28/03/2026 3:05 pm
Topic starter
Notifications
Clear all
Tamron Forum
3
Posts
4
Users
0
Reactions
19
Views
0
Been shooting with an X-T4 for a while now using mostly Fuji primes but I'm suddenly needing a zoom for some portrait work and the Tamron options are looking way more affordable than native glass. I've got a budget of maybe $750 for a shoot in early November and I'm stuck between the 17-70mm f/2.8 or maybe holding out for a longer zoom.
Needs:
- sharp eye-AF tracking
- decent bokeh for headshots
- light enough for a 4 hour street session
Does the Tamron 17-70 actually hold up for professional portrait work or is the f/2.8 not enough blur for you guys? I'm worried the rendering might look a bit clinical compared to my old Fuji glass...
3 Answers
11
28/03/2026 3:40 pm
Over the years, I've tried many lenses, and sticking with what's proven usually saves a lot of headaches. AF reliability is huge for me, so I'm always careful with third-party glass.
- Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III RXD
- Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary The 70-300 gives great compression for headshots. Honestly, f/2.8 on crop isnt always enough for that super blurred look anyway... reach might be a better tradeoff.
11
28/03/2026 4:10 pm
Like someone mentioned, that 17-70mm is the standard pick, but I was honestly pretty disappointed with it. The rendering is just so clinical and the bokeh is kind of a mess for headshots. Unfortunately, the Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD is way too slow for what you need. Id honestly look at the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary if you can skip the zoom. Its much better for portraits.
2
28/03/2026 3:06 pm
TL;DR: The Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD beats the Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD. I suggest you consider if f/2.8 is enough, but be careful of the clinical rendering.
