Tamron 17-28 Vs 28-75: Best Lens Showdown!

Introduction

Hey friends, I’ve been getting tons of questions about two lenses I’ve been using on my Sony E-mount camera: the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2. Let’s dive into a Tamron 17-28 vs 28-75 comparison to help you figure out which one fits your style. Picture us hanging out, sipping coffee, as I share my experiences with these lenses. They’re both fantastic, but they shine in different scenarios.

These lenses are designed for full-frame Sony mirrorless cameras, boasting a constant f/2.8 aperture for low-light shooting and beautiful bokeh. They’re lightweight, affordable, and deliver quality that rivals pricier options like Sony’s G Master series. Whether you’re chasing wide vistas or intimate portraits, I’ll break down what each lens offers.

Tamron 17-28 Vs 28-75 Comparison

Features Overview

Let’s start with what makes these lenses special. Both are impressively light, which is a lifesaver for long shoots or travel. The 17-28mm weighs just 420g, feeling almost weightless in my bag. The 28-75mm, at 495g, is slightly heavier but still easy to carry all day.

The constant f/2.8 aperture on both ensures consistent performance across their zoom ranges. This is huge for low-light conditions or when you want that creamy background blur. Tamron’s reputation for high-quality optics at a reasonable cost makes these lenses a fantastic value compared to Sony’s premium offerings.

Detailed Comparison

Let’s break down how these lenses perform in key areas, based on my hands-on experience and insights from other photographers.

Optical Performance

Both lenses deliver excellent image quality, but their strengths vary depending on what you’re shooting.

• Sharpness: The 17-28mm is a sharpness beast, especially at 17mm, where it delivers edge-to-edge clarity that’s perfect for landscapes. At 28mm, it’s still very sharp, though there’s a slight dip in center sharpness. MTF tests from LensRentals confirm it’s “ridiculously sharp” at 17mm, with minor astigmatism and lateral chromatic aberration (LCA) that fades by 28mm. The 28-75mm is superb at 28mm and 55mm, with strong center sharpness and good off-center performance. At 75mm, it’s more average—acceptable but not as stunning. If you prioritize edge-to-edge sharpness for wide shots, the 17-28mm has the edge.
• Bokeh: The 28-75mm shines for bokeh, especially at 75mm, where it creates a creamy, portrait-friendly blur that makes subjects pop. The 17-28mm produces smooth bokeh at wide angles, great for environmental portraits or emphasizing a subject within a broader scene. If portraits are your thing, the 28-75mm’s bokeh is a clear winner.
• Distortion: At 28mm, the 17-28mm shows mild pincushion distortion, while the 28-75mm has more pronounced barrel distortion, as noted by Dustin Abbott. Both can be corrected in post, but it’s something to consider for architectural photography or straight lines.
• Color Rendition: The 17-28mm leans slightly more neutral at 28mm, while the 28-75mm has a subtle warm tone. This minor difference might influence your choice depending on your preferred aesthetic—neutral for landscapes or warm for portraits.
• Chromatic Aberration: Both lenses control chromatic aberration well, but the 28-75mm has a slight edge in correction, especially at longer focal lengths. The 17-28mm shows minor LCA at 17mm, which is typical for wide-angle lenses.

Build Quality & Handling

Both lenses feel solid yet lightweight, using high-grade plastic with metallic mounts. They’re weather-sealed, so I’ve shot in light rain and dusty conditions without worry. The 17-28mm is more compact at 99mm long, making it a breeze to carry for travel or street photography. The 28-75mm, at 117.6mm, feels more substantial but balances well on Sony bodies like the a7 III or a7R IV.

The 17-28mm’s zoom ring is a bit stiff, which I like for precise control but might not suit everyone. The 28-75mm’s zoom and focus rings are smoother, making quick adjustments a breeze during fast-paced shoots. Both lenses have a 67mm filter thread, but the 17-28mm’s fluorine coating on the front element helps repel water and dust, adding extra durability.

Focusing Capabilities

Autofocus performance is a strong suit for both lenses, but they cater to different needs.

