Tamron 17-70 2.8 for Fujifilm

SquarePeg

hear me roar
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
15,923
Reaction score
16,422
Location
Boston
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Just ordered a used E+ rated copy of the Tamron 17-70 lens from KEH. Got 15% off the list with a coupon code. I’m planning to sell off my Fuji 16-80 f4 if the Tamron is as good as the reviews are saying. I love the range and versatility on the 16-80 but f4 is useless for astrophotography. I really need a zoom 2.8. If the 17-70 is as reviewed, I won’t need both. I’m willing to give up the 1mm on the wide end and 10mm on the long end. I have the 70-300 if I need more.

The gap in my lens line up was very obvious 2 wks ago when I was out shooting the northern lights. My choices were 12mm, 14mm or 23mm. I needed more reach and wanted to vary my focal lengths so I tried to use the 16-80 but it failed. It’s is difficult to manual focus and can’t handle night shooting.

Should have asked this before ordering lol but do any of my fellow Fuji shooters have the Tamron? Thoughts on the swap?
 
Keh charges canadians an extra $100 in shipping. At least where I live. Just to ship.

So I'm really jealous.

Something I don't get.

If you get a lens @ f 2.8 and shoot at f4 it looks sharper then with a lens @ f 4.0 set at f 4.0?

Do you want to shoot astrophotography on f 2.8?

I shoot real estate at f 2.8 and some noob on here told me I was intolerant and a piece of sodding grass. But I said f 2.8 allows more light in, even though objects far off are a bit soft sometimes.

Are you shooting f4 or f2.8 when you get your new lens (I've summarized).

EDIT: Some users say I'm an out right liar and I more or less don't care what they think. I've placed them on ignore. But when I scroll through forums without being logged on I still see they're rants.

Here is an exerpt from Keh support email:

Hello Sebastian,

Thank you for your email and inquiry, we do ship internationally via FedEx, which starts at $49.95, and will vary depending on the destination and final weight of the gear.

49.95 usd to cad = 69.03
import duties $50.00 minimum Canadian dollar.

That's for one camera body. I could not imagine what it would be for large tele photo lens.
 
Last edited:
Got the Tamron delivered on Friday. Looks like new so no complaints on the condition. It’s nice and lightweight as well as slim. Balance is good with the XT5. Checked out the AF, zoom ring, aperture changes, MF, focus ring, sharpness and bokeh. So far all is good. Going to head out for blue hour and sunrise some morning this week to make sure I can get it to manually focus on the stars. It’s harder with lenses that don’t have an infinity stop in the focus ring! I'll post some photos below if anyone else is considering this lens it may be helpful.
 
I didn’t do any real post processing on these. Just converted them to JPEG in camera and cropped in a bit on a couple. Except for the two action shots of Harlie - I had to lower the exposure -1 full stop and highlights -1 as well.

Sharpness
Cropped
ED481662-C6D8-4021-BAC8-F16CF8790A24-91577-00004555ACCB53CB.jpeg


Not cropped
BD731149-0655-419E-89BD-E79970D22AF2-91577-00004555B7BE9E61.jpeg


506874F0-B7FC-4636-9F4B-4AFED1092B40-91627-0000455746E90D48.jpeg


Bokeh - nice and smooth with a few nice bokeh balls when shooting into the sun.
AC50F857-A64B-4C3D-894C-8596096DC3C1-91577-00004555AFD9A5F6.jpeg


9B98D9AF-9409-4DC6-99A2-CF7DE785898A-91577-00004555B518DC72.jpeg


Action AF. I’d give it a B- but a lot of that could be user error. Harlie is notoriously difficult to photograph in action, especially in mid day sun. She is so bright white and sooo fast! The second shot was at f2.8 which wouldn’t normally use for in motion. I’ll need to head to the local pond for some bird action.

6FA51B1E-CB76-4622-A22F-D4F35A575586-91577-00004555C72A41B6.jpeg


DFCF5C79-E43C-4D7E-B1E7-14EC74D9BCAE-91577-00004555BC70B7C2.jpeg
 
LOL I get it. I'm typing response to myself and whoever reads this.

I literally just typed this down as a personal note to avoid this lens. Wow terrible. I went to the website and the high resolution images were terrible. And then I looked further down and they had some exceptional images but they were like literally 400x400 pixels. And there was no way to zoom in of course. Why zoom in a tiny image.

It appears if anyone is reading that this lens works with overly colorful subjects/objects. But Landscapes are just terrible. Frightening.
 
LOL I get it. I'm typing response to myself and whoever reads this.

I literally just typed this down as a personal note to avoid this lens. Wow terrible. I went to the website and the high resolution images were terrible. And then I looked further down and they had some exceptional images but they were like literally 400x400 pixels. And there was no way to zoom in of course. Why zoom in a tiny image.

It appears if anyone is reading that this lens works with overly colorful subjects/objects. But Landscapes are just terrible. Frightening.

I think it’s your screen.
 
Fantastic bokeh!
 

Most reactions

Back
Top