I have owned heaps of Tamron lenses for my canon system and they are amazing value and extremely good with IQ. But with Fuji especially with the new XH2s body it only has 2 dial wheels so without an aperture ring on the lens, it’s basically a nightmare for me to be able to adjust my settings quickly as I will have to dive into the menus to change Aperture, it’s just not the way Fuji cameras are meant to be used and takes the whole experience away, I think Tamron missed the mark by omitting a simple Aperture.

@@eliaspap8708 Most Fuji cameras have two command dials that include a push function. You can assign aperture control to one of these command dials. It’s a different way of working, but some even prefer this way of aperture control. Esp. for video. In fact, Fuji’s new zoom lens (the 18-120, designed for the X-H2S) doesn’t have an aperture ring either, nor do the XC lenses and the Sigma lenses for Fuji X. I guess for Tamron it was too costly to change the design.

@@jacobh5817 that’s disappointing about the 18-120, I noticed that also. They actually removed the click/push function on the XH2s dial wheels so that’s not possible anymore. Not that I used it anyway with XT3 or 4, I’m sure it’s easy enough to assign some custom button and yes there is a work around, but it means more muscle memory and fiddling about just for one or two lenses, all 9 of my Fuji lenses have an aperture ring even the Vitrox 13mm, and the latest one I am looking to buy next for example the 150-600 seems to be there. I just prefer to stick to a certain formula regarding ergonomics as my shooting style is quick and very spontaneous. Especially when doing wildlife.

What about AF? who's better in your opinion?

@@enricospadavecchia4443 I don’t use Fuji (and the Tamron) on a regular basis. They’re here in the studio for whenever someone needs a camera during a workshop. For regular stills they’re both performing equally well in AF-S mode. The Tamron seems to hunt a bit less than the 16-55/2.8 in AF-C mode. At least on an X-H1 and an X-T3. I haven’t tried them for video work, but I’d guess there’s very little between the two lenses when it comes to AF.

Fuji only recently made their mount open to third party lens manufacturer.

​@@Re-InCarNation Yeah, but fuji 16-55 was released long ago.

I agree. Particularly as the more upmarket, longer focal length Fuji zooms are quite expensive. I have not closely followed the longer reach Fuji zooms, however I don't recall Fuji recently releasing new/upgraded longer focal length pro range type zooms. Yes, have clearly seen the many shorter ,much faster focusing more standard prime releases such as the numerous, newer designed 2.8 primes. It would be interesting to see the breakdown in the number of lens sales by focal length- would anticipate far more shorter focal lengths to be the top sellers. Fujifilm were bold, confident in owner brand loyalty, in opening up their system to Tamron, in particular, not sure what Sigma is doing?, quite unlike the negative approach of Canon and its heavy handed approach to keeping its RF mount closed. Seems very difficult to understand when the EF mount had been open for such a long time. Perhaps Canon believed it had clearly recouped the R and D + tooling costs of the EF system ?

Amen.

Looking for the 18-300 at the moment and I'm about to just go and buy one, but I love my 32mm Zeiss as my always on lens :(

@@BloodmoonPyke I am eyeing a 32mm Zeiss. It's not a common lens on the used market. Does it have that Zeiss magic? Not sure if it is a planar design.

@@mipmipmipmipmip It is a Planar design and it does have that Zeiss magic. Its sharper than the XF35, it has a wonderful and creamy bokeh and the design is pretty clean aswell! Only the missing weather sealing is a bit sad and the aperture ring turns a little too easy. Also well...the price sure is on a Zeiss level. But if you can find a used one in good condition, the crispy sharp pictures are really worth it! :)

@@BloodmoonPyke found a used one with warranty and claimed to be in a nice condition for 400 euros yesterday, and immediately pressed buy. For use cases involving weather sealing I use a Pentax K5, can just bring it to the beach without worrying. I currently have an X-A5 (Fuji enthusiasts will hate me for that!) where I'll use the Zeiss on. If I like it, maybe I should eventually get an X-Pro1 for it, use it like a poor man's Zeiss Ikon ZM.

Yeah same. Its pretty much the best wall around zoom. It's pretty small and light too.

Yep, I have the Contemporary version and it's my go-to lens for walking round. Love the lens.

