Lensrentals: Tamrom 15-30 VC f/2.8 vs. Canon 16-35 f/2.8 II vs Nikon 14-24 f/2.8

[mackguyver]

Roger has posted his test and the results are pretty interesting - be sure to read down to the 23mm test portion:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/just-the-lenses-tamron-15-30mm-f2-8

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

As always, its interesting to see the comparisons of the lenses in a way that no other reviewer can show us.

I will be interested in seeing the results from the new Canon ultra wide zoom. They probably will not be spectacular due to the extreme wide angle, but at the price, they should be no worse than these.

I gave up on buying ultra wide lenses, because I have no talent for using them, and no matter how good a lens is, the talent of the photographer is 10X more important.

 

[Random Orbits]

It was good to see some data on the Tamron, after seeing the ISO crops on TDP. I'm surprised that the Tamron 15-30 can not categorically beat the much-maligned 16-35 f/2.8 II. The TDP results showed weak corners on the Tamron and LR confirms it. Would have loved to see the 16-35 f/4 IS in the same dataset though, even if it is not a f/2.8 lens...

 

[mackguyver]

As always, its interesting to see the comparisons of the lenses in a way that no other reviewer can show us.

I will be interested in seeing the results from the new Canon ultra wide zoom. They probably will not be spectacular due to the extreme wide angle, but at the price, they should be no worse than these.

I gave up on buying ultra wide lenses, because I have no talent for using them, and no matter how good a lens is, the talent of the photographer is 10X more important.

They definitely have some cool test gear and interesting reviews. I like that they test multiple copies, too.

Also, your comment about giving up on ultrawides cracks me up! I find them incredibly frustrating to use as well as the slightest tilt or the most invisible of objects (in the viewfinder at least!) always seems to ruin the shot. The reason I love photography is for the challenges it requires so these are right up my alley. Be prepared for some really lousy 11mm shots when I first get my 11-24 f/4, though ;D

It was good to see some data on the Tamron, after seeing the ISO crops on TDP. I'm surprised that the Tamron 15-30 can not categorically beat the much-maligned 16-35 f/2.8 II. The TDP results showed weak corners on the Tamron and LR confirms it. Would have loved to see the 16-35 f/4 IS in the same dataset though, even if it is not a f/2.8 lens...

I wish he'd included the 16-35 f/4 IS as well, but I think the 16-35 f/2.8 II results are in line with my copy. I really liked the low distortion and other than the horrible CA in the corners, I found it pretty good at 16 and 35mm. When I compared it at 24mm against the 24-70 f/2.8 II, it made me cry, however. It was soft mush in comparison. Now it makes more sense given the 23mm results they posted. It also lacked something, the very something the 16-35 f/4 IS has in spades, even if it's more distorted and has worse vignetting.

 

[Random Orbits]

It was good to see some data on the Tamron, after seeing the ISO crops on TDP. I'm surprised that the Tamron 15-30 can not categorically beat the much-maligned 16-35 f/2.8 II. The TDP results showed weak corners on the Tamron and LR confirms it. Would have loved to see the 16-35 f/4 IS in the same dataset though, even if it is not a f/2.8 lens...

I wish he'd included the 16-35 f/4 IS as well, but I think the 16-35 f/2.8 II results are in line with my copy. I really liked the low distortion and other than the horrible CA in the corners, I found it pretty good at 16 and 35mm. When I compared it at 24mm against the 24-70 f/2.8 II, it made me cry, however. It was soft mush in comparison. Now it makes more sense given the 23mm results they posted. It also lacked something, the very something the 16-35 f/4 IS has in spades, even if it's more distorted and has worse vignetting.

Agreed, I never liked using the 16-35 f/2.8 II much either. I didn't mind as much that it's 24mm was weak, because I usually carried other options at that focal length... and as a walk-around lens, it's fine. I think the real competition will be the 16-35 f/4 IS. The 16-35 f/4 IS currently streets for a little less, has better optical performance, weighs significantly less, takes filters, has better AF. The Tamron has a one stop advantage, gains 1mm at the wide end but loses 5mm at the long end.

