fbpixel

Moderators: Greg Downing, E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC - 5 hours

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 13 posts | 
by Scott Fairbairn on Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:17 pm
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4531
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Hi, has anyone used this lens and if so, what are your impressions? It seems like a nice companion to the 28-75. 
 

by Jeff Pearl on Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:18 pm
User avatar
Jeff Pearl
Forum Contributor
Posts: 128
Joined: 05 Nov 2017
Location: Lovettsville, VA
https://www.cameralabs.com/tamron-17-28mm-f2-8-di-iii-review/

I've been trying to decide between the Tamron 17-28 for my Sony A7-3 and the Fuji 10-24 for my Fuji X-T-30. Camera labs has good reviews and sample photos for both. Tough call, I've heard good things about both.
Scott Fairbairn wrote:
Hi, has anyone used this lens and if so, what are your impressions? It seems like a nice companion to the 28-75. 
 

by Scott Fairbairn on Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:03 am
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4531
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Jeff Pearl wrote:
https://www.cameralabs.com/tamron-17-28mm-f2-8-di-iii-review/

I've been trying to decide between the Tamron 17-28 for my Sony A7-3 and the Fuji 10-24 for my Fuji X-T-30. Camera labs has good reviews and sample photos for both. Tough call, I've heard good things about both.
Scott Fairbairn wrote:
Hi, has anyone used this lens and if so, what are your impressions? It seems like a nice companion to the 28-75. 



Thanks, I’m planning on using it with an A9 or A7r4. Those edges might look pretty bad on the r4. 
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:31 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 83966
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
There's a fundamental flaw in the way they are doing the tests that make the corners look pretty bad on any really wide lens.  In order to fill the frame with the test chart you have to place the camera very close to the chart with a wide lens.  The distance from the sensor plane to the center of the chart is WAY different than the distance of the test chart to the corners.  So, unless you refocus the lens for the corners, you are not measuring real world corner resolution but rather demonstrating that the depth of field isn't enough to cover the center and corners at this close of focus. This lens is way better in the corners than the test shows.

To illustrate this further, just scroll down to the f/2.8 tests of the Sony 16-35GM, the best lens of this type ever made by any manufacturer and dead sharp into the corners.  Their test shows the corners to be awful.  It's simply not a valid test of corner sharpness unless your plan is to use the lens exclusively at minimum focus.
 

by signgrap on Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:53 pm
User avatar
signgrap
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1667
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Delaware Water Gap, PA
Member #:00424
E.J. Peiker wrote:
There's a fundamental flaw in the way they are doing the tests that make the corners look pretty bad on any really wide lens.  In order to fill the frame with the test chart you have to place the camera very close to the chart with a wide lens.  The distance from the sensor plane to the center of the chart is WAY different than the distance of the test chart to the corners.  So, unless you refocus the lens for the corners, you are not measuring real world corner resolution but rather demonstrating that the depth of field isn't enough to cover the center and corners at this close of focus. This lens is way better in the corners than the test shows.

To illustrate this further, just scroll down to the f/2.8 tests of the Sony 16-35GM, the best lens of this type ever made by any manufacturer and dead sharp into the corners.  Their test shows the corners to be awful.  It's simply not a valid test of corner sharpness unless your plan is to use the lens exclusively at minimum focus.

E.J. So to do a valid test one would need a much larger test chart which would move the camera back in order to include the entire chart?
Dick Ludwig
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:57 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 83966
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
signgrap wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:
There's a fundamental flaw in the way they are doing the tests that make the corners look pretty bad on any really wide lens.  In order to fill the frame with the test chart you have to place the camera very close to the chart with a wide lens.  The distance from the sensor plane to the center of the chart is WAY different than the distance of the test chart to the corners.  So, unless you refocus the lens for the corners, you are not measuring real world corner resolution but rather demonstrating that the depth of field isn't enough to cover the center and corners at this close of focus. This lens is way better in the corners than the test shows.

To illustrate this further, just scroll down to the f/2.8 tests of the Sony 16-35GM, the best lens of this type ever made by any manufacturer and dead sharp into the corners.  Their test shows the corners to be awful.  It's simply not a valid test of corner sharpness unless your plan is to use the lens exclusively at minimum focus.

E.J. So to do a valid test one would need a much larger test chart which would move the camera back in order to include the entire chart?

For resolution tests no, you just need to refocus on the corners.  For field flatness, yes.  Or just find sites that use an Imatest rig for the testing like the folks at LensRentals.  It doesn't look like they've tested this lens yet.  I do have a client that got this lens, the first copy went back as it obviously had a problem but the second copy looks very sharp.  Not quite up to the standards of the 16-35GM but at about 1/3 the price it seems very good.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:03 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 83966
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Renting this lens is not that expensive - you could try it out for yourself:
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/tamron-17-28mm-f2.8-di-iii-rxd-for-sony-e
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:06 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 83966
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Speaking of Tamron FE lenses, I can't wait to try the next lens in this series, the 70-180 f/2.8 which isn't much bigger than most 24-70's - would be an exceptional travel telephoto lens if it's as good as it's siblings, the 17-28 and 28-75.
 

by Scott Fairbairn on Sat Sep 28, 2019 8:41 am
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4531
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Speaking of Tamron FE lenses, I can't wait to try the next lens in this series, the 70-180 f/2.8 which isn't much bigger than most 24-70's - would be an exceptional travel telephoto lens if it's as good as it's siblings, the 17-28 and 28-75.




Have you tried the 17-28 on the R4 yet? I'm considering it or the sigma 14-24(a very different lens I realize). Tamron has a great strategy with the trio of complementary ranges.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:34 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 83966
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Scott Fairbairn wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Speaking of Tamron FE lenses, I can't wait to try the next lens in this series, the 70-180 f/2.8 which isn't much bigger than most 24-70's - would be an exceptional travel telephoto lens if it's as good as it's siblings, the 17-28 and 28-75.




Have you tried the 17-28 on the R4 yet? I'm considering it or the sigma 14-24(a very different lens I realize). Tamron has a great strategy with the trio of complementary ranges.


Nope, but it's pretty good on the R3, not as good as the 16-35GM but still good and it costs 1/3 and is much smaller and lighter.  I see no reason why it wouldn't be good for a decent travel lens photography on the R4.
 

by Scott Fairbairn on Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:29 pm
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4531
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Renting this lens is not that expensive - you could try it out for yourself:
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/tamron-17-28mm-f2.8-di-iii-rxd-for-sony-e


Unfortunately not to Canada. 
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Sep 28, 2019 3:38 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 83966
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Scott Fairbairn wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Renting this lens is not that expensive - you could try it out for yourself:
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/tamron-17-28mm-f2.8-di-iii-rxd-for-sony-e


Unfortunately not to Canada. 


:(  Bummer!
 

by SantaFeJoe on Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:21 pm
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6998
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: American Southwest
Some sample images:

https://www.photographyblog.com/previews/tamron_17_28mm_f2_8_di_iii_rxd_photos

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
13 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group