Both lenses perform very similar. CA and outshone surfaces are not a big issue for both. The overall image quality is both very good and none yielded dropouts. For 16 or 17 mm, the Sony distorted less than the Tamron. From 35 mm then the Tamron takes minimally the lead. But overall, the two do not take much. Both lenses are in the center almost exactly the same keen to use at f / 2.8 and very at f / 5.6 are both most sharply, from f / 8.0 it's off back down. With an open aperture but Sony is sharper (not sharp but sharper) at the edges. From f / 3.2-4.0 is better when Tamron's and but f / 5.6 is the Tamron crack into the corners sharp, while the Sony has to fight to the end with a slight edge blur. The Sony is fully recognized by the Lens Correction camera's lens and all errors are counted out clean in the JPEGs. The Tamron, like all third-party, of course not, but there is official recognized by Adobe Lightroom, allowing two clicks later everything looks great - in RAW, not only in JPEG. The Sony is bigger and heavier than the Tamron (430 vs. 580g). Both are processed with value and are well in hand, although I slightly prefer the Tamron here because of its roughened surface. When AF Sony scores with its silent and unerring SSM AF while Tamron puts on the traditional Sony AF. Both had no dropouts in> 300 test photos. For Sony still says that it is dust and moisture-proof. Both lenses are not suitable for full format.
Well, there is a neck-and-neck race. Both lenses deliver almost identical, very good results. But then I decided to go for the Tamron, because it at f / 5.6 up to the corners crack makes sharp images. When Sony that was never the case. And ultimately it costs only half, weighs less and is natively supported by Adobe Lightroom. For 350 more you would get but a weatherproof lens. And people who want to film with their Sony DSLR, not come at SAL1650 thanks silent SSM AF passing anyway.
