Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD Full Review

Since we started reviewing lenses on our blog, we have covered several wide-angle lenses, including Sony’s excellent 20mm f/1.8 wide-angle and Tamron’s 20mm and 24mm f/2.8 primes, but we had not reviewed a zoom lens yet. The Tamron 17-28mm Di III RXD f/2.8 is probably one of the most interesting ultra-wide-angle zooms available, with a bright maximum aperture, similar to Tamron’s prime lenses, in a relatively light and compact body, and, above all, at a very reasonable price. Let’s see whether the image quality remains as interesting when the lens is mounted on an A7R IV or an A7 III, in other words, on 61MP and 24MP sensors. We have also written a complete guide to Sony mirrorless cameras (full-frame and APS-C), where you’ll find the main specifications and our opinion to help you choose the right camera.

Again, no test charts or brick walls unless they are really useful, and no graphs or lab-style figures like the ones you’ll find in other reviews. Here, the goal is mainly to see what this zoom lens can deliver in the field.

The images shown in this article come from RAW files processed in DxO PhotoLab 5 with standard color rendering, except for the images displayed in the gallery. As with the 20mm and 24mm f/2.8 reviews, this article is not sponsored by Tamron. I bought the lens in a store with my own money, at a price anyone could find in a regular shop.

If you want to know more, I invite you to visit our page listing all Sony FE lenses for full-frame cameras.

In June 2019, Tamron announced this versatile lens, the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8. The brand wanted to keep the 67mm filter diameter across its full-frame mirrorless zoom lineup, so it reduced the focal range in order to preserve a constant f/2.8 aperture. For DSLR cameras, Tamron had offered a much larger and heavier stabilized 15-30mm f/2.8 lens, as well as a slightly wider-ranging 17-35mm lens with a variable f/2.8-4 aperture. With an initial price of around €1,000, this lens was already a strong alternative to the Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, which cost about 2.5 times more, and to the stabilized Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f/4, which was nearly 50% more expensive. Since then, the lens has often been available for around €600 to €750 depending on the retailer, making it even more attractive. It is still not a small amount of money, of course, but it is a reasonable price for an ultra-wide-angle zoom lens with a constant f/2.8 aperture. To some extent, that relatively bright aperture can also help in low-light situations.

Although its range is more limited than a 16-35mm lens, it still gives full-frame users a very useful wide-angle range. On an APS-C sensor, however, it becomes much less relevant. Tamron’s 17-70mm f/2.8, released in a similar spirit and at a comparable price, is a little bulkier and heavier, but it covers a much broader focal range with the same aperture. This type of zoom lens is highly appreciated, especially for landscape and architecture photography. Here, thanks to its price positioning and physical characteristics, Tamron offers a great travel companion. Still, it is worth asking whether this zoom makes more sense than the brand’s two prime lenses we have already reviewed on the blog: the 20mm and 24mm f/2.8. The question of pairing the two primes instead of the 17-28mm, or the other way around, is a valid one.

Maximum aperture will not help you decide between these three lenses, as they all offer the same f/2.8 aperture, the same 67mm filter diameter, and the same RXD motor. Physical criteria are not enough to settle the debate either, since the 20mm and 24mm primes together are roughly the same weight and size in a bag as the zoom lens alone. Taken separately, however, the primes are more appealing: they are cheaper than the zoom and offer a 1:2 magnification ratio, which can be handy if you want to explore close-up or “macro-style” photography. The zoom lens keeps the advantage in terms of versatility, while the primes make more sense if you want one specific field of view and strong image quality at a reasonable price. In terms of pure image quality, the zoom lens does fall slightly behind.

The lens hood is also made of plastic. It does not feel especially reassuring in terms of durability, but on the plus side, it is very light. For comparison, the hoods on Sigma’s I Series Contemporary lenses flirt with 100g, which is almost a quarter of the weight of this 17-28mm! Tamron does not include a lens pouch either, unlike what it used to provide with some f/2.8 zoom lenses, even though the brand had already dropped it from its latest 17-35mm, 35-150mm, and 70-210mm DSLR lenses.

All things considered, focusing is fast in AF-S mode. It does not reach the speed of Sony GM lenses or the brand’s more recent 16-35mm f/4 G, but with this type of lens, a slightly slower autofocus is less of a problem, as it is mostly used for architecture or landscape photography. Accuracy, however, is not perfect, at least on my copy, and focus often shifts slightly behind the subject. This becomes particularly annoying when shooting close subjects. Because the depth of field is shallower at close range, even a small shift is easier to notice. For distant subjects, or if you use manual focus with focus peaking and magnification, this will no longer be much of an issue.

