Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8
25~105mm eq. Stabilized APS-C for Canon, for Nikon, for Sony & for Fuji (2026 ~ today)
Sample Images Intro New Good Bad Missing
Specifications Performance Compared
Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD (67mm filters, 19.0 oz./538g (Nikon version seen here), 0.6~1.3'/0.19~0.39m close focus, 0.21× macro ratio, $749 for Canon, $749 for Nikon, $699 for Sony and $799 for Fuji). bigger.
I got mine at B&H, where it comes for Canon, for Nikon, for Sony and for Fuji. I'd also get it at Amazon or at Adorama, or get it used at eBay (How to Win at eBay), or get it used at KEH.
This 100% all-content, junk-free website's biggest source of support is when you use those or any of these links to my personally approved sources I've used myself for way over 100 combined years when you get anything, regardless of the country in which you live — but I receive nothing for my efforts if you take the chance of getting it elsewhere. Tamron does not seal its boxes in any way, so never buy at retail or any other source not on my personally approved list since you'll have no way of knowing if you're missing accessories, getting a defective, damaged, returned, dropped, incomplete, gray-market, store demo or used lens — and my personally approved sources allow for 100% cash-back returns for at least 30 days if you don't love your new lens. I've used many of these sources since the 1970s because I can try it in my own hands and return it if I don't love it, and because they ship from secure remote warehouses where no one gets to touch your new lens before you do. Buy only from the approved sources I've used myself for decades for the best prices, service, return policies and selection.
August 2026 Better Pictures Tamron Canon Nikon Sony Fuji OM SYSTEM LEICA Zeiss HASSELBLAD All Reviews
Sample Images top
Sample Images Intro New Good Bad Missing
Specifications Performance Compared
More samples throughout this review at Bokeh, Falloff, Macro, Sharpness, Spherochromatism and Sunstars.
These are just snapshots; my real work is in my Gallery.
These are all shot hand-held as BASIC JPGs; no tripods, NORMAL or FINE JPGs or RAW files were used or needed. Bah!
Ferrari 355 F1, 10:02 AM, Saturday, 11 July 2026. Nikon Z50 II, Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 at 17mm (25mm eq.) at f/7.1 at 1/200 at Auto ISO 100 (LV 13⅓), Radiant Photo software to add light to the shadows while retaining highlights. bigger or camera-original 21 MP © 2.5 MB JPG file.
Corvette Engine, 10:09 AM, Saturday, 11 July 2026. Mild crop from Nikon Z50 II, Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 at 25mm (37mm eq.) at f/8 at 1/60 at Auto ISO 100 (LV 11.9), Radiant Photo software to add light to the shadows. bigger or camera-original 21 MP © 3.2 MB JPG file.
Festive Flamingo, 10:02 AM, Sunday, 12 July 2026. Nikon Z50 II, Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 at 27mm (40mm eq.) at f/5 at 1/100 at Auto ISO 100 (LV 11⅓), Radiant Photo software to add light to the shadows while retaining highlights. bigger or camera-original 21 MP © 1.6 MB JPG file.
Super-Sharp All the Way Out to the Corners Wide Open!
Canary Palm, Tuesday, 14 July 2026. Nikon Z50 II, Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 at 17mm (25mm eq.) wide-open at f/2.8 at 1/400 at Auto ISO 100 (LV 11⅔), Radiant Photo software to add light to the shadows while retaining highlights. bigger or camera-original 21 MP © 2.9 MB JPG file.
Introduction top
Sample Images Intro New Good Bad Missing
Specifications Performance Compared
|
I buy only from these approved sources. I can't vouch for ads below. |
This new Tamron lens is the world's first and only 17~70mm f/2.8 lens for APS-C.
It works great and is extremely handy if you need a fast midrange zoom for APS-C.
It's super-sharp when used properly, however when used in the fringe areas of its operational envelope (the range of multiple combinations of settings) it can be inferior to camera-brand optics as I'll explain in intimate detail at Performance — but so what; these obscure aspects of performance are almost never important, while getting to 70mm rather than a wimpy 50mm or 70mm makes a big difference to me. I'd much rather shoot with this Tamron than similar lenses from Nikon or Sony, and Canon doesn't make anything even remotely close.
I got my 17-70mm f/2.8 at B&H, where it comes for Canon, for Nikon, for Sony and for Fuji. I'd also get it at Amazon or at Adorama, or get it used at eBay (How to Win at eBay), or get it used at KEH.
Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD. bigger.
New intro top
World's first 17-70mm f/2.8 lens.
Good intro top
Super sharp at normal distances.
In-camera lens corrections for falloff, lateral color and distortion.
Fluorine crud-resistant coating.
Claimed moisture sealing.
Hood included.