• Autofocus Speed: The 17-28mm’s RXD motor is fast and silent, ideal for video or capturing wide-angle action like waves crashing or city scenes. The 28-75mm’s VXD motor is even snappier, locking focus quickly for portraits or moving subjects like street performers. If you shoot fast-paced action, the 28-75mm’s autofocus gives it a slight edge.
• Manual Focus: Manual focus is smooth on both, but the 28-75mm’s focus ring feels more precise, which I appreciate for fine-tuning portrait shots. For landscapes, where manual focus is less critical, the 17-28mm is still reliable.
• Low-Light Focus: Both lenses excel in low light, with minimal hunting. I’ve shot evening markets and dimly lit events with confidence, knowing focus will stay accurate thanks to their advanced autofocus systems.

Versatility & Use Cases

Here’s where the lenses really show their personalities, based on how I’ve used them and what other photographers say.

• Landscapes & Architecture: The 17-28mm is my go-to for landscapes and architecture. Its 17mm end captures vast scenes like mountain ranges or cityscapes with stunning clarity. It’s also fantastic for astrophotography, grabbing wide swaths of the night sky. On forums like DPReview, landscape photographers often recommend the 17-28mm for its wide-angle capabilities.
• Portraits & Street Photography: The 28-75mm is a star for portraits and street photography. Its 28-75mm range lets me shoot candid street shots or tight headshots without switching lenses. At 75mm, it delivers a flattering perspective with gorgeous bokeh, perfect for isolating subjects in busy environments.
• Travel & Everyday Use: For travel, the 17-28mm’s light weight and compact size make it a no-brainer for capturing sweeping vistas or tight interiors like cozy cafes. The 28-75mm, though slightly heavier, is my daily driver for its flexibility, covering everything from street scenes to detailed close-ups.
• Low-Light Performance: Both lenses handle low light like champs, thanks to their f/2.8 aperture. I’ve shot evening markets and indoor events, keeping ISO low and shutter speeds fast, which is a huge plus for handheld shooting.
• Wildlife & Safaris: Some photographers on DPReview note that neither lens is ideal for wildlife, where longer focal lengths (200mm or more) are preferred. For example, if you’re planning a safari, you might need to rent a telephoto lens like the Sony 200-600mm instead.

Additional Observations

Here are a few extra points to consider:

• Vignetting: The 17-28mm shows some vignetting at f/2.8, which can add character to wide shots but is easily corrected in post. The 28-75mm has less vignetting, making it cleaner straight out of the camera.
• Filter Compatibility: Both lenses accept 67mm filters, but with the 17-28mm, you might see slight vignetting at 17mm with certain filters, so test them first. The 17-28mm’s compatibility with systems like the NiSi 75mm M1 filter system is a bonus for landscape shooters.
• Sample Variation: MTF tests suggest the 28-75mm can have sample variation at 75mm, meaning some copies might perform slightly better or worse. The 17-28mm seems more consistent across its range.
• Color and Contrast: The 28-75mm has slightly better contrast at 28mm, which can make images pop more, especially for street photography. The 17-28mm’s neutral color rendition is great for landscapes where accurate colors matter.

User Experiences and Considerations

I’ve scoured forums like DPReview to see what other photographers think, and their insights add some real-world context. Many landscape photographers lean toward the 17-28mm for its wider angle, which is perfect for expansive scenes. One user noted that if you already own a kit lens covering the 28-75mm range, the 17-28mm might offer more unique capabilities, especially for landscapes or astrophotography.

For versatility, the 28-75mm gets a lot of love, particularly for portraits and street photography. However, some users point out that its 75mm end isn’t long enough for wildlife or safaris, where a telephoto lens is better suited. One photographer suggested renting a lens like the Sony 200-600mm for such trips, as neither Tamron lens is ideal for distant subjects.

Another consideration is whether you already have a kit lens. If you do, upgrading to the 28-75mm might not feel like a huge leap unless you need the faster f/2.8 aperture. The 17-28mm, on the other hand, provides a focal range that most kit lenses don’t cover, making it a more distinct addition to your kit.

Some photographers recommend renting these lenses before buying, especially if you’re unsure about your needs. This is a great way to test them in real-world scenarios, like a travel shoot or a specific project, without committing to a purchase.

