Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC Coming End of Month

[CarlMillerPhoto]

I totally understand not wanting a heavy lens, but I've never found weight to be a valid critique of a lens. There are many other options out there that compromise on speed/aperture and IS/VC to achieve a lighter load. This lens doesn't compromise on those aspects, and the trade off is that it weighs more. I know most everybody understands that, so why still bring it up?

Although maybe I'm bias, because I do work out 8)

 

[andrewflo]

For anyone interested, someone who just received this lens is welcoming any questions about it on Reddit. He also has a .ZIP file of test shots for download further down the thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/2t3bya/so_i_have_my_copy_of_the_tamrom_1530mm_feel_free/

Some of his first critiques (Note: these are mere first impressions & he admittedly only has a crop sensor to test with at the moment):

• Fast AF, but may need some AFMA
• Not as sharp as Nikon 14-24mm @ f/2.8
• Generally not as good as the Nikon 14-24mm
• Handheld sharp images down to 1/10 with VC

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

For anyone interested, someone who just received this lens is welcoming any questions about it on Reddit. He also has a .ZIP file of test shots for download further down the thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/2t3bya/so_i_have_my_copy_of_the_tamrom_1530mm_feel_free/

Some of his first critiques (Note: these are mere first impressions & he admittedly only has a crop sensor to test with at the moment):

• Fast AF, but may need some AFMA
• Not as sharp as Nikon 14-24mm @ f/2.8
• Generally not as good as the Nikon 14-24mm
• Handheld sharp images down to 1/10 with VC

Thanks for sharing! Ya, with a crop camera I'm still left curious about corner sharpness. I can't imagine it'll be long before we have a more comprehensive review from a better source, though!

 

[mrsfotografie]

I totally understand not wanting a heavy lens, but I've never found weight to be a valid critique of a lens. There are many other options out there that compromise on speed/aperture and IS/VC to achieve a lighter load. This lens doesn't compromise on those aspects, and the trade off is that it weighs more. I know most everybody understands that, so why still bring it up?

Although maybe I'm bias, because I do work out 8)

If it's too big/heavy, then you may choose not to take it to the place where you shoot photo's.... :

 

[andrewflo]

For anyone interested, someone who just received this lens is welcoming any questions about it on Reddit. He also has a .ZIP file of test shots for download further down the thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/2t3bya/so_i_have_my_copy_of_the_tamrom_1530mm_feel_free/

Some of his first critiques (Note: these are mere first impressions & he admittedly only has a crop sensor to test with at the moment):

• Fast AF, but may need some AFMA
• Not as sharp as Nikon 14-24mm @ f/2.8
• Generally not as good as the Nikon 14-24mm
• Handheld sharp images down to 1/10 with VC

Thanks for sharing! Ya, with a crop camera I'm still left curious about corner sharpness. I can't imagine it'll be long before we have a more comprehensive review from a better source, though!

Agreed, it's definitely not the best review but at least it's something to keep us patiently waiting.

I can't wait for a thorough comparison to the Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS.

 

[jefflinde]

I saw this heavy lens on the Photokina , it was really big and sadly behind a showcase.
I'm wonder about tests and shots!

Hmmm "really big" = "less exciting". Of course I know physics demands a certain size vs a certain constant aperture but still, portability is an important factor. If you look at the trend in lens releases you need to be He-man to carry 3 lenses or more...

these types of responses are laughable. You complain because a lens it too heavy and so you wont buy it. Then when canon or any manufacturer makes a lens that is light people say it feels cheap and that it cant possibly have good optics and heaven for bid they use "plastic" to cut weight. Then when they have a plastic, that is all people comment about and instantly shun the lens because of it. i.e. plastic mounts in EF-S lenses. physics wont let you have it both ways and it is not like they are that heavy. i don't know how some of you can poor milk in your cereal in the morning with that 8+ lb milk jug. you must use the little kid cartons.

Sorry for the rant, it just gets old reading contradicting complaints about lens weight.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

Maybe this will prompt a 16-35 f/2.8 IS from Canon. I think there was already a patent for one, but that might just be for beefing up the IP portfolio. Who knows.

That would be fantastic! But the exact same logic was applied to presuming Canon should release 24-70mm f/2.8 IS following Tamron' 24-70mm :/

Back in March or April a patent for a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 IS popped up. I don't think it's the first patent that would cover such a lens either. Again - it could just be beefing up the IP portfolio, but I'm still hopeful that we'll see a 24-70 f/2.8 IS. I was hoping to see it last year and I'm hoping to see it this year. In the meantime, I'm getting rid of my 24-105L. If Canon doesn't release a 24-70 f/2.8 IS this year, I'll probably get the non-IS 24-70 f/2.8 II. I just really want a fast normal lens with IS. As long as it doesn't weigh much more than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - I really could care less about the weight and size.

Now I'm hopeful (although much less so) that there will be a fast UWA with IS in the next few years from Canon.

I might just get the 16-35 f/2.8 II in the meantime.

 

[andrewflo]

Maybe this will prompt a 16-35 f/2.8 IS from Canon. I think there was already a patent for one, but that might just be for beefing up the IP portfolio. Who knows.

That would be fantastic! But the exact same logic was applied to presuming Canon should release 24-70mm f/2.8 IS following Tamron' 24-70mm :/

Back in March or April a patent for a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 IS popped up. I don't think it's the first patent that would cover such a lens either. Again - it could just be beefing up the IP portfolio, but I'm still hopeful that we'll see a 24-70 f/2.8 IS. I was hoping to see it last year and I'm hoping to see it this year. In the meantime, I'm getting rid of my 24-105L. If Canon doesn't release a 24-70 f/2.8 IS this year, I'll probably get the non-IS 24-70 f/2.8 II. I just really want a fast normal lens with IS. As long as it doesn't weigh much more than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - I really could care less about the weight and size.

Now I'm hopeful (although much less so) that there will be a fast UWA with IS in the next few years from Canon.

I might just get the 16-35 f/2.8 II in the meantime.

If we look at Canon's 70-200mm L-series offerings, we have 4 variants:
• f/4L
• f/4L IS
• f/2.8L
• f/2.8L IS

It'd make sense that Canon could potentially fill these gaps:
• 17-40mm f/4L, 16-35mm f/4L IS, 16-35mm f/2.8L, 16-35mm f/2.8L IS
• 24-70mm f/4L (doesn't feel necessary), 24-70mm f/4L IS, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L IS

But I think it's clear they aren't pushing things out for release to directly compete with any 3rd party contenders.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I saw this heavy lens on the Photokina , it was really big and sadly behind a showcase.
I'm wonder about tests and shots!

Hmmm "really big" = "less exciting". Of course I know physics demands a certain size vs a certain constant aperture but still, portability is an important factor. If you look at the trend in lens releases you need to be He-man to carry 3 lenses or more...

these types of responses are laughable. You complain because a lens it too heavy and so you wont buy it. Then when canon or any manufacturer makes a lens that is light people say it feels cheap and that it cant possibly have good optics and heaven for bid they use "plastic" to cut weight. Then when they have a plastic, that is all people comment about and instantly shun the lens because of it. i.e. plastic mounts in EF-S lenses. physics wont let you have it both ways and it is not like they are that heavy. i don't know how some of you can poor milk in your cereal in the morning with that 8+ lb milk jug. you must use the little kid cartons.

Sorry for the rant, it just gets old reading contradicting complaints about lens weight.

No problem I have a background in mechanical design so I know exactly the nuances you're talking about. Any good design has some compromises. The trick is to get the best possible product with the least compromises (but there must always be some). Also, each individual has different needs so what may be an advantage to some is a disadvantage to others. For me, there is a limit to the bulk I'm prepared to carry and yes I will compromise a little in image quality if needed. Also, good thermoplastics can provide a good quality, yet light weight build. The main challenge I think is to reduce the amount of glass because that definitely throws more weight in the balance.

 

[pedro]

Just wonder, what they will do next, after the Canon 11-24 F/4.0 infos have leaked...Could they do an 11-24 at half of the Canon price?

 

[ewg963]

Mmm exciting! although ive read that it weights a ton, finally a focal range and aperture that i need! let's hope iq and af are up to standards

+1 I 2nd that.

 

[ewg963]

$1200 is the perfect price for this lens. I'm happy about that, considering I thought it would be a tad more expensive. This is looking like it'll be the best UWA f/2.8 zoom for Canon shooters.

+1 Fingers crossed mate.

 

[ewg963]

For anyone interested, someone who just received this lens is welcoming any questions about it on Reddit. He also has a .ZIP file of test shots for download further down the thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/2t3bya/so_i_have_my_copy_of_the_tamrom_1530mm_feel_free/

Some of his first critiques (Note: these are mere first impressions & he admittedly only has a crop sensor to test with at the moment):

• Fast AF, but may need some AFMA
• Not as sharp as Nikon 14-24mm @ f/2.8
• Generally not as good as the Nikon 14-24mm
• Handheld sharp images down to 1/10 with VC

Thanks for posting!!!

 

[scyrene]

f/2.8 and image stabilised? Sounds pretty awesome. A tough choice between this and the new Canon. Will be interesting to see what the street price is.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Preorders now at http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/0/Ntt/Tamron+15-30mm/N/0/BI/19614/KBID/12112 for $1199, which strikes me as a pretty amazing price. I will have one for review purposes first week of Feb, and my hope is that this is our chance to have a lens like Nikons 14-24mm.

I may soon have a holy trinity of Tamron zooms - I own and love the 24-70VC and 70-200 VC lenses.

 

[cliffwang]

Just wonder, what they will do next, after the Canon 11-24 F/4.0 infos have leaked...Could they do an 11-24 at half of the Canon price?

I also would like to see the 11-24mm from Tamron. I have never been interested in 16-35mm f/2.8 or f/4 because I want a wider lens. If Tamron can make 11/12-24mm UWA lens with current Tamron IQ level, I will be very interested in that.

 

[andrewflo]

Preorders now at http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/0/Ntt/Tamron+15-30mm/N/0/BI/19614/KBID/12112 for $1199, which strikes me as a pretty amazing price. I will have one for review purposes first week of Feb, and my hope is that this is our chance to have a lens like Nikons 14-24mm.

I may soon have a holy trinity of Tamron zooms - I own and love the 24-70VC and 70-200 VC lenses.

Can't wait to see your review Dustin please keep us posted

And if you are able to, please directly compare this thing to the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS. I think many of us are are very anxious to know if the Tamron can compete!

 

[andrewflo]

Tamron posted this brochure pdf a few hours ago (English) with a few high res images.

http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/support/catalog/pdf/a012.pdf