USB-C port for firmware updates, which might — or might not — allow this lens lens to work on newer camera models in the future. Camera-brand lenses don't need this because camera makers ensure that their new and old lenses work on new cameras as introduced, while Tamron can't possibly predict what your camera maker is going to be doing 5 years from today. The potential loss of future compatiblity is the biggest weak point in third-party lenses, and even with an update port Tamron may or may not have new firmware 8 years from today when you might need it.
Bad intro top
No AF/MF switch 🤮.
No Stabilizer switch 🤮
Crappy plastic filter threads are easy to cross thread, typical of consumer lenses in 2026 🤮
Production dumped to Vietnam, not made domestically in Japan.
Missing intro top
No AF/MF switch 🤮
No Stabilizer switch 🤮
The mounting index is a nearly invisible white tick, not a big raised, red dot so we can find it by sight or by feel. It's as if the designer had no idea that we need to see and feel that index to be able to use this lens.
No aperture ring.
No case included.
No focus or depth-of-field scales.
No infra-red focus indices.
No focus lock buttons.
No focus-distance recall feature.
Will not work with any teleconverters.
So?
Specifications top
Sample Images Intro New Good Bad Missing
Specifications Performance Compared
I got my 17-70mm f/2.8 at B&H, where it comes for Canon, for Nikon, for Sony and for Fuji. I'd also get it at Amazon or at Adorama, or get it used at eBay (How to Win at eBay), or get it used at KEH.
Compatibility specifications top
It comes in versions for Canon RF, for Nikon Z, for Sony E & for Fuji X.
This lens only works on mirrorless cameras; it will not mount on any DSLR.
Name specifications top
Tamron calls this the 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD (Model B070):
Di: Nikon's brand name for almost all their lenses since 1932.
III-A: For mirrorless APS-C cameras.
VC: Vibration Compensation (Image Stabilization).
RXD: Rapid eXtra-silent stepping Drive focus motor, which makes a very quiet hum as it focuses.
Optics specifications top
Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD Internal Optical Construction. Hybrid Aspherical, LD (ED) and Glass-Molded Aspherical elements. bigger.
16 elements in 12 groups.
One Hybrid Aspherical element, which typically means a molded plastic asphere glued to a conventional glass element.
Two LD (ED) elements: Magic Extra-low Dispersion glass for reduced axial secondary chromatic aberration.
Two Glass-Molded Aspherical elements, meaning that the element is molded into its aspherical shape, not ground.
Rear, or at least Internal focusing.
Multicoated.
Fluorine coating to resist dirt and smudges.
It's a "pumper" zoom that gets longer as zoomed.
Diaphragm specifications top
Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD. bigger.
9 rounded blades.
Electronically actuated.
Stops down to f/22.
Filters specifications top
Plastic 67mm filter thread.
Focal Length specifications top
17 ~ 70mm.
When used on Canon's APS-C cameras, it sees the same angle of view as a 27 ~ 113mm lens sees when used on a full-frame (24 × 36mm) camera.
When used on Nikon DX, Sony APS-C or Fujifilm's APS-C cameras it sees the same angle of view as a 25.5 ~ 105mm lens sees when used on a full-frame (24 × 36mm) camera.
See also Crop Factor.
Angles of View specifications top
Nikon, Sony and Fuji APS-C: 80° 37' ~ 23° 17' diagonal.
Canon (who use a slightly smaller APS-C sensor): 77° 0' ~ 21° 52' diagonal.
Autofocus specifications top
Stepper motor.
No external movement as focussed, so no air or dust is sucked in.
Focus Scale specifications top
No.
Not on lens, but may be displayed in-camera.
Infinity Focus Stop specifications top
No.
You have to focus somehow to get precise focus at infinity, just like at every other distance.
Depth of Field Scale specifications top
No.
Not on lens, but may be displayed in-camera.
Infrared Focus Index specifications top
No.
Close Focus (distance from subject to image plane) specifications top
At 17mm: 0.6 feet (7.5" or 0.19 meters).
At 70mm: 1.3 feet (15.4" or 0.39 meters).
Maximum Reproduction Ratio specifications top
At 17mm: 1:4.8 (0.21 ×).
At 70mm: 1:5.2 (0.19 ×).
Reproduction Ratio Scale specifications top
No.
Not on lens, but may be displayed in-camera.
Image Stabilizer specifications top
Optical, no claimed level of improvement.
Caps specifications top
Plastic front and rear caps included.
Hood specifications top
Included Tamron HA036 Hood for 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD. bigger.
Case specifications top
None included.
Use a tube sock or something from Think Tank.
Size specifications top
All versions: ø 2.94" (74.6mm) maximum diameter.
Canon: 4.62" (117.3 mm) extension from flange at 17mm.
Nikon: 4.78" (121.3 mm) extension from flange at 17mm.
