Tamron 17-50mm f/4.0 FE for UW use?

[Architeuthis]

This lens is available for many weeks and I am curious, whether someone is using/testing this lens for Sony FF cameras. Would be interested to know how this lens performs generally UW and which dome size is required to get decent results...

My background is that I have Sony A7R5 and use both Sony 20-70mm and Tamron 17-28mm behind Zen DP170. Both lenses perform very well behind this dome, but the zoom range of the Tamron 17-28mm is limited and 17-50mm would be much better with respect to zoom range...

 

 

Wolfgang

Edited December 15, 2023 by Architeuthis

[Phil Rudin]

I already own the 17-50mm along with the other lenses you have listed above. I intend to use the lens with the Marelux 180mm dome port but have not yet worked out the extension length. With the 17-28mm I use 60mm extension and I suspect I will need about 15mm more for the 17-50mm. I also shoot the excellent Sigma 17mm F/4 with the Marelux 180mm port and 20mm extension. I will post results when I am able to do a full test of ports and extensions. Shooting with Sony A1 and A7R V.

[Guest]

On 12/15/2023 at 10:50 AM, Architeuthis said:

This lens is available for many weeks and I am curious, whether someone is using/testing this lens for Sony FF cameras. Would be interested to know how this lens performs generally UW and which dome size is required to get decent results...

My background is that I have Sony A7R5 and use both Sony 20-70mm and Tamron 17-28mm behind Zen DP170. Both lenses perform very well behind this dome, but the zoom range of the Tamron 17-28mm is limited and 17-50mm would be much better with respect to zoom range...

 

 

Wolfgang

17mm won't require more than 180mm Nauticam dome. How it will work depends on the lens construction. I have not examined this one as I now have the 16-35 GM2

[Guest]

Reviews indicate this lens is pretty soft on the corners at any aperture

[Guest]

https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1184-tamron1750f4

[Phil Rudin]

The Tamron 17-50mm does appear softer in the corners by optical limits and others standards v. the Tamron 17-28mm and it is also an F/4 v. F/2.8.

 

Also by Optical Limits standards the Sony FE PZ. 16-35mm F/4 is better than both of Tamron lenses and if you are using the Nauticam zoom gear the price difference is about $60.00US considering you don't need a zoom gear for the PZ 16-35mm.

 

The PZ 16-35mm F/4 is smaller than the 17-28mm especially without a zoom gear. It also will work in a 180mm dome although Nauticam has its best performance in a 250mm dome.

 

At Camera Labs the Sigma 17mm F/4 is hands down the best preforming lens at 17mm, the PZ 16-35 and Sony 20-70 F/4 are second and Tamron 17-28 F/2.8 is third. It all depends on whos reviews you are reading, if they have reviewed all the lenses you want to compare and did they use the same parameters when evaluating each lens.

 

When you add in port size and design, along with extension lengths across all manufactures the small differences in land lens reviews may not make much difference in the final image as you have pointed out regarding the excellent Sony FE 16-35mm F/2.8 II GM.   

 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Phil Rudin said:

The Tamron 17-50mm does appear softer in the corners by optical limits and others standards v. the Tamron 17-28mm and it is also an F/4 v. F/2.8.

 

Also by Optical Limits standards the Sony FE PZ. 16-35mm F/4 is better than both of Tamron lenses and if you are using the Nauticam zoom gear the price difference is about $60.00US considering you don't need a zoom gear for the PZ 16-35mm.

 

The PZ 16-35mm F/4 is smaller than the 17-28mm especially without a zoom gear. It also will work in a 180mm dome although Nauticam has its best performance in a 250mm dome.

 

At Camera Labs the Sigma 17mm F/4 is hands down the best preforming lens at 17mm, the PZ 16-35 and Sony 20-70 F/4 are second and Tamron 17-28 F/2.8 is third. It all depends on whos reviews you are reading, if they have reviewed all the lenses you want to compare and did they use the same parameters when evaluating each lens.

 

When you add in port size and design, along with extension lengths across all manufactures the small differences in land lens reviews may not make much difference in the final image as you have pointed out regarding the excellent Sony FE 16-35mm F/2.8 II GM.   

 

The sigma is a very small lens and in most case lenses like that underwater are used like primes

I have looked at the specifications my guess is that a 30mm extension ring and the N100 180mm dome are the best combination for this lens

 

With regards to the power zoom lens they focus far and their body is small therefore do not lend themselves to smaller domes hence Nauticam suggestion for the largest port. I do not find that product line of any interest so I have not looked into it but my informed guess is that underwater this lens will do worse than both the 16-35GM2 and the Tamron in the 180mm wide angle port simply because the other two lenses focus closer