Comparison Table

Here’s a detailed side-by-side comparison to make things clearer:

Feature	Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD	Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2
Focal Length	17-28mm	28-75mm
Weight	420g	495g
Autofocus Motor	RXD	VXD
Minimum Focus Distance	0.19m (7.5″) at 17mm, 0.26m (10.2″) at 28mm	0.18m (7.1″)
Best For	Landscapes, Architecture, Astrophotography	Portraits, Street, Versatile Use
Sharpness	Excellent, especially at 17mm	Very sharp at 28mm and 55mm; average at 75mm
Bokeh	Smooth at wide angles	Creamier at telephoto end
Distortion	Mild pincushion at 28mm	Pronounced barrel at 28mm
Color Rendition	Slightly more neutral	Ever so slightly warm
Weather Sealing	Yes	Yes
Fluorine Coating	Yes	Not specified
Filter Thread	67mm	67mm

Decision-Making: Tamron 17-28 vs 28-75

Choosing between these lenses comes down to your photography style and needs. If you’re passionate about landscapes, architecture, or astrophotography, the 17-28mm is likely the better choice. Its wide angle captures expansive scenes with stunning clarity, and its compact size makes it a joy to carry. The sharpness and minimal distortion make it a favorite for wide-angle enthusiasts.

If you need a versatile lens for portraits, street photography, or travel, the 28-75mm is probably the way to go. Its broader focal range covers a variety of scenarios, and the creamy bokeh at 75mm is perfect for isolating subjects. The VXD autofocus is a bonus for fast-moving subjects, making it a great all-rounder.

Consider your existing gear, too. If you already have a kit lens covering the 28-75mm range, the 17-28mm might add more unique capabilities to your kit. Conversely, if you lack a fast aperture lens in the standard zoom range, the 28-75mm could be a significant upgrade.

I own both lenses because they complement each other perfectly, covering a wide range of focal lengths from 17mm to 75mm. If I had to pick one, I’d lean toward the 28-75mm for its versatility, but the Tamron 17-28 vs 28-75 debate really depends on what you shoot most. If you’re torn, renting both lenses for a test run is a smart move, as suggested by DPReview users.

Final Thoughts

The Tamron 17-28mm and 28-75mm are both stellar additions to any Sony E-mount kit. Whether you’re chasing wide vistas or capturing intimate portraits, these lenses deliver exceptional quality and value. Pick the one that aligns with your vision, or grab both for ultimate flexibility. Happy shooting!

FAQ

1. Which lens is better for video shooting?
   Both are great for video, with fast, quiet autofocus. The 28-75mm’s VXD motor is slightly faster, making it ideal for tracking moving subjects in video.
2. Can these lenses be used on APS-C cameras?
   Yes, they work on APS-C Sony cameras, but the focal length is multiplied by 1.5x (17-28mm becomes 25.5-42mm; 28-75mm becomes 42-112.5mm).
3. Are there significant build quality differences?
   Both are weather-sealed and durable, with the 17-28mm being slightly smaller and lighter, which is great for portability.
4. How do they compare to Sony’s G Master lenses?
   Sony’s G Master lenses, like the 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, may offer slightly better optical performance, but Tamron’s lenses provide comparable quality at a lower cost.
5. Is the 28-75mm worth upgrading from a kit lens?
   If you need a faster f/2.8 aperture and better image quality, yes. If you already have a decent kit lens, the 17-28mm might offer more unique capabilities.
6. Are these lenses good for astrophotography?
   The 17-28mm is excellent for astrophotography due to its wide angle and sharpness, perfect for capturing starscapes and the Milky Way.
7. Can I use filters with these lenses?
   Both accept 67mm filters, but test for vignetting with the 17-28mm at 17mm, as some filters may cause issues.
8. How do they perform in low light?
   The f/2.8 aperture on both lenses ensures excellent low-light performance, allowing fast shutter speeds and shallow depth of field.
9. Are these lenses suitable for wildlife photography?
   Neither is ideal for wildlife, where longer focal lengths (200mm or more) are preferred. Consider renting a telephoto lens for such shoots.
10. Should I rent these lenses before buying?
    Renting is a great idea to test them in your specific shooting scenarios, especially if you’re unsure about your needs.