Sony: 4.70" (119.3mm) extension from flange at 17mm.
Fuji: 4.71" (119.6mm) extension from flange at 17mm.
Weight specifications top
18.985 oz. (538.2 g) actual measured weight, Nikon.
Canon version rated 18.70 oz. (530 g).
Nikon version rated 19.05 oz. (540 g).
Sony version rated 18.52 oz. (525 g).
Fuji version rated 18.70 oz. (530 g).
Quality specifications top
Production dumped to Vietnam, NOT made in Japan.
Announced specifications top
24 June 2026.
Promised for specifications top
02 July 2026.
Included specifications top
Lens, caps and hood.
Packaging specifications top
Microcorrugated cardboard:
Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD. bigger.
Model Number specifications top
B070.
Price, U. S. A. specifications top
July ~ August 2026 (Introduction)
$749 for Canon, $749 for Nikon, $699 for Sony and $799 for Fuji
Performance top
Sample Images Intro New Good Bad Missing
Specifications Performance Compared
Overall Autofocus Manual Focus Breathing
Distance Recording Bokeh Distortion Ergonomics
Falloff Filters Flare & Ghosts Lateral Color Fringes
Lens Corrections Macro Mechanics Sharpness
Spherochromatism Stabilization Sunstars
Teleconverters Weather Sealing
I got my 17-70mm f/2.8 at B&H, where it comes for Canon, for Nikon, for Sony and for Fuji. I'd also get it at Amazon or at Adorama, or get it used at eBay (How to Win at eBay), or get it used at KEH.
Overall performance top
This 17-70mm works well and is super-sharp, however its performance falls off a little at the edges of its performance envelope as I'll cover below.
It does everything we need very well, but if you do silly things like try to shoot macro super-close at f/2.8 then spherochromatism will get you. It also has more flare & ghosts than most other lenses, as well as a lot of distortion, which is well corrected in-camera. Used properly, you won't see any of these problems, so enjoy!
Autofocus performance top
Autofocus seems instantaneous at 17mm, and can take just a moment at 70mm if it has to motor in or out a long way.
Its little stepper motor makes a nearly silent hum as it focuses, which is usually too fast to hear, even in a completely silent environment.
Manual Focus performance top
Manual focus will depend on your camera brand.
Manual focusing is entirely electronic; the manual focus ring isn't connected to anything other than a digital encoder.
On Nikon, just grab this electronic manual focus ring for instant manual-focus override anytime the camera is awake.
Focus Breathing performance top
Focus breathing is the image changing size (growing and shrinking slightly) as focused in and out. It's important to cinematographers that the image not breathe (change size) as focus gets pulled back and forth between different actors as they speak. The image is said to breathe because it expands and contracts as the focus follows the dialog back and forth.
The image from this lens shrinks only slightly as focused more closely at 17mm, shrinks a lot in the middle of the range, and shrinks only moderately as focused more closely at 70mm
Focus Distance Recording performance top
I see no focus distance displayed in the lower left of my screen in Photoshop's lens correction filter.
Bokeh performance top
Bokeh, the feel, character or quality of out-of-focus areas as opposed to how far out of focus they are, is pretty good.
Here are photos from headshot distance wide-open at f/2.8. I'm focused on the DAVIS logo. Click any for the © camera-original file:
Made-in-U. S. A. Davis 6357 Vantage Vue Wireless Sensor Suite (use with WeatherLink console), 8:09 AM, Tuesday, 14 July 2026. Nikon Z50 II at 1/4,000 at Auto ISO 100 (LV 15.0).
Click any for the camera-original 21 MP © JPG file.
As always, if you want to throw the background as far out of focus as possible, shoot at 70mm at f/2.8 and get as close as possible.
Distortion performance top
This lens has a potent double-dose of strong barrel distortion at the wide end and equally powerful pincushion distortion throughout most of the rest of the zoom range, however my Nikon Z50 II and most likely the other camera brands correct it so well that it's invisible. Beware if you shoot raw data instead of JPG images and then use sketchy raw software to turn that data into images because not all raw software reads and applies these corrections — including some very popular raw software. Adobe raw products seem to read this well; good luck with others or just shoot JPG as I do and don't worry.
For more critical scientific use, use these corrections in Photoshop's lens correction filter to JPG images.
These aren't facts or specifications, they are the results of my research that requires hours of photography and calculations on the resulting data.
On DX at 30' (10m) |
Correction factor to use with images made with correction ON in Z50 II |
Correction factor with uncorrected images |
17mm |
+1.00 | +4.10** |
24mm |
-0.50 | -1.90* |
35mm |
+1.00 | -3.30 |
50mm |
±0.00 | -4.00 |
70mm |
±0.00 | -3.80 |
© 2026 KenRockwell.com. All rights reserved.
* Some waviness remains after this correction.
