Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 Hands-On Lens Review

Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 Hands-On Lens Review

Dave Paul from The Camera Store gives a quick hands-on review of the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 Di III RXD. Is this flexible wide-angle lens. Is this new lens a good option as a versatile zoom for full-frame Sony E-mount mirrorless cameras? Watch to find out.

Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 Di III RXD:

Videography by Brendan Schmidt

Shot on the Panasonic GH5

Evelyn Drake: @tcstvev
Dave Paul: @tcstvdave
Main: @thecamerastore

source: https://chicagorussianriders.com

Xem thêm các bài viết về Công Nghệ: https://chicagorussianriders.com/category/cong-nghe/


  1. Jackie Semple

    I find this product review very helpful.

  2. Rajesh Muthuswamy

    Between Tamron 17-28 and Sony 16-35 F4, which one chose and why.

  3. serviola3

    Awesome lens

  4. senor frog

    Hi Dave, I'm hoping this lens is as good as you say. Mine should be shipping sometime soon. the only gripe i have is that the 17mm end isnt wide enough for me. i had the 16-35 for a bit and even that wasnt. Im considering the sigma 14-24 for that extra width, but i am not a fan of the weight of sigmas or their sluggish AF.

    i have the 28-75, 70–200GM, and soon the 17-28. any suggestions on a cost effective way to fulfill that extra bit of width? i considered the 10-18 by laowa, but that seems overkill. sonys 12-24, but its pricey, and stated above, the sigma. but an ultra wide isnt something thats staying on my camera all the time. I just want to be able to shoot ultra wide when i get the itch. Also a friend was asking if i have ever shot real estate, i havent, but they're willing to give me a chance, because i told them my rate would be very negotiable, because im far from a professional. im trying to get my name out here in my town.

    perhaps the Samyang 14mm F2.8 AF Wide Angle, Full Frame Auto Focus Lens for Sony E Mount? its reasonably priced. and combined with the tamron, itll basically give me … well not a zoom range, but the ability to shoot from 14 -28 with 2 small light weight lenses.

    i also have my fingers crossed that one of the 3 prime lenses that Tamron teased is an ultra wide. But im not holding my breath for that. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

  5. AboO Life

    Nice reviews im in Calgary right now can you please tell where is those location ? Thanks in advance

  6. P H


  7. Maxwell Smart_086

    Dave – great review – but speaking much slower would be great. Happy days.

  8. Øyvind Holmstad

    You really looks like you can't carry any heavier lens:-)

  9. Youngblood

    quick and short, great review.

  10. Chryseas S.

    Good job, Dave and your photos are selling Calgary to me! looked like it was a very nice day to be out and about. You have sold me on this lens and also your T shirt! Does the store have these logo branded shirts for sale??

  11. JR Moritz

    Will it work on a Sony A6200?

  12. Kian J

    Dave you did it great, it looks to me this lens really delivers excellent image quality and versatility. Now when do we get Ev back?

  13. Jimmy Tran

    Pls don’t mention size and weight one more time.

  14. Shahed Hasnat

    Good job by Tamron and hopefully they make a less expensive version of 70-200 or 75-210 for the E mount system.

  15. sqizzles

    What happened to Chris Nichols?

  16. jp

    Dave, nice shots!

  17. Lomar Yearwood

    Haters "Why go mirrorless if your just going to put on big heavy lenes"

    Not the case anymore

  18. 808Island Life

    Fantastic pics!

  19. Steves Vanderpool

    Way too wide for me, I like photographing people and I don't go to enough interesting places often enough to care about wider than 35mm. Just my situation and opinion.

  20. Al Dolega

    2:15 is this a camera show or a gun show? 😄

  21. Shane Doyle

    Sun's out guns out

  22. Brian Cullen

    Focus breathing?

  23. AH Monon

    My goodness, great pictures

  24. Jan-Hendrik Bussmann

    I have recently bought this lens to replace the Canon 16-35 f/4L + Sigma MC-11 combo on my Sony A7 III. I had considered the Sony 16-35 f/4, which is comparable in terms of weight, but still quite expensive. I already have the Tamron 28-75 and I like it a lot, so this was an easy choice. 420 grams is exactly half of what the Canon lens in combination with the MC-11 weighs.
    With this 17-28, the Sony finally feels "right", meaning the relatively small body (compared to EOS R/Z6) now has a matching lens for volume and weight distribution.

    It is now significantly lighter and smaller than my previous 5D Mark III with the 16-35 f/4 which was one of my main reasons to switch to Sony.
    (Of course, the fact that almost every review is positive about this lens does not hurt, either 🙂 )

  25. Phil G

    I have been holding off on the switch to Sony due to the cost of their lenses, the time looks about right.

  26. Peter H.

    "Just Dave" that's a good title for a TV series.

  27. krishnan srinivasan

    Nice & Thanks 🙂

  28. Soso Melodies

    Your video quality is fantastic.

  29. online shoaib

    3rd coment

  30. Chris

    Not much of a review. Guess I’ll have to hope Christopher Frost does a review of this lens.

  31. HM Tech

    f@ck yeah 1st

  32. treepizzle


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *