Hey thanks for watching! Glad it helped!

In the same boat, I’ll keep my 18-135 sounds like

Thanks for watching! You won't be disappointed in image quality... Just make sure to pair it with a solid low light option as well, such as the sigmas. One of those + the 18-135 = the cost of the Tamron 😉

Hey thanks for watching! Honestly if you want a 2.8 zoom, look at the new Sigma 18-50 instead... It's less expensive than the Tamron by a pretty fair amount. While I havent tried it myself, the reviews are stellar and it's super small, smaller than the 18-135 in fact!

@@andreas1701d thanks. Maybe you can do a comparison between the two (Tamron 17-70 vs Sigma 18-50). I think wonder how the macro shots will be like since the Tamron has stabilization.

@@NLMusique unfortunately I no longer have the Tamron... I'll post a vid on the sigma once I get one though... As for macro, as you can see the Sony at the long end does as good if not better than the Tamron at the wide end, so you wouldn't be gaining much there.

@@andreas1701d true, I'm more thinking of low light situations but I do have the Sony 50mm macro lens

Hey thanks for watching! I admit I struggled with whether or not to keep the Tamron. In the end, given my use case it made more sense than carrying two lenses (18-135 & sigma 16). However I kept the 16 for the same reasons as you: really low light/nighttime photos.

@@andreas1701d I prefer the Sigma 30mm for walking low light/night shots.

@@scottiebumich all comes down to focal length/subject preferences... Sigma's lenses for Sony APSC are all excellent 👍

Hey thanks for watching! Indeed it's a solid lens. Its only weakness is in low light. Otherwise, it's excellent. Glad I could help!

Hey thanks for watching! Your point about exposing the lens to harsh conditions is interesting. While I never really felt the Sony was "fragile", I was more careful in the rain precisely because the zoom isn't weather sealed, whereas the Tamron is. So I constantly chose the Tamron despite the cost difference. That 18-135 is one of the best travel lenses I've ever used though. Supremely versatile and sharper than people give it credit for, all in a really tiny package. Since I moved to full frame, I've been looking for something similar and the closest I can get is the Tamron 28-200, which is nearly twice as big lol

​@@andreas1701d I'm not sure what to choose because I'm moving from my Canon 24-105 F4 L to Sony emount and I work in very dusty environments. I can easily get a 18-135 with a camera body but not with the Tamron. I would have to sell the Sony to then get the Tamron. Too risky? I'd love to also have a 70-200 or similar later on

@@user-xl6kl1os7e while I never had an issue with the Sony lens, I have more confidence with tamrons sealing between these two lenses.

Thanks for the feedback! Indeed they are very close in image quality, so it really comes down to use case/personal preference for the image rendering of each lens. I wasn't unhappy with the Sony + Sigma. Truth be told the Sigma remains one of my faves and I even filmed this video on it. But for me, it was all about less overall weight.

Hey thanks for watching! For your usecase, I think you'll get way more benefit (and save a little money too) in simply getting the sigma 56 and keeping your 18-135. The only reason to go from the 18-135 to the Tamron is really the improvement in low light, but the sigma 56 will be better than both for that by a country mile so for casual shooting, that's what I'd do for sure.

Tripods! What a great idea for a video 🤔

Hey thanks for watching! Glad you found it helpful. Indeed sometimes it's easy to overdo bokeh.

Hi there. Yes the 18-135 on the fx30, though the 18-105 may be a better choice for video thanks to the power zoom.

@@andreas1701d thank you for reply. I saw it is only F4 😭 Do you think Tamron could be a better option for me? Im filming horses 😅 I record hand held

@@TraveliandoCo if you're filming in daytime, I wouldn't worry about the F4. In fact, it'll do much better than the 18-135. If you really need f2.8, the Tamron would be your best bet as it has the longest range among standard APSC 2.8 zooms. Alternatively, you could look at the Tamron 70-180 f2.8 lens which has a new version coming out soon which includes stabilization.

@@andreas1701d thank you so much 🙌

@@xevanior hey thanks for watching! Glad I could help, enjoy your new gear!