In AF-C mode, the lens’s slower focusing becomes more noticeable, since this mode is meant for tracking moving subjects. During reportage work, for example, 28mm can be useful for street photography, where good subject tracking can matter. Although the lens is compatible with Sony AF options such as Eye AF and Fast AF, the Tamron shows its limits a little more in these situations. Eye AF also requires you to be fairly close to your subject, as it struggles to detect an eye when the subject occupies only a small part of the frame. Once it locks on, however, you can move back a little, and it will hold focus more easily. In short, do not expect it to catch an eye on a distant subject, but once detected, it can track it reasonably well.

This Tamron uses an RXD autofocus motor that feels less well suited here, similar to the one found in the first version of the 28-75mm f/2.8. That lens has since been updated, most likely to improve AF performance, as the newer version uses the much faster VXD motor from the 70-180mm (I should know, I bought it myself!). Since then, Tamron has released the 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2, which brings the newer autofocus technology and broader range to this part of the lineup. For this type of lens, the need was probably less urgent than on a standard zoom, but the update now exists.

Let’s talk about sharpness! The 17-28mm delivers good image quality, although it does not reach the level of a good prime lens or high-end zooms such as the Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 GM or the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN Art. With this type of lens, we are generally less interested in bokeh than in detail and, above all, overall image homogeneity. To get that homogeneity, it is better to stop down a little, especially at the longer focal lengths. These weaknesses become more visible as the image is enlarged, so the lens is less suited to the A7R IV’s 60MP sensor than to the A7 IV’s 33MP sensor, even though the same behavior can be seen on both. The lens performs best between f/4 and f/5.6 at the shortest focal lengths, and between f/5.6 and f/8 at the longest.

Here is a sharpness test on the A7R IV at 17mm and f/2.8, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11, with a 100% crop from the center of our test image.

And here is the same test at the far corner of the image (bottom right), still with the A7R IV at 17mm and f/2.8, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11. This is also a 100% crop.

I’m not showing the same images taken with my A7 IV, because as mentioned earlier, the results are essentially identical, even if the differences are less obvious on a lower-resolution sensor.

Bokeh is not usually what we look for in a wide-angle lens, but if you get close enough to your subject, you can still create a nice background blur. The Tamron 17-28mm produces pleasant bokeh for a lens of this type, without looking too harsh. The bokeh rings, however, are not especially well defined. If you really enjoy blurry backgrounds, a bright prime lens will clearly do better.

If you want to see more images shot with this lens, have a look at this mini gallery! Have a look

Distortion is strong at the shortest focal lengths and reverses as you zoom in.

Here is the distortion at 17mm.

And at 28mm…

Vignetting is quite pronounced at full aperture, especially at the shortest focal lengths. It decreases as you stop down, but it does not disappear completely.

Here is an example of vignetting at 17mm and f/2.8, then at f/5.6, followed by the corrected version in software.

Chromatic aberrations are fairly light, but they can still appear in high-contrast scenes. Here is an example where aberrations are visible along the branches and leaf edges.

Flare is kept under control for the most part. I had a hard time finding much of it. Below are the few traces I found in a 100% crop, circled in red for clarity. They are barely visible in the original image, especially since they appear in front of a tree with a lot of green.

This is not the best lens for astrophotography. Coma is reasonably controlled, but the aperture is limited. In practice, it is also better to stop down one stop, which reduces its appeal even more. For this type of use, I would recommend a prime lens such as Sony’s 20mm f/1.8.

Sunstars are well defined at f/16, and they already look good at f/11. At smaller apertures, the rendering is obviously less pleasing.

Whether you shoot at 17mm or 28mm, at f/16, the sunstars are very similar and quite well defined, although better results are possible

Focus breathing is noticeable at short focusing distances across the focal range, but it decreases significantly from about 1m and beyond. It should only become annoying in video if you shift focus from a distant subject to a very close one.

With a budget of around €600 to €750, you will still struggle to find a better compromise than the Tamron 17-28mm. However, if you have a larger budget or prefer a prime lens, several options are worth considering:

• 18mm and 20mm prime lenses such as the Zeiss Batis, the Samyang 18mm f/2.8, Sony’s 20mm f/1.8 G, Sigma’s f/2 C, and Tamron’s f/2.8. I would not necessarily recommend the 18mm options, as the Samyang is fairly average and the Zeiss Batis is a bit expensive, but the 20mm lenses have a lot going for them. The Sony lens, reviewed here, delivers excellent quality at a price close to the 17-28mm while offering an f/1.8 aperture, which is more comfortable in low light, along with high-end build and features. The Sigma is also an excellent alternative, with a brighter aperture than the Tamron zoom, a price around €700, and a very high-end build. The Tamron prime, reviewed here, offers the same maximum aperture and similar image quality to the zoom, but at a much lower price,
• There are also many 24mm prime lenses to choose from, including Sony’s f/1.4 GM and Sony’s f/2.8 G, Samyang’s f/1.8 and f/2.8, Sigma’s f/2 and f/3.5 C, and Tamron’s f/2.8. Let’s skip Samyang’s f/2.8 and Sigma’s f/3.5, which I find the least interesting of the group. Sony’s f/1.4 GM is exceptional but quite expensive, while the f/2.8 G is very light and compact with advanced comfort features, but still a bit expensive given its maximum aperture. Samyang’s f/1.8 and Sigma’s f/2 C are both very interesting options: the former is lighter and cheaper, while the latter is slightly better and much better built. Tamron’s f/2.8, reviewed here, offers very strong image quality and a 1:2 magnification ratio for an almost bargain-level price of around €200,