** Much waviness remains after this correction.
Ergonomics performance top
 |
|
At 17mm. bigger. |
At 17mm. bigger. |
|
|
At 70mm. bigger. |
At 70mm. bigger. |
This lens handles well: a big mechanical zoom ring that works as it should, and the focus ring is also right where your fingers can get to it.
The zoom usually wants two fingers, while the focus responds to the gentle touch of a single fingertip.
There's no AF/MF switch, you have to set this in a menu🤮.
There's no Stabilizer switch, you have to set this in a menu🤮.
Falloff performance top
Falloff isn't a problem.
I've greatly exaggerated the falloff by shooting a gray field and placing these on a gray background; it will not look this bad in actual photos of real things:
Falloff on APS-C Nikon Z50 II at infinity, Vignetting Correction at its default of NORMAL:
© 2026 KenRockwell.com. All rights reserved. |
If you save only raw data rather than create JPG images in-camera, whatever software you use to create visible images from that raw data later may or may not correct this as is done in-camera as JPGs. You're on your own there; I don't bother with raw data.
If you go out of your way to turn off the correction, or possibly in some raw software, this is what you get, which is still not visible in real pictures except at f/2.8 at the ends of the zoom range:
Falloff on APS-C Nikon Z50 II at infinity, Vignetting Correction deliberately turned OFF:
© 2026 KenRockwell.com. All rights reserved. |
Filters, use with performance top
There's no need for thin filters, but it is tight at 17mm on APS-C. Go ahead and use your standard rotating polarizers and rotating grad filters, but forget using multiple filters at the 17mm end.
If you do have slight vignetting at the 17mm end with a particularly thick filter, try shooting at a larger aperture or zoom in a bit.
Flare & Ghosts performance top
There is more flare and more ghosts than in other lenses.
See examples at Sunstars.
Third party lenses rarely do as good a job of lens coating as camera brands. Look into the front of the lens and look at the reflections in the glass, then compare to a similar lens like the Nikon Z 16-50m f/2.8 VR. There are more and brighter reflections in this Tamron than from camera brand lenses. Tamron's coatings are less efficient than camera brands, sorry.
Now that I have you scared, not to worry, you're not going to see any of this unless you have bright sources of light in your frame, and even if you do, some people love having deliberate flare and ghosts for artistic effect.
Lateral Color Fringes performance top
There are no lateral color fringes as shot on Nikon cameras as JPG, which by default correct for any that may be there.
If you shoot raw and then use non-manufacturer software to process that data into images then there is the possibility that there might be some, but I doubt it.
I haven't tried this on other brands, but Tamron does say it supports lens corrections, so no worries.
There is strong spherochromatism, which can cause color fringes on things that aren't in perfect focus at large apertures. Spherochromatism is a completely different aberration in a different dimension than lateral color fringes. More at Spherochromatism.
Lens Corrections performance top
Tamron says there are in-camera corrections for falloff, lateral color and distortion, and they work on my Nikon.
On Nikon we can't turn lateral color corrections on or off; they're always on. We can turn falloff and distortion correction ON and OFF on Nikon.
We should be able any or all three of these ON or OFF individually on other brands, but I haven't tried.
Macro Performance performance top
Macro gets close, but it's softer and loaded with spherical aberration and spherochromatism at f/2.8. It's super sharp stopped down.
Wide-Open at f/2.8
Casio G-Shock Solar Atomic Watch at close-focus distance, Tuesday, 14 July 2026. Nikon Z50 II at 1/2,500 at Auto ISO 100, +0.7 stops exposure compensation (LV 14⅓). bigger or camera-original 21 MP © 1.4 MB JPG file.
1,200 × 900 pixel (4.6× magnification) crop from above. bigger or camera-original 21 MP © 1.4 MB JPG file.
If this 1,200 × 900 pixel crop is about 3" (7.5cm) wide on your screen, the complete image would print at 9.3 × 13.9" (24 × 35 cm) at this same magnification.
If this 1,200 × 900 pixel crop is about 6" (15cm) wide on your screen, the complete image would print at 18.6 × 27.8" (47 × 71 cm) at this same magnification.
If this 1,200 × 900 pixel crop is about 12" (30cm) wide on your screen, the complete image would print at 37.1 × 55.7" (3 × 4.6 feet or 94 × 141 cm) at this same magnification.
At f/8
Casio G-Shock Solar Atomic Watch at close-focus distance, Tuesday, 14 July 2026. Nikon Z50 II at 1/320 at Auto ISO 100, +0.7 stops exposure compensation (LV 14⅓). bigger or camera-original 21 MP © 1.4 MB JPG file.
1,200 × 900 pixel (4.6× magnification) crop from above. bigger or camera-original 21 MP © 1.4 MB JPG file.
