{"id":9549,"date":"2019-09-10T18:18:33","date_gmt":"2019-09-10T23:18:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/?p=9549"},"modified":"2024-09-05T16:30:00","modified_gmt":"2024-09-05T21:30:00","slug":"review-tamron-17-28mm-f-2-8-di-iii-rxd","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/review-tamron-17-28mm-f-2-8-di-iii-rxd\/","title":{"rendered":"Review: Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 Di III RXD"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Tamron had great success with their first full-frame Sony E-mount lens, the 28-75mm f\/2.8<\/a>. The lens was affordable, had very good image quality, a solid yet lightweight build and made for a very nice alternative to the Sony 24-70mm f\/2.8 GM.  Now they are targeting the ultra-wide zoom segment with the new Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 Di III RXD.  The 17-28mm is even more compact than the 28-75mm, though at the expense of a bit of range compared to other ultra-wide zooms. At a retail price of $899, the 17-28mm is $400 less expensive than the Sony\/Zeiss 16-35mm f\/4 and $1,300 less expensive than Sony’s 16-35mm f\/2.8 GM. Let’s dive in and see if Tamron has created another winner, or if there are too many compromises to reach that affordable price point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
The Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 on the Sony A7 III<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

If you haven’t read my reviews before, I take a real-world approach to reviewing cameras and lenses.  I evaluate a lens on how it works for me as a photographic tool. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Construction and Handling<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 looks like a shorter version of their 28-75mm. The lens features a fully polycarbonate shell with a metal mount.  While extremely lightweight, the overall impression is still that of good quality.  The 17-28mm is tightly assembled and has no creaks or wobbles anywhere.  Tamron’s 17-28mm f\/2.8 is very compact for a fast ultra-wide zoom, and is roughly the same size as Sony’s 1-stop slower 16-35mm f\/4 ZA when set to its most compact focal length of 35mm.  The Tamron is slightly slimmer in diameter and a bit lighter, despite being a full stop faster.  Compared to the 16-35mm f\/2.8, with which it shares the same fast f\/2.8 aperture, the Tamron is considerably smaller and lighter.  The Tamron weighs in at just 420g, compared to 518g for the Sony 16-35mm f\/4 and 680g for the Sony 16-35mm f\/2.8 GM.  The 17-28mm also uses much smaller filters despite the same maximum aperture as the Sony GM, with 67mm filters compared to the GM’s 82mm filters.   Along with the 28-75mm f\/2.8, the two lenses are a nice lightweight and compact pair to cover 17-75mm at constant f\/2.8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
The Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 and Tamron 28-75mm f\/2.8<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The broad zoom ring is covered in ribbed rubber, and moves smoothly.  Unlike the 28-75mm, the 17-28mm f\/2.8 does not extend while zooming.  The element movement happens entirely within the outer barrel, so the length of the lens stays constant regardless of focal length.  The manual focus ring is approximately a half-inch thick and sits behind the zoom ring.  The focus ring turns smoothly with a small amount of damping.  Like many focus-by-wire lenses, the rate of focus change is not linear on the 17-28mm, but rather varies with how fast you turn the focus ring.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 with lens hood<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The lens includes a plastic petal lens hood that mounts via bayonet at the front of the lens.  The hood is sturdy, but there’s nothing particularly special about it.  It will provide a bit of shading from stray light and some protection for the front element. Overall, due to the extremely light weight and compact nature, the lens handles beautifully on my A7 III, and should handle well on essentially any E-mount camera.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Autofocus<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

When Tamron first released the 28-75mm f\/2.8, that lens had a few issues with misfocused shots, which were quickly remedied by a firmware update.  Thankfully, out of the gate, the 17-28mm f\/2.8 suffers no major focus accuracy issues.  I found focus to be quick and accurate, especially in single-shot mode.  I did notice that when shooting at small apertures on distant subjects with AF-C enabled, it could occasionally move the focus point a bit too close, which would move the edges of the frame out of focus a bit.  However, there’s no real reason to be shooting in AF-C with an ultra-wide at f\/8 near infinity.  I think the camera just has an inability to distinguish any real difference in focus in these situations due to the deep depth of field, and so will sometimes try to adjust focus and end up catching a shot during this adjustment.  When tracking objects closer up at wide apertures, I had no issues in AF-C.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 on the Sony A7 III<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It’s worth noting that the Tamron 17-28mm focuses wide open, even outdoors, which is a bit of a change from a lot of Sony lenses.  As a result, if your camera has the “Setting Effect ON” to preview your exposure, you’ll notice what appears to be a rapid flicker in the viewfinder when shooting stopped down.  This is because the lens diaphragm is stopped down to preview the shot, then rapidly opens the aperture, focuses, then stops down again to working aperture.  This happens very quickly, so you’ll see the brightness changes as a flicker during focusing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Continue: Image Quality<\/a><\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Image Quality<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 features a rather small zoom range of 1.6x, which should help to keep image quality on a fairly high level.  The main competition to this lens is the similar aperture (but wider range) Sony 16-35mm f\/2.8 GM, and the similar sized, but slower Sony\/Zeiss 16-35mm f\/4.  Both lenses are significantly more expensive than the Tamron, with the 16-35mm f\/2.8 GM coming in at a whopping $2200.  Like its big brother, I don’t think anyone truly expects the Tamron to completely match the GM lens in image quality, but if it can get close, it’d be a great bargain. In my opinion, the Tamron produces great images overall, and I think for most people, will be the preferred lens over the very pricey GM lens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sharpness<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Image sharpness overall with the Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 is quite good.  The lens has very high central image sharpness right from f\/2.8, and that is true throughout the zoom range.  The lens remains sharp over about 80% of the image frame wide open, and softens a little towards the edges, but even here, quality is very good, especially in the 17-24mm range.  At 28mm, edges are a bit softer than at the wide end when shot at f\/2.8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stopping down to f\/5.6 or smaller, the lens becomes extremely sharp in the center, with very good sharpness extending all the way to the corners throughout the focal range. There is a bit of field curvature at longer focus distances, which will soften edge detail at wide apertures near infinity, but closer up, this curvature is negligible. When compared to the $1400 Sony\/Zeiss 16-35mm f\/4, the Tamron is a bit sharper in the center and notably sharper at the edges at most focal lengths, though the gap narrows a bit at 28mm.  Click here<\/a> to see my direct comparison between these two lenses, including 100% crops at multiple focal lengths and apertures.  For my uses, I find the image sharpness to be excellent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Columbus on a Summer Morning – Sony A7 III with Tamron 17-28m f\/2.8 Di III RXD @ 20mm, f\/9<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Bokeh<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

While ultra-wide lenses aren’t typically known for massive subject separation, having an f\/2.8 lens can certainly allow for blurring out the background when focused at moderately close distances.  The Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 also can focus fairly closely, enabling a respectable 1:5 reproduction ratio at its closest focus distance.  However, like the 28-75mm, the quality of that blur is average at best.  At 17mm and f\/2.8, the bokeh is fairly neutral. Moving to longer focal lengths cause a bit of deterioration in the quality, where there’s definitely some nervousness in the bokeh.  The out of focus areas are relatively high in contrast, and some onion ring artifacts can be seen upon close inspection of specular highlights, including one ring that is brighter than others, which can create a slightly odd look in certain circumstances. With that said, I don’t think the overall impression is awful either; just don’t expect it to be a cream machine.  The good contrast of the lens and the quick falloff definitely produce some pop.  Some additional samples can be seen on the next page in the image sample gallery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Hyacinth Downtown – Sony A7 III with Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 Di III RXD @ 28mm, f\/2.8<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Color, Contrast and Chromatic Aberration<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

If you’ve used the Tamron 28-75mm f\/2.8, you’ll be quite familiar with the drawing style of the Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8, as they share a lot in common with regards to color and contrast.  The 17-28mm features strong contrast and punchy color throughout the aperture range, with a fairly neutral color rendition.  This level of color and contrast is excellent for landscape and architecture shooting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As you can see in the shot below, color is rich, and the contrast pops without being overwhelming or without nuance.  I mistakenly took this (and a few others you’ll see in the image samples) in APS-C crop mode.  I had been testing an APS-C lens on the camera the night before and forgot to switch out of that mode before the morning’s shoot, but the lens’ characteristics still shine through.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Columbus Along the Scioto – Sony A7 III with Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 @ 17mm, f\/10 (APS-C Crop Mode)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In my day-to-day shooting with the lens, I found the Tamron 17-28mm to have extremely low chromatic aberration, with essentially zero field relevant lateral chromatic aberration and a distinct lack of longitudinal CA as well.  And then I realized that the lens contains a baked in correction for chromatic aberration that is present in the RAW file itself.  This can not be disabled within Adobe products, and it is auto-applied in Capture One as well.  As such, the average shooter will never see uncorrected CA.  However, it is possible to disable this built-in profile in Capture One, and when doing so, you see the lens does natively exhibit some lateral chromatic aberration, though even uncorrected it’s not particularly egregious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Distortion, Flare and Vignetting<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

One area where the built-in profile does some heavy lifting, however, is in distortion correction.  Without the lens profile applied, the 17-28mm f\/2.8 shows fairly pronounced barrel distortion at the wide end of the zoom range, that transitions to quite a bit of pincushion distortion at the long end.  Both are completely taken care of by the built-in lens profile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vignetting is fairly substantial as well without profile application, with darkened edges visible at wide apertures, and even persisting a bit stopped down.  I never found it particularly objectionable, but I always like a bit of vignetting in my images anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Hazy Summer Morning – Sony A7 III With Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 @ 20mm, f\/16<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

One area where Tamron really succeeded is in flare control.  The 17-28mm is extremely resistant to flare.  The lens shows minimal ghosting, with generally small flare ghosts that are unobtrusive.  With the sun at the edges of the frame, contrast remains strong, with little to no veiling flare.  The Tamron puts in an excellent performance here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coma<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 has excellent control of coma, with only the very slightest hint of it wide open.  On a recent trip to Death Valley, I had a chance to shoot some shots of the stars, and wide open photos showed excellent control of coma into the corners.  The shot below is a blend of two exposures, to add depth of field for the foreground, but the stars were taken at f\/2.8:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Stars Over the Dunes, Mesquite Flat Sand Dunes, Death Valley National Park – Two exposures blended, Sony A7 III with Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 @ 17mm, f\/5.6, 3m 50s, ISO 200 (foreground), f\/2.8, 20s, ISO 1600 (stars)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In all, the Tamron 17-28mm f\/2.8 is a very strong performer, with very good image sharpness, excellent color and contrast, fantastic flare control and good control of chromatic aberrations.  On the down side, bokeh is a bit rough and the lens relies on software correction to fix distortion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Continue: Conclusion and Image Samples<\/a><\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Pros<\/h4>\n\n\n\n