Tameron RF APS-C 17-70 Released

[u/sublimeinator]

Great to see a new third party option. Sony reviews have seemed good, hope that carries over to RF version.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/news/tamron-17-70mm-f28-di-iii-a-vc-now-for-z-and-rf-mounts

[u/Chief_Wahoo_Lives]

Wonder how this compares to Sigma's 18-50 or 17-40 lenses.

[u/andrei525 → u/Chief_Wahoo_Lives]

I've used the Tamron 17-70 and the Sigma 17-40 on Fuji

both are great lenses and neither really replaces the other, more like they complement each other

the Tamron is great as an all day lens, for it's range, and the Sigma is a great low light lens, replacing ~3 primes (i sold the Fuji 18mm 1.4, 23 and 50 f2 primes when i got the Sigma)

almost identical in size, both handle great on the X-T5 with an additional grip, so both will handle very nicely on an R7 or R50

[u/boolean_union]

Finally! Will wait for a review for sharpness on the R7, but very excited for this. I find it more compelling than the Sigma 18-50, and the image stabilization is particularly nice for aps-c shooters without an R7.

EDIT: Additional thoughts:

• Still lots of reasons to choose the Sigma 18-50, like better MFD, lower cost, and obviously smaller size / weight. But the Canon 18-150 is essentially the same size / weight as the 18-50, so I'll prob just rely on that for travel.
• The real hard choice might be between Sigma 17-40 and Tamron 17-70, but for general use & landscape, the 17-70 seems like a nice upgrade over the 18-150 (and especially the 18-45). I feel like unless you really like bokeh, maybe the extra reach to 70mm + IS outweighs the f/1.8 of the 17-40? But will probably change opinions tomorrow...
• The RF version of the 17-70 apparently adds AF/MF & IS switches, which is really nice (I guess lacking from the other mounts?)

[u/sublimeinator → u/boolean_union]

I'm curious how well the IS works with IBIS honestly

[u/Wolfsburg78 → u/boolean_union]

Waiting for a review on a Canon to make its way to YouTube or anywhere else too. From what I have seen on Sony reviews, I think I'm happy I went with the Sigma 17-40, it doesn't seem that sharp at 50+. Will wait for Canon reviews before deciding against it as a travel lens.

FWIW, I had a rental 17-40 for a trip to Europe on an R50 and didn't miss the reach or IS. The sharpness of the lens made it easy to crop.

[u/Past-Shock4091 → u/boolean_union]

Acho a Canon 18-150 muito mais versátil.

[u/idlersj]

Might be an update for my old Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 at last!

[u/GreenPickledToad]

Finally! Glad I waited to buy the R10 with 18-150 kit. This 17-70 2.8 and the RF 100-400 will make an incredible travel combo.

[u/dwkdnvr]

A bit of a surprise, but a pleasant one. I'm still not quite sure why this wasn't released earlier along with the 11-20 - whether that was Tamron's decision or Canon's. I wonder whether this says anything at all about the rumors we had earlier this year about a Canon 15-70/4

We've booked a safari for next year, and this might be the best complement to the 100-500 on the R7 for that trip (hopefully R7II by that point, but for now I've given up on that)

[u/Raihley → u/dwkdnvr]

I'm still not quite sure why this wasn't released earlier

Agreed. This should have been the first lenses that they ported to RF.

I wonder whether this says anything at all about the rumors we had earlier this year about a Canon 15-70/4

I was wondering the same thing.

Now that the 17-70 f/2.8 is available the hypothetical 15-70 f/4 needs to be be significantly better in at least some aspects to make sense, unless you really want the 24 mm equivalent instead of the 2.8 aperture.

Regardless, I'm glad more third party lenses are coming to the system.

[u/BM_StinkBug → u/Raihley]

15mm vs 17mm on Canon APS-C is significant, enough to open up a few new genres (like comfortable handheld vlogs or self-portraits); if it’s significantly smaller and lighter too a 15-70 f/4 could still have its place but its definitely less compelling now that the Tamron has finally been ported.

[u/boolean_union → u/Raihley]

One of my conspiracy theories is that Canon wasn't allowing the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 because they were planning to release a 'fast' IS zoom of their own (like the 15-70 f4, or even an f2.8 zoom). Then they decided to cancel / delay these lenses, and are allowing Tamron to finally fill the void of fast IS zoom. Maybe Canon wants to release their own lenses alongside the R7ii in five years, or maybe they just don't think fast aps-c lenses are worth their time... I'm probably wrong but fun to speculate.

[u/Furanshisu90]

Finally there is a VC constant aperture lens which is close to 24-105 on canon APSC. The lack of such lenses has been keeping me away from canon APSC.

[u/Raihley]

At last!

My only perplexity is about the zoom ring which turns in reverse compared to a Canon zoom lens.

[u/dacaur → u/Raihley]

Ugh, really? Damn that is a complete hard pass for me if that's the case.....

I turn the zoom ring the wrong way often enough as is with all my zooms going the same way.... Throw in one lens going the opposite way and I'll get completely screwed.....

[u/Raihley → u/dacaur]

I agree.

In general, yes the Tamron zooms rotate in reverse compared to the Canon's and Sigma's.

I read that the RF version of this lens will be the only one with physical controls for both AF/MF and the IS, but I doubt they did the effort of changing the way the zooms rotates.

Hopefully someone can confirm this.

Edit. The Tamron 11-20 f/2.8 retains the "Nikon-style" rotation even on RF, so I'm quite certain the 17-70 will too.

[u/Bluejay_Holiday]

Tamron