If this 1,200 × 900 pixel crop is about 3" (7.5cm) wide on your screen, the complete image would print at 9.3 × 13.9" (24 × 35 cm) at this same magnification.
If this 1,200 × 900 pixel crop is about 6" (15cm) wide on your screen, the complete image would print at 18.6 × 27.8" (47 × 71 cm) at this same magnification.
If this 1,200 × 900 pixel crop is about 12" (30cm) wide on your screen, the complete image would print at 37.1 × 55.7" (3 × 4.6 feet or 94 × 141 cm) at this same magnification.
Mechanical Quality performance top
Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD. bigger.
It's all plastic on the outside, with a metal mount.
Exterior Finish mechanics performance top
Smooth black plastic.
Hood mechanics performance top
Plastic bayonet.
Front Bumper mechanics performance top
None.
Filter Threads mechanics performance top
Plastic 🤮
Hood Bayonet Mount mechanics performance top
Plastic.
Front Barrel Exterior mechanics performance top
Plastic.
Zoom Ring mechanics performance top
Rubber-covered plastic and metal.
Barrel Exterior mechanics performance top
Plastic.
Focus Ring mechanics performance top
Rubber-covered.
Slide Switches mechanics performance top
None.
Identity mechanics performance top
Printed on top of barrel in white.
Model number (B070) printed on bottom of barrel in dark gray.
Internals mechanics performance top
Looks like mostly plastic with some metal.
Good news the zoom sleeve looks like metal.
Dust Gasket at Mount mechanics performance top
Yes.
Mount mechanics performance top
Warm-look chromed metal, sort of suggests a rhodium finish, ooooh!
Markings mechanics performance top
Just paint; nothing's engraved.
Truth & Ethics mechanics performance top
While it shouts "DESIGNED IN JAPAN" in big white letters:
Shouts "Designed" in Japan. bigger.
Production has been dumped to Vietnam, not made domestically in Japan:
Shamefully Conceals That It's Made in Vietnam in Tiny Dark-Gray Letters. bigger.
I had to go out of my way to make these letters visible in this well-lit studio close up; good luck seeing them in person.
This is never disclosed in any advertising, marketing or online offers for sale that I've seen; Tamron is doing their best to hide this.
Serial Number mechanics performance top
Laser engraved in warm black on black on the bottom of the barrel as seen immediately above.
Noises When Shaken mechanics performance top
Moderate to strong clattering, most likely from the stabilization system.
This is normal.
Sharpness performance top
Lens sharpness has nothing to do with picture sharpness.
Every lens made in the past 100 years is more than sharp enough to make super-sharp pictures if you know what you're doing. The only limitation to picture sharpness is your skill as a photographer. It's the least talented who spend the most time worrying about lens sharpness and blame crummy pictures on their equipment rather than themselves. Skilled photographers make great images with whatever camera is in their hands; I've made some of my best images of all time with an irreparably broken camera! Most pixels are thrown away before you see them, but camera makers don't want you to know that.
If you're not getting ultra-sharp pictures with this, be sure not to shoot at f/11 or smaller where all lenses are softer due to diffraction, always shoot at ISO 100 or below because cameras become softer at ISO 200 and above, avoid shooting across long distances over land which can lead to atmospheric heat shimmer, be sure everything is in perfect focus, set your camera's sharpening as you want it (I set mine to the maximum) and be sure nothing is moving, either camera or subject. If you want to ensure a soft image with any lens, shoot at f/16 or smaller at ISO 1,600 or above at default sharpening in daylight of subjects at differing distances in the same image.
People worry waaaaay too much about lens sharpness. It's not 1968 anymore when lenses often weren't that sharp and there could be significant differences among them; ever since about 2010 all new lenses are all pretty much equally fantastic.
As I showed at Sample Images, it's super sharp al the way to the corners, even wide-open at f/2.8 where lenses are the softest:
Canary Palm, Tuesday, 14 July 2026. Nikon Z50 II, Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 at 17mm (25mm eq.) wide-open at f/2.8 at 1/400 at Auto ISO 100 (LV 11⅔), Radiant Photo software to add light to the shadows while retaining highlights. bigger or camera-original 21 MP © 2.9 MB JPG file.
This lens is super sharp corner-to corner at every aperture, limited by your vision as an artist and of course by heat shimmer and by diffraction at the smallest apertures. Avoid f/11 and smaller apertures unless you really need them for extreme depth of field because diffraction takes its toll. See also How to Calculate the Sharpest Aperture.
 |
|
MTF at 17mm at f/2.8. |
MTF at 70mm at f/2.8. |
Tamron's MTF charts at 10 cyc/mm. and 30 cyc/mm. Sagittal (radial) shown as solid lines; Meridional (tangential) shown as dashed lines.
