09/04/2026 1:31 pm
Topic starter
Notifications
Clear all
Tamron Forum
2
Posts
4
Users
0
Reactions
6
Views
0
I'm honestly starting to freak out a little bit because I have this massive trip to the Oregon coast coming up in less than two weeks and I still havent figured out my lens situation for my Sony A7IV. I've been shooting for years mainly doing street photography and some portraits with my 35mm and 85mm primes so I know my way around the camera settings but landscape work is a totally different beast for me. I've never really had to worry about corner-to-corner sharpness at f11 or carrying gear through heavy mist and I'm really anxious about picking the wrong glass and ruining the once in a lifetime shots.
My budget is pretty firm at around $850 tops since I already blew a ton of cash on the flights and the rental car for the trip. I've heard amazing things about the Tamron E-mount lineup for being lightweight which is huge for me since I'm planning on doing some pretty long hikes near Olympic National Park too but the options are honestly overwhelming. I was originally looking at the 17-28mm f2.8 because everyone says you need that ultra wide perspective for big vistas but then I saw the 20-40mm f2.8 which is so compact and seems like it would be easier to pack. But is 20mm wide enough? Then there is the 28-75mm G2 which everyone raves about for being a do it all lens but I feel like I'm gonna be kicking myself if I cant get those sweeping ocean shots at 17mm.
I'm mostly worried about:
- Weather sealing since it's gonna be super damp and salty near the ocean
- Weight because I'm carrying a full pack for 10 plus miles a day
- How they actually perform on the 33MP sensor of the A7IV when stopped down
I keep going back and forth between the 17-28 and the 20-40 and I just cant make a decision and the shipping window is closing fast if I want to test it before I leave. Which one of these Tamron zooms is actually the better bet for landscapes when you're trying to balance weight and that crispy sharpness you need for big prints?
11
09/04/2026 1:55 pm
Building on the earlier suggestion, in my experience, the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 Di III RXD is the technical winner here. Internal zooming is critical near the ocean because it wont pump salt air into the barrel like the Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 Di III VXD might. Plus, youll definitely need that 17mm focal length for scale. Optically, it stays sharp across the frame even stopped down to f11. TL;DR: Get the 17-28mm for the internal zoom and weather resistance.
10
09/04/2026 1:31 pm
TL;DR: Get the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD. Honestly, go for the 17-28mm! For those massive Oregon sea stacks, you're gonna want every bit of that 17mm width. I've used it on my A7IV and it's incredibly sharp stopped down, plus the internal zoom is amazing for keeping mist out. It's so light you wont even notice it on those long hikes. You'll love the shots!
5
09/04/2026 2:05 pm
> For those massive Oregon sea stacks, you're gonna want every bit of that 17mm width. Agreeing with this 100%! I took the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD to the coast last fall and those extra millimeters make a huge difference for those massive sea stacks. The internal zoom is such a blessing when it's drizzling because the lens barrel doesnt move at all, so water doesnt get sucked into the seals as easily. But if you want to save some serious weight for those 10-mile hikes, the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8 Di III VXD is an absolute gem! It's honestly so tiny. Technical plus: the VXD motor in it is noticeably snappier than the older RXD tech. It also has a fantastic close-focus distance which is amazing for foreground details like tide pool textures. If 20mm feels too narrow, just shoot a vertical panorama and stitch it later. Both are plenty sharp for the A7IV, but the 20-40 is just so easy to carry all day.
