron 28-57, and i Was wondering if it's not to long when walking with it and vloging. :) I know there's Sony 20-70 but 20 is to tight for vloging.
Trying to work out why it’s so big compared with the Sigma 18-50/2.8.
That not really that hard, The sigma is not for full frame.
@@joel.wuestehube ok, I thought this was for APS-C.
A polite answer would have been ok.
The sigma is for APSC where this is for full frame. APSC lenses can be made much smaller since they don’t have to cover full frame 👍🏻
Best budget is Iphone 15 Pro Max.
Well if you have it yes. Late model phones are amazing