Without wishing to be difficult, when you apply the cropping factor of 1.5, I find that the lens is just not wide enough for my purposes. The semi classic ff equivalent of 24-70 suits me perfectly. However, if the widest focal range suits others, then this is obviously a very good choice.

I was wondering that too. The question is whether that extra stop is worth it. I imagine the image quality is fairly comparable, but you do lose the aperture ring with the Tamron and lower build quality by the looks of it.

@@europlatus With that 5x zoom, the lens is clearly for travel, hiking, cities etc. From my experience F4 was enough most of the time. Obviously having one additional stop is an advantage. Whether it's a big advantage-depends on what one uses the zoom lens for. For evening photography, I just don't use anything darker than F2 and switch to fujicrons-small size F2 primes. So, F2.8 is nice to have in my usecase but not must have. Especially considering that Tamron at F2.8 has not impressive corners and improves at the same F4.

​@@MichaelBabich The 16-80 is smaller, lighter, better-built, has the aperture ring, and has weather resistance. Also, Fuji has the extra 1mm at the wide end (it does matter) and the extra 10mm at the long end (matters less but still). If you do landscape and often find that you're in situations you can't easily move around (on a mountain for example), you'd really appreciate the extra reach at both the wide end and the long end. Image quality wise, both are not the best but both are decent enough. The extra stop of light is definitely helpful in in-door situations, but I tend to switch to my f1.4 and f2 primes when I need more light or bokeh. Also worth noting is that the Fuji lens has a CIPA rated 6 stops of stabilization, and Tamron one doesn't get CIPA rated, but people say it's around 3-5 stops. If you can tolerate 1 more stop of shutter speed, then the Tamron lens being 1 stop brighter isn't going to make much of a difference. Unless you only want to own only 1 lens in the standard zoom range, I would go for the Fuji 16-80. Complement it with a 33mm f1.4 or 23mm f1.4 depending on your preference between the 35mm look and the 50mm look, then you should have 80% of common photography scenarios covered. Then add on a Fuji 70-300 telephoto zoom and the Viltrox 13mm f1.4 ultra-wide, you cover the rest of the common photography scenarios. What's even better is that all your lenses have aperture rings :P. If you do a lot of portraits, then get either the Fuji 56mm or the Viltrox 75mm f1.2, and you should have all that you need.

@@michaelmao6180 Excellent analysis and conclusion. I have the 16-80 f4 and 35 f1.4 and I concur: they are a perfect two-punch combo.I would only need the 70-300 and a fast 50mm to have all my bases covered, as you said. The Viltrox seems like a great recommendation.

Also a good addition for the E or X-Txx series (though the size us a bit off on those bodies, probably would need to add an external grip)

@@mipmipmipmipmip yeah def a grip on those.

dont forget the XH1 has IBS too

It's likely down to metering - If the camera isn't in manual mode or spot metering then it will adjust the exposure as the overall scene changes. Most of the Fujis are variable aperture zooms so if they ARE in manual, then exposure will change as the zoom (and therefore the aperture) changes.

Also looking for a viable zoom lens with a decent range. The new XF 18-120mm is parfocal but only f4. Might be worth actually testing it for myself though.

The 16-80mm is more expensive here then the Sony version of the Tamron. So i'd say the tamron is better then what Fujifilm has on offer for the money. The only issue for Tamron is that the bundled 18-55 F2.8-4 fills in the same role. And it doesn't have to be replaced for many shooters. Unlike the Sony kit zooms which are only useful as an book holder. So while an excellent addition and i welcome it fully i am not sure on potential sales.

I would say the choice is relatively easy, only if you REALLY need that 16mm then there might be a small case for the 16-80

@@ArteUltra1195 Extra 1mm wide, extra 10mm at the long end, plus an aperture ring and better build quality with the Fuji. The Tamron looks like a great lens, but not sure it's an easy choice, especially if they are similar prices.

@@europlatus The 10mm on the long-end is of little to no concern. One can always crop in and the tamron has more background separation at 70mm due to being F2.8. The build quality and 16mm at the wide-end still stands though

Hello, how do I select the speed priority with this tamron with the xt5? If it doesn't have an aperture ring, how do I leave it on automatic? Thank you so much

@spc3mky Everything is ok. It's just the aperture blades jittering when the light changes quickly. My 16-55 F2.8 and my 50mm F2 have the same thing, the 16-55 is a little more quiet, the 50mm F2 is even a little louder. So in short, it's nothing to worry about - I was only being paranoid. I'm using the lens for two months now and I'm really happy. Used it both for events for work and for travel. Pretty sure I'm going to sell my 16-55mm as soon as it becomes a viable option.

