[Klaus]

https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaf...mron1750f4

Hmmmh

[Rover]

Not the best thing since sliced bread of course, but not exactly bad. The center resolution isn't up there with the very best of them but VG should still mean decent practical quality, right? Or does VG also mean it's actually insufficient now?

P.S. I would call the choice of focal lengths a little odd... was expecting 17/24/35/50 honestly.

[Klaus]

The focal length choices aligned to the review of the Sony 20-70G - thus its closest competitor.

[Rover]

Okay. Seems my 16-35 is in no danger of being taken to the flea market any time soon, though. :-)

Wondering now what lens might be the next one to be scrutinized? And are you going to get familiarised with that new crop of Chinese AF lenses?

[Rover]

Lenstip has tested it now (for some reason, they've slowed way way down with the pace of reviews...)
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=ob...est_ob=664
Mostly confirming your findings of lackluster center performance, but they decided the count the glass as half (or maybe ⅖?) full.

[toni-a]

Link saying 404 error page not found !!!

[Rover]

Works for me?
Anyway it's up top on Lenstip.com main page.

[MLonlooker]

Link saying 404 error page not found !!!

I had the same issue ...

The lens test can be found by clicking on the OL site banner under Sony .

Interesting to note that Lenstips's test shows their non sharpening policy significantly reduces the apparent resolution of the lens in comparison to Optical limits (most notable in the centre)...... in the real world who doesn't use some amount of sharpening ??

[toni-a]

https://opticallimits.com/sony/tamron-17...xd-review/

this is the correct link for the review, the link provided in the forum is not working

[Rover]

Oh... you meant the PZ link, not the Lenstip one.