While it's usually valid to compare rated MTFs between different lenses of similar vintage from the same maker, every maker measures or simply calculates MTF very differently, and therefore one cannot compare these curves between brands. For instance, Sony seems to ignore diffraction and simply calculate overly optimistic MTFs that hug 100%, which no real lens can do at f/8, while other brands are more realistic and include diffraction. Only Canon offers any insight on how they arrive at their curves.
See also my article on MTF and Canon's article on MTFs.
Spherochromatism performance top
Spherochromatism, also called secondary spherical chromatic aberration or "color bokeh," can cause colored fringes on out-of-focus highlights, usually seen as green fringes on background highlights and magenta fringes on foreground highlights.
Spherochromatism is common in fast lenses of moderate and long focal lengths when shooting contrasty items at full aperture.
Spherochromatism goes away as stopped down.
Spherochromatism is seen when the spherical aberration at the red and blue ends of the color spectrum (which together make magenta) is corrected differently than in the middle of the spectrum (green).
Spherochromatism is an advanced form of spherical and chromatic aberration in a different dimension than lateral color fringes and therefore cannot be corrected with software or automatic corrections.
The Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 has a lot of spherochromatism, with strong cyan fringes behind and strong orange fringes ahead of the plane of perfect focus:
Mondaine A132.30348.11SBB at close-focus distance at f/2.8, Tuesday, 14 July 2026. Nikon Z50 II at 1/4,000 at Auto ISO 100, +0.7 stops exposure compensation (LV 15.0). bigger or camera-original 21 MP © 1.4 MB JPG file.
1,200 × 900 pixel (4.6× magnification) crop from above. bigger or camera-original 21 MP © 1.2 MB JPG file.
If this 1,200 × 900 pixel crop is about 3" (7.5cm) wide on your screen, the complete image would print at 9.3 × 13.9" (24 × 35 cm) at this same magnification.
If this 1,200 × 900 pixel crop is about 6" (15cm) wide on your screen, the complete image would print at 18.6 × 27.8" (47 × 71 cm) at this same magnification.
If this 1,200 × 900 pixel crop is about 12" (30cm) wide on your screen, the complete image would print at 37.1 × 55.7" (3 × 4.6 feet or 94 × 141 cm) at this same magnification.
Image Stabilization (VC, IS, OSS or VR) performance top
Optical Image Stabilization (OIS, IS or VR (Vibration Reduction)) works great, which is important if your camera, like my Nikon Z50 II, is unstabilized.
I get perfect tripod-equivalent sharpness 100% of the time at one-half of a second at 17mm and 1/15 at 70mm on my unstabilized Nikon Z50 II, bravo!
"Percent Perfectly Sharp Shots" are the percentage of hand-held, free-standing with no support or bracing, frames with 100% perfect tripod-equivalent sharpness as viewed at 300% on a 100 DPI monitor.
Looking at images from my Z50 II at 300% on my 100 DPI monitor from 2½ feet (76cm) away is the same as scrolling around a 15 × 10 foot (4.5 × 3 meters!) print, from just 2½ feet (76cm) away — and images are still perfectly sharp most of the time hand-held at 1/8 of a second. Bravo!
Of course we all will get different results hand-holding. While your speeds will vary, the number of stops of improvement should be the same for all of us regardless of who's shooting or how picky you are about what constitutes "perfect" sharpness.
Hand tremor is a random occurrence, so at marginal speeds some frames will be perfectly sharp while others will be in various stages of blur — all at the same shutter speed.
This rates what percentage of shots are perfectly sharp, not how sharp are all the frames:
Shot on an unstabilized Nikon Z50 II at 17mm
| % Perfectly Sharp Shots | 2s |
1s |
1/2 |
1/4 |
1/8 |
1/15 |
1/30 |
1/60 |
1/125 |
| Stabilization ON | 10 |
20 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
| Stabilization OFF | 0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
21 |
71 |
100 |
100 |
I see 4 ⅓ stops of real-world improvement.
Shot on unstabilized Nikon Z50 II at 70mm
| % Perfectly Sharp Shots | 1s |
1/2 |
1/4 |
1/8 |
1/15 |
1/30 |
1/60 |
1/125 |
1/250 |
| Stabilization ON | 0 |
0 |
31 |
54 |
100 |
100 |
93 |
100 |
100 |
| Stabilization OFF | 0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7½ IPS |
15 IPS |
42 |
85 |
100 |
I see 3 ⅓ stops of real-world improvement.
Sunstars performance top
With its 9-bladed rounded diaphragm, I get decent 18-point sunstars on brilliant points of light mostly at the smallest apertures.
Ignore the vertical smear at large apertures. This is a sensor artifact called interline transfer smear and is a camera, not a lens, defect.