Hey thanks for watching! I'm actually just editing that comparison today (bokeh + low light + flare test)... Should be online by tomorrow morning.

Hey there... Just published a video testing the low-light and bokeh, if you're interested. Hope it helps! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qMmVo8hj0t--cZs.html

Interesting... I currently have my 18-135 for sale. What exactly did you miss?

@@andreas1701d Exactly I miss the 135mm reach, it is almost double than 70mm. At 135f5.6 in good light you almost get the same compression. And the sharpness is really very comparable between these two. Also, I think that 18-135 has better control around chromatic abberration, Tamron has issues with that.

I would love to see the comparison between sony 18-135 and tamrom 18-300 as well. Seems like the tarom 18-300 is a more versatile all round lens! What do y'all think ?

The 18-300 is indeed versatile, but there's a huge size & weight penalty you pay vs the 18-135. There's not much difference IQ wise

Hey thanks for watching! Glad it was useful

Hey thanks for watching! Glad it was helpful 😁

Hey thanks for watching! Indeed unless you absolutely need the f2.8, the Sony is its equal in most other ways and is tiny! It's really the only lens that doesn't have an equivalent in full frame at its size.

Hey thanks for watching! Unfortunately I no longer have the lenses, but I have made a 2nd video which includes some video footage. The AF is fast and reliable on both, not much difference.

Hey thanks for watching, glad I could help! You should have a look at the new Sigma 18-50 2.8 too if the 18-135 doesn't cut it. I haven't tried it yet but man, it's super tiny for what it is!

Hey thanks for watching! I'll be sure to test this in my follow-up video. Admittedly I rarely shoot under circumstances where flaring becomes an issue so it'll be interesting to see if that's the case. I was just watching a review of the 11-20 this morning and the flaring was indeed pretty bad.

I ended up testing the flaring a little bit in my view video. It's significant, you're right, especially on my f11 shots. Having said that, I didn't mind the way it looks too much, subjectively speaking.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qMmVo8hj0t--cZs.html

Hey thanks for watching! Και εγώ Έλληνας είμαι... Οι γονείς μου από την Εύβοια και το Λεωνίδιο

@@andreas1701d Χαιρομαι πολυ τα βιντεο σου!Απορω πως δεν τα ειχα βρει μεχρι τωρα!!Μπραβο σου!Εγω καταγωγη απο καλαβρυτα! ;)

Haha thanks for watching! What good is making YT vids if you can't laugh at them (and yourself) a little 😂

Hey thanks for watching! I'm glad you found it useful.

Hey thanks for watching!

Hey thanks for watching!

Hey thanks very much for watching! For my propose, I don't mind the extra size + weight because with the Tamron replacing both the Sigma and Sony, it allows me to carry less overall gear and weight. On the one hand, your 35 + the 18-135 are super small and super light. They're also less expensive in case something happens to them. On the other hand, I'm not sure how practical changing lenses would be with kids involved. The time it'll take could result in more missed shot opportunities. That's where I think trading the extra size + weight of the Tamron for the convenience of one lens would be beneficial. Losing that 65mm of reach shouldn't matter too much if most photos are of kids + landscapes. After all, what good are lenses and cameras if you miss the shots you'd like to get while fiddling with gear 😉

Almost forgot your second question! Given they both have stabilization built in, I'd say they're very comparable for video. It'll come down to whether or not you plan to shoot in low light (Tamron) or need the extra reach (Sony). One difference to note on my copies: the Tamron zoom and focus rings are ever so slightly smoother; maybe 5% or so.

@@andreas1701dHey Andreas, thanks for your practical reply. Totally get your point about swapping lenses. I guess in my mind I would bring either lens out, probably not both - 35 on a typical day (i do bring my 6400 around quite abit), and perhaps the 18-135 when there might be more happening. I just still can't seem to see myself dealing too well with the weight/size of the 17-70 setup though (slung around my neck, holding it with one hand while catching a kid from falling over with another). haha

@@atrattt7370 I do agree it's definitely not a setup you want around your neck for long periods. It's much more usable in the context of being in a sling, belt clip or capture clip of some kind. If you're only bringing one lens at a time, the 18-135 is definitely easier to handle.

Had the sigma 18-50 existed at the time I made this video, it probably would have been my #1 choice. The size, quality and price just can't be beat.

Hi thanks for watching and the kind words! Your usecase isn't so different from mine. 1, you'll notice vignetting on both, but nothing in-camera or Lightroom corrections can't easily fix. 2, Bokeh is more easily achieved using a wider variety of focal lengths on the Tamron for sure, although at 135mm it's very pleasing on the Sony. 3, shooting in the forest isn't always super bright depending on the tree density. For that reason, the f2.8 will allow you to shoot a faster shutter speed, lower iso or both. That's been a big benefit for me. 4, the Sony is definitely lighter, but they're both lighter than a full-time 24-105. As mentioned in the video, the peak design clip helps a great deal here. In the end, I haven't missed the extra reach of the Sony, and have really made use of the things the Tamron can do that the Sony simply cannot. Having said that, if you have an a6500 or a6600, I highly recommend looking at the Sony 16-55 instead of the Tamron. It's razor sharp corner to corner, is 30g lighter than the Tamron as well as a few cm shorter. You lose 15mm at the long end, but the difference between 16 and 17 is noticeable for landscapes. Hope this helps!

Many thanks for your response! Yes, it definitely helps! Actually I'm now on the market for both an aps-c camera and a lens. I was thinking of taking sony a6400 - 400 grams vs 500 grams of 6600 :). A bit cheaper as well. Tamron 17-70 was my natural choice, due to having IS but I was impressed by the Sony 18-135 performance in your review and started to rethink the concept :). Have you tried the Tamron for some close up shots - e.g. flowers with blurry backgrounds at 70 mm. Some reviewers say the bokeh is nervous but it seems not so bad. Any particular impressions?

@@tzvetanzlatanov6349 around the 18:25 mark you'll see my comparison of what you're talking about, though all the photos are at f8.0. I'll try them both out wide open and get back to you about the bokeh. As for which camera to buy, it really comes down to budget. If you have the money, a6600 + Sony 16-55 is an extremely powerful combination. If you want to save a little, a6400 is 95% of the a6600 for several hundred dollars and 100g less. Overall, the a6400 with the Tamron will be lighter by about 70g than the a6600 combo, but you probably won't notice that difference in real world use. It all comes down to budget in the end. Either way you'll get fantastic image quality. You could always look for a used/open box a6600. Saw one on Amazon recently for about $400 (Canadian) dollars less than brand new.

@@tzvetanzlatanov6349 this website helped me quite a bit to compare sizes. Here, I've set up an a6400 + Tamron 17-70, a6400 + 18-135 and a6600 + Sony 16-55 camerasize.com/compact/#831.847,809.955,809.702,ha,t

@@andreas1701d Sony a6600 and 16-55 combo looks more balanced in size, indeed. But cumulative price is a bit on the steep site. Would very much appreciate your efforts to play a bit more with the bokeh of the Tamron.

Hey thanks for watching! Glad I could help! If you have any questions let me know.

What did you end up getting? Currently debating between buying the 18-135 mm + 56mm 1.4 vs tamron 17-70, for a travel set up.

Keep in mind it's not simply a comparison of which lens better; it's with a specific use ass in mind (ie hiking) And in that regard, I think the most important takeaway independent of that is the 18-135 is a highly underrated lens. It's sharp, has great reach and for what it is, it's super small + lightweight.

It's a really unique lens (the Tamron)... it's the only e-mount lens APSC or Full Frame that combines all 3 key features: the stabilization, the f2.8 and the 25-105 equivalent focal range. There's really no other lens like it;

Hey thanks for watching! To be honest if I were to choose a hiking lens for Sony APSC today, my contenders would be pretty different. In one corner, I'd have the Tamron 18-300. It's a bit big, but its range and versatility is unmatched and it's sharp enough for most people. Alternatively, you could also look at the full frame Tamron 28-200 which would give you the option to shoot at f2.8 between 28-35mm, but you'd lose quite a fair bit on the wide end. In the other corner, the Sigma 18-50 2.8 provides all the performance of the Tamron 17-70 in this video in a super tiny, less expensive package. So here's the thing: if you shoot often in lower light or like to use shallow depth of field but still want reach, your best bet is probably to buy the 18-300 and supplement it with a fast prime like the Sigma 30 1.4 or 56 1.4. If one lens did it all, we'd all own it 😉

Es tut mir leid, dass ich kein Deutsch spreche, deshalb verwende ich Google Translate. Danke fürs Zuschauen! Ich habe festgestellt, dass der Unterschied in der Bildqualität in meinem Fall nicht riesig ist, aber ich habe von Abweichungen zwischen Objektivkopien gehört, also war meine Sony vielleicht einfach eine gute. Lass mich wissen, wie gut Google mit der Übersetzung abgeschnitten hat ;-)

@@andreas1701d It was perfectly fine ;-)

Hey thanks for watching! Street, portrait and painting vids.... If I were you I'd look at either the sigma 30mm f1.4 or Sony 35mm F1.8, depending if you need the OSS or not. Both are less expensive and much smaller than the Tamron and super sharp! Plus with videos like this, you won't need the zoom. I love the 16 1.4, but I feel like it would be too close to your canvas (or whatever you're painting) and it's not an ideal focal length for portraits and street. The Tamron is good at everything, yes. It'll come down to your budget and if you're ok with switching lenses (during street photography for example). One last note on the Tamron, it does look more intimidating to passers-by than say a Sony 35 if that matters to you.

@@andreas1701d thx so much for your quick and kind answer.. The switching is the problem expecially on mountain.. But from your review for a landscape photographer didn't see a lot difference with 16 70 and my 18 135..while my 16 1.4 it's really super sharp compare with it.. But you know when you hiking you bring a lots stuff with y.. Less is always more😅💪💪

Hey thanks for watching! Glad I could help.

Thanks for watching! I'm glad you're enjoying the Tamron, so am I. We have the exact same lenses, except I ended up selling my 18-135 (I just love the Sigma too much to part with it). Let me know how it works on a gimbal!

@@andreas1701d Have you done much hiking with the Tamron? Adjusted to the weight? That's probably the only reason I'd still keep my Sony 18-135mm.

@@troyjones4751 I've used it a little bit yea. I use a peak design clip on my backpack strap so I don't feel the difference as much as I thought I would. As I mentioned in the video, it's less overall weight vs the Sony + Sigma 16 while allowing for lower ISOs and shallower depth of field than the Sony (albeit with less reach). I haven't really missed the Sony, if I'm honest, but each use case is different.

@@andreas1701d Thanks for the quick reply Andreas. That's good to know re the weight of the Tamron when hiking. I've got the Peak design clip too. Will see how much I use the Sony 18-135mm from now on.

Hey thanks for watching! It really depends on the usecase. The 50mm is a little redundant with the Tamron as there is not a huge difference in low light, and the Tamron is WAY sharper at 50mm. If you're gonna pair the 50 with something, the 18-135 makes more sense there. If you're more into shooting wildlife like birds and such, I'd say go 18-135 + something like the Sony 35/sigma trio for low light. I'd personally skip the Sony 50 at this point; there are Sony better options. If not, then the Tamron is a great all-arounder.

@@andreas1701d Thanks a lot. Also one question. Is there any rolling shutter on 1080p? I have heard its only on 4k so just want to confirm.

@@justpixelating I can't speak on the a6600 because I never owned it, but I don't expect it to be different from the a6400. I never had any rolling shutter issues at 1080.

Went with the Tamron, quality is excellent!

Hey thanks for watching! If you often shoot in less than ideal lighting conditions and/or do portrait work, the Tamron will be a significant upgrade. Sharpness-wise, you'll see improvement for sure but it won't be as dramatic. The 18-105 is a touch below the 18-135 so this comparison should be a good guide. Overall, it's hard to go wrong with the Tamron. Is one of just two pro zooms on the market for apsc and it's at a great price.

@@andreas1701d thank you

Hey thanks for watching! I can confirm the Tamron is a little bit more contrasty. That, in combination with some vignetting and shifts in the sun between shots probably explains what you're seeing in the darker areas. I can confirm however the level of detail isn't lost, just darker is all, so dynamic range isn't necessarily affected.

Hey thanks for watching! Glad it helped 👍

Hey thanks for watching! White balance was set to auto for everything.

Not quite... I believe the front leg of the tripod slid down a little bit (meaning the leg lock loosened). As I said, it was a cheap, Amazon basics $20 tripod I was using... It's usually enough to hold an a6x00 camera and lens but the Tamron is one of the largest non-telephoto lenses.

@@andreas1701d from the look of the camera angle it doesn't look like it dipped tho. Strange

Hey thanks for watching! Here's my take... If you buy the Tamron, you will not be disappointed unless size is the single most important factor for you. It's really the only "compromise". No other emount lens, full frame or APSC, has the combination of this zoom range, constant f2.8 and optical stabilization. It's a terrific lens at a great price. Now, if size is your biggest priority, or if you absolutely know you need the extra zoom range, what this comparison illustrates is that you don't lose much in image quality by going for the Sony in decent light. Having said that, the compromise here is the low-light performance. Cropping the Tamron at 70mm to simulate the 135mm field of view is less destructive to the image than making an f4.5 image brighter in post. Hope this helped a little, and good luck!

@@andreas1701d Thanks soo Much for the additional input! It's super helpful!! Low light and background blur are priorities for me so your input is great!

It depends what your priorities are. If you prioritize size & weight + zoom range, the 18-135 will be better. If you want a better low light lens, the Tamron is better. They're both sharp and I wouldn't say the difference in sharpness is a deciding factor.

@@andreas1701d Thank you for you response. In term of travel?

@@maisamalani1 personally, I always go for the smaller & lighter option.

I feel like they kind of trade blows depending on the focal length and aperture. The major takeaway for me looking back is the Tamron didn't offer enough to pay the size & weight penalty.

@@andreas1701d Agreed....

That sounds awful! I'm sorry to hear... Where are you ordering from?

@@andreas1701d lol yes luck isn’t on my side lately and that’s only one story . I’ve bought lots of camera gear over the years with no problems guess my luck took a dive . Hopefully get to try my 6600 soon 😁

Hey thanks for watching! Yes the Tamron is indeed more versatile and was my choice in the end... However the 18-135 was significantly smaller and lighter. That matters a great deal for someone who's hiking up a mountain for example, or for someone who prioritizes the extra reach. I definitely missed the extra 65mm and felt the extra weight myself, but was willing to make those sacrifices for my use. I can definitely see the case for both in certain scenarios.

@@andreas1701d the extra 65mm are definitely the main selling point for me, maybe the weight because of sparing the 70-180 tamron 😂. But in general with such a lens you only want to take one with you and not multiple. I Someone really has a problem with 500 grams when hiking, then in this case he/she should especially take the tamron on the hike, because of the fitness aspect 😂

@@andreas1701d oh I looked it up, it is less than 200 grams difference. This is not even the weight of a smartphone.

@@flol3266 Of course in a bag, 200g is mostly insignificant... I use a capture clip to hold my camera when hiking and the extra 200g is definitely noticeable (when the camera is clipped), as is the extra length. So usage/preference makes a difference... Again, I still chose the Tamron in the end, but I was surprised by how close they were optically speaking so I understand *why* someone would choose the Sony instead if it fits their preferences.

@@andreas1701d I see where this is going. Never thought about such clip usage and the weight. Always use a top load with strap over the shoulder which fits everything and is quite comfortable. What do you think about the 18-105 f4? Shouldn’t that lense have similar attributes with f4 all over the range. I heard that it should beat the 18-135.

Hey thanks for watching! I definitely could have explained that better. Basically I was using a crappy tripod with a leg clip that didn't clip super tightly, and the extra weight of the Tamron pushed it downward a little. Since it was the leg facing the scene, the camera tilted slightly forward.