I don't think so. Canon R mount protocol is not shared with 3rd parties. Tamron & Sigma (or any 3rd len company) need time to reverse engineering. With current covid and global shortage of supply, it will time more time.

Especially how it cooperates with IBIS

@@mipmipmipmipmip exactly 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

It's sharper, lighter and cheaper while still maintaining weather sealing. Perhaps the best universal zoom for Fujifilm.

Same. One complaint I have with the 18-300, though would be hard to incorporate in a budget non-fixed aperture. Here it should have been included.

@Random Thought Which wasn't the point.

There is a model version tamron 17-70 f2.8 A2 vc rxd , whats the difference

About 800€ for the Tamron vs about 1k€ for the Fuji 16-55. It is not that big of a difference I think. You get a better build quality with a metallic body, an aperture ring and better image quality for the money. It lacks OIS though. In my opinion the Tamron had to be at around 600€ to be the value alternative. At this price point I would take the Fuji every day.

@@bl00me18 If chromatic aberrations at 17mm are indeed the consequence of bad in-camera correction and not an issue in RAW, then Tamron seems slightly superior to Fuji in terms of image quality. They seem to be equally sharp and contrasty in the middle and Tamron is slightly sharper and more contrasty in the corners on the whole overlapping range. Granted, Tamron is soft at 70mm F2.8 but that's kind of a bonus focal range if you are comparing it to Fuji. We would need a more thorough review to fully assess all aspects of image quality (including bokeh, color rendition and overall rendering), but for now I don't think that Fuji has an edge in image quality. Now with regards to pricing, that will depend a lot on individual markets. In US it's $400 difference, while in some other markets it can be much smaller (like 200 EUR you mentioned)

@@djstuc where did I mentioned Fuji 16-55 is not a good lens, especially in terms of optics? It was great lens in 2015 when it was released, and the fact that still performs good when compared to modern APS-C zooms (like this Tamron) is a testament how good that lens is. If I were to point some negatives about 16-55 2.8, it would never be in areas of optics and AF, but in terms of weight, size, price and lack of OIS.

@@djstuc if you don't consider Fuji 16-55 as large, heavy, and expensive, and if lack of OIS is a pro for you (rather than con), then Fuji 16-55 is the best choice for you. For others that don't share a similar opinion, it's a good thing that there is an alternative that's smaller/lighter/cheaper, and has greater reach, OIS, and close-focusing capabilities, coupled with great image quality.

@@djstuc if I'm not mistaken, Chris mentioned that fringing on 17mm is caused by bad in camera correction and should not be a problem for RAW shooter. It's not happening on Sony version so that might be the case culprit. But even for JPEG only shooter, cross shopping between Fuji 16-55 and Tamron 17-70, it's choosing between having sharper and more contrasty corners through the overlapping focal range (where Tamron is superior) or better control of purple fringing on wide end (where Fuji is superior). It's matter of personal preference, but I would always choose sharpness and contrast because fringing can be fixed easily in post, while lack of details and contrast cannot. I don't understand your comment about shooting in the rain and image quality. Tamron 17-70 F2.8 is weather sealed lens, but even if it's not that does not have anything to do with image quality. Are you implying that lenses that lack weather sealing have poor image quality?

You got what you wished for.

not.

@@muttishelfer9122 tag me another apsc lens for x mount for that price with image stabilization, 😀 xD It must be a zoom lens similar to 24-70 (35mm) I'm waiting...

The new 18-120mm is probably a direct upgrade in every way though. Internal zooming, same aperture and image quality, and doesn't spaz out when zooming in video

@@Vinterloft It still does spaz when zooming. Can't remember which reviewer, but exposure stepping is still a thing in 2022, weird.

@@professionalpotato4764 It is supposed to be parfocal and has a constant aperture

@@swaggyeggs Lenses of this size and design are not parfocal. The autofocus just tries to hold focus. Also, aperture diameter = focal length / fstop. So the iris has to change even at f2.8 while zooming. 17mm (6mm) vs 70mm(25mm). Fuji doesnt do it seamlessly.

@@professionalpotato4764 I was talking about the 18-120mm.