Likewise ignore the crazy rainbow dots at small apertures; these are sensor artifacts caused by interference among the divisions between pixels on the sensor. These are made visible because we're using enough exposure to show the dark underside of a huge palm tree, and then putting the blinding disk of the mid-day sun in it. Doing this will show everything due to the insane lighting range.
Click any to enlarge:
Click any to enlarge.
Teleconverters performance top
It will not work with any teleconverters.
There is not enough room in the back of the lens to accommodate the protuberances from any of the various mirrorless teleconverters.
Weather Sealing performance top
Tamron claims "Moisture-Resistant Construction," but I haven't tried it.
People have worried way too much about this ever since camera companies started FUD campaigns to make us think that our gear will dissolve unless it has weather sealing. How do you think we shot in the rain for the first 200 years of photography?
Compared top
Sample Images Intro New Good Bad Missing
Specifications Performance Compared
I got my 17-70mm f/2.8 at B&H, where it comes for Canon, for Nikon, for Sony and for Fuji. I'd also get it at Amazon or at Adorama, or get it used at eBay (How to Win at eBay), or get it used at KEH.
Compared to the Nikon Z 16-50mm f/2.8 VR
Nikon Z 16-50mm f/2.8 VR DX (67mm filters, 11.6 oz. (330g), 0.5~0.8' (0.15~0.25m) close focus, 0.24× macro ratio, check price). bigger.
Both are equally as super sharp in normal use, both have equally good measured optical stabilization, and neither has an AF/MF or stabilizer switches.
The Tamron has a little more focus breathing than the Nikon — but who's shooting cinematic drama with this?
The Tamron is a little longer and heavier, but both are light and compact and I greatly prefer being able to zoom to 70mm rather than the limiting 50mm end of the Nikon.
The Tamron feels a bit better made. I prefer the smooth finish of the Tamron over the gross, rougher finish of the Nikon's barrel. Both are mostly plastic, while the Tamron has the advantage of possibly having a metal zoom sleeve rather than what seems to be plastic inside the Nikon.
The Tamron is softer at macro distances at f/2.8 due spherical aberration and spherochromatism, but stop down and they become equally sharp. The only reason to shoot at f/2.8 at macro distances is for deliberate soft effects, so it's not a big deal.
The Tamron has more flare and ghosts than the Nikon, but you won't see this unless you shoot into brilliant sources of light, and some people prefer these effects.
The Tamron has more distortion, which is corrected automatically unless you turn off the correction. If you're really picky, even after correction the Tamron has double the residual distortion in my lab, but neither will be visible in normal photography with in-camera correction.
The Tamron has much more spherochromatism, which again goes away as stopped down, and I only saw it at macro distances.
All the optical minutia I just mentioned is insignificant except in very special cases where someone is doing something silly. Otherwise they're both as sharp and take the same pictures, and I'd grab this Tamron every time over the Nikon because getting to 70mm versus 50mm (105mm versus 75mm equivalent) is far more important to me than all the optical fluff I just covered. Getting the focal length I need is important, the rest of the other things aren't.
Compared to Canon RF Lenses
Personally I prefer the Canon System, but Canon has no f/2.8 zooms for APS-C, so there is no comparison.
Sorry.
Compared to the Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G
Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G (67mm filters, 17.4 oz./493g, 1.1'/0.33m close focus, check price). bigger.
This Sony lens has no stabilization, so you'll want only to use it on a stabilized camera, and its zoom range is more limited.
Compared to the Fuji XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR II
Original XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR (metal 77mm filter thread, 23.2 oz./657g, 1.1'/0.35m close focus). bigger.
I haven't shot with the newest XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR II, and I do have a review of the original XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR which should be the same.
The most important thing with Fuji is that they still have some self respect and usually use a lot of metal in their lenses, and assuming that's the case with this latest XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR II, I'd feel much better with a real Fuji lens on my Fuji camera than this mostly plastic Tamron.
Recommendations top
Sample Images Intro New Good Bad Missing
Specifications Performance Compared
I got my 17-70mm f/2.8 at B&H, where it comes for Canon, for Nikon, for Sony and for Fuji. I'd also get it at Amazon or at Adorama, or get it used at eBay (How to Win at eBay), or get it used at KEH.
Be sure to get it only from my recommended sources so that you can just send it back if you don't love it. You never have to guess about how well it will work for you; order it and see for yourself. That's why I've used B&H and Adorama since I was a kid in the 1970s: I can try it in my own environment with my own other gear and if I don't love it, back it goes.
While my picky tests show that this lens doesn't fare quite as well under oddball test environments and extreme applications as well as a camera-brand lens like the Nikon Z 16-50mm f/2.8 VR, I would still rather shoot with this Tamron than the Nikon or Sony versions above simply because this Tamron works great in all the real-world conditions I shoot it, and most importantly goes to 70mm which I find extremely helpful rather than just the lame 50 or 55mm of the other lenses.