• f/2.8 and f/4 zoom lenses are another option: Sony’s 12-24mm, 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, and 16-35mm f/4 G, Sigma’s 14-24mm f/2.8 Art and 16-28mm f/2.8 Contemporary, and Sony Zeiss’s older 16-35mm f/4 OSS. Let’s set aside the 12-24mm lenses, which are more specialized ultra-wide-angle tools, and Sony Zeiss’s somewhat outdated 16-35mm f/4. Sony’s 16-35mm f/2.8 GM is better than the Tamron, with high-end build and features, but at a very high price. Sigma’s 14-24mm is more affordable than Sony’s GM and offers excellent quality, but like the 12-24mm, it has a slightly more specialized ultra-wide range and is heavier. Sony’s 16-35mm f/4 G and Sigma’s 16-28mm f/2.8 Contemporary are, in my opinion, the closest alternatives to Tamron’s 17-28mm. Sony’s 16-35mm f/4 G is even lighter and more compact, covers a wider range, offers a more advanced build with extra features, especially for video, and has better AF, but it comes at a relatively high price, around €1,500. Sigma’s 16-28mm f/2.8 is probably the stronger alternative if you want to stay in the same spirit as the Tamron, as it offers better optical quality, better AF, and a similar price. It also adds a high-end build, a 16mm wide end, and an AF/MF switch on the barrel, which the Tamron lacks,
• For video, Sony’s 20mm and 24mm prime lenses, along with the 16-35mm f/4 zoom, are better suited thanks to their aperture rings, compatibility with the A7 IV’s focus breathing compensation, and faster AF,
• On Sony E-mount APS-C bodies such as the A6000 and A6600, this 17-28mm lens is compatible, but there is little point in choosing it, as more suitable APS-C options cover a wider range. It would make more sense to look at Sony’s 16-55mm f/2.8 G, Tamron’s 17-70mm f/2.8, or Sigma’s 18-50mm f/2.8, the latter being the cheaper option,
• Tamron has now effectively updated this part of its lineup with the 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2. It brings a wider 16mm focal length, a longer 30mm end, Tamron’s VXD autofocus motor, and the more recent G2 feature set. In other words, the 17-28mm remains a very interesting compact and affordable option, but if you are buying today and want the latest version of Tamron’s ultra-wide f/2.8 zoom concept, the 16-30mm G2 is now the lens to compare first.

In a nutshell, and in my opinion, Tamron’s 17-28mm lens still offers very good value for money, especially when you consider its maximum aperture, weight, and dimensions. It may not be the best choice if you need fast AF or advanced features such as stabilization, but in most situations, such as landscape or architecture photography, these will not be major drawbacks. In these uses, where we often shoot at medium apertures like f/5.6 or f/8, image quality will be very good. In more difficult conditions, the f/2.8 aperture can also help, even though quality drops a little wide open.

On the other hand, if you are looking for the best image quality or regular video use, it can make sense to spend more on Sony’s 16-35mm lens or Sigma’s 14-24mm. To be honest, even for occasional video, I decided to replace my 17-28mm with the newer Sony 16-35mm f/4 G. It is more expensive and more video-oriented, but it offers some very nice advantages for travel: it is lighter, more compact, has a wider focal range, and, as a nice bonus, a more responsive AF for street photography.

If you feel that the 17-28mm range is too narrow and that a prime lens would work just as well, which is ultimately what I concluded after buying my Tamron 20mm f/2.8, Sigma’s 20mm and 24mm f/2 C lenses are excellent choices at a price close to the 17-28mm. They offer a brighter maximum aperture, better construction, advanced features such as an aperture ring (unfortunately not de-clickable), and overall better image quality.

We’re just about at the end of this Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD review. I hope it helps you decide whether this lens is right for you. This type of lens, and this focal range, remains ideal if you want versatility and the ability to capture wide scenes.

In the meantime, as we usually say at the end of our reviews, if you enjoyed this article and want to support our work and the blog, you can buy this lens through the two links below. It helps us keep producing free, quality content and avoid advertising on the blog.

See you soon for another review,

Written by Sylvain PONS

I've been passionate about photography since 2010, learning as I went along. Today, I dedicate myself to guiding others in their choice of camera gear and sharing a variety of tips to improve their photography skills.

Despite our care, a mistake may have slipped into this article. If you find any, please don't hesitate to let us know so we can correct it as soon as possible and keep our information up-to-date!