How many of you have ever seen spherochromatism in a real-world photo rather than under my torture tests here? Exactly, all that highfalutin technical mumbo-jumbo usually has nothing to do with real pictures, and getting to 70mm is a real benefit I can see in my pictures.
I use a clear (UV) protective filter instead of a cap (exactly like an iPhone) so I'm always ready to shoot instantly. I only use a cap when I throw this in a bag with other gear without padding — which is never. The UV filter never gets in the way, and never gets lost, either.
The very best protective filter is the nearly indestructible Hoya multicoated HD3 67mm UV which uses hardened glass and repels dirt and fingerprints.
For less money, the Nikon 67mm NC (No Color/Neutral Clear), Hoya 67mm NXT Plus UV and Hoya 67mm UV MC are all excellent filters, but the Hoya HD3 is the toughest and the best.
The least expensive coated filter is the Chiaro 67mm 95-UVAT UV, which I haven't tried but ought to be swell.
If I was working in nasty, dirty areas, I'd use an uncoated 67mm Tiffen UV filter instead. Uncoated filters are much easier to clean, but more prone to ghosting.
Filters last a lifetime, so you may as well get the best. The Hoya HD3 stays cleaner than the others since it repels oil and dirt.
You may need a neutral-density filter to shoot at f/2.8 in direct sunlight. I prefer the Made-in-U. S. A. Tiffen 67mm ND 0.9 (3 stop) neutral density filter because the glass Tiffen filters are genuinely neutral, devoid of the color casts I often find in other brands who sometimes resin (plastic) filter materials.
You could try a 67mm polarizing filter to shoot at f/2.8 in daylight (my very favorite is the exquisitely well made Nikon Circular Polarizer II), however polarizers may not be dark enough and of course they add other effects you might not want if you're just trying to shoot at f/2.8.
Nikon's 67mm Circular Polarizer II is excellent.
Filters last a lifetime, so you may as well get the best. The Hoya HD3 stays cleaner than the others since it repels oil and dirt.
All these filters are just as sharp and take the same pictures, the difference is how much abuse they'll take and stay clean and stay in one piece. Since filters last a lifetime or more, there's no reason not to buy the best as it will last you for the next 50 years. Filters aren't throwaways like digital cameras which we replace every few years, like it or not. I'm still using filters I bought back in the 1970s! The Hoya HD3 stays cleaner than the others since it repels oil and dirt, and you'll be using it long after you've thrown this lens away in 50 years.
I got my 17-70mm f/2.8 at B&H, where it comes for Canon, for Nikon, for Sony and for Fuji. I'd also get it at Amazon or at Adorama, or get it used at eBay (How to Win at eBay), or get it used at KEH.
This 100% all-content, junk-free website's biggest source of support is when you use those or any of these links to my personally approved sources I've used myself for way over 100 combined years when you get anything, regardless of the country in which you live — but I receive nothing for my efforts if you take the chance of getting it elsewhere. Tamron does not seal its boxes in any way, so never buy at retail or any other source not on my personally approved list since you'll have no way of knowing if you're missing accessories, getting a defective, damaged, returned, dropped, incomplete, gray-market, store demo or used lens — and my personally approved sources allow for 100% cash-back returns for at least 30 days if you don't love your new lens. I've used many of these sources since the 1970s because I can try it in my own hands and return it if I don't love it, and because they ship from secure remote warehouses where no one gets to touch your new lens before you do. Buy only from the approved sources I've used myself for decades for the best prices, service, return policies and selection.
Thanks for helping me help you!
Ken.
© Ken Rockwell. All rights reserved. Tous droits réservés. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Alla rättigheter förbehållna. Toate drepturile rezervate. Niciun vampir nu a fost implicat în crearea acestei lucrări. Doe! Omnia jura reservata. Ken Rockwell® is a registered trademark.
Help Me Help You top
I support my growing family through this website, as crazy as it might seem.
The biggest help is when you use any of these links when you get anything. It costs you nothing, and is this site's, and thus my family's, biggest source of support. These places always have the best prices and service, which is why I've used them since before this website existed. I recommend them all personally.
If you find this page as helpful as a book you might have had to buy or a workshop you may have had to take, feel free to help me continue helping everyone.
If you've gotten your gear through one of my links or helped otherwise, you're family. It's great people like you who allow me to keep adding to this site full-time. Thanks!
If you haven't helped yet, please do, and consider helping me with a gift of $5.00.
As this page is copyrighted and formally registered, it is unlawful to make copies, especially in the form of printouts for personal use. If you wish to make a printout for personal use, you are granted one-time permission only if you PayPal me $5.00 per printout or part thereof. Thank you!
Thanks for reading!
Ken.