 

[martti]

Once again, this is a lab test.
There are curves going this way and that which is something that can be measured and quantitated.
Then you go out to take pictures and another story unfolds.
Maybe you like the extra reach up to 35 mm. Maybe you want to put a filter on to protect the front lens because there is dust in the air and a salty breeze from the waves breaking against the rocks.
For me, where I live and what I do, I could only take either one of the Canon wide zooms.
I have to stop to clean my eyeglasses once an hour when the wind is up.
It hurts seeing a bare lens surface covered with salt spots. I had the 17-40, my son took it.
The f/4 will be in my bag before June.

Amazing, though, the Tamron quality. They have the Sony money to back them up now.

 

[nightscape123]

Interesting results... I assume these were all done at f/2.8? I'd love to see the results at f/8 or f/11. I've heard from a couple people that the tamron improves over the canon significantly by f/11, even though it loses (slightly) at f/2.8.

 

[RGF]

Too bad the Canon 16-34 F4 IS was not included. I know it is not F2.8, but it is a great lens.

Also I would like to see tests at F8, F11 and F16.

But tying up an expensive piece of equipment is hard to justify.

 

[ahsanford]

Also I would like to see tests at F8, F11 and F16.

Me, too. I wouldn't hold your breath on getting data on the narrower apertures. Roger is a great resource, but he usually reports wide open data and one stop down to allow an f/2.8 lens to be compared to an f/4 lens.

There are sooooo many test-loving enthusiasts out there that if he went all Photozone / LensTip / DXO on lenses (obviously, with his rig, his metrics and his comments) -- he could charge a Consumer Reports-like few bucks a month and he'd pay off his rig in no time.

But, that's not Roger. He posts these things out of a fickle curiosity and personal interest, and whatever we get from him I'm glad to read.

- A

 

[flashboy]

Why wasn't the new Canon 16-35 f4 tested instead of the older 16-35 f2.8 ?

 

[Rick]

I probably would not have bothered with the 16-35/2.8 II. I would have tested the 16-35/4 IS in its place. I own the 14-24G and it was once the best UWA zoom on the planet, but times change, it needs an update to stay current.

 

[ahsanford]

Why wasn't the new Canon 16-35 f4 tested instead of the older 16-35 f2.8 ?

Because he's already done that test:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/canon-wide-angle-zoom-comparison

You can back out the 16-35 f/2.8L II vs. the 16-35 f/4L IS from the link above to compare it to the Tamron.

- A

 

[Rick]

Also I would like to see tests at F8, F11 and F16.

Tests at these apertures introduce diffraction. Bad for pixel peeping.

 

[ahsanford]

Also I would like to see tests at F8, F11 and F16.

Tests at these apertures introduce diffraction. Bad for pixel peeping.

I'm pretty sure that was a landscaper question. They don't always have the luxury to shoot at the sharpest aperture.

I'm assuming that not many people are cherry-picking the absolutely sharpest aperture and focus-stacking with their landscapes. Like HDR work, some folks lack the patience, tripod, or windless day to attempt compositing a multiple exposure landscape, so F/8 - F/11 are still very useful apertures for those folks.

- A

 

[Rick]

Also I would like to see tests at F8, F11 and F16.

Tests at these apertures introduce diffraction. Bad for pixel peeping.

I'm pretty sure that was a landscaper question. They don't always have the luxury to shoot at the sharpest aperture.

I'm assuming that not many people are cherry-picking the absolutely sharpest aperture and focus-stacking with their landscapes. Like HDR work, some folks lack the patience, tripod, or windless day to attempt compositing a multiple exposure landscape, so F/8 - F/11 are still very useful apertures for those folks.

- A

I am a landscape shooter too. What you say is true but it depends on the composition, of course, and the focal length, but many landscape compositions simulate flat wall test targets in the form of infinity across the frame. Many of my shots are like this, shooting from a ledge, at a Grand Vista. With a 24-70 II, I have found no need to stop down past f5.6 for these kinds of compositions and get plenty sharp corners and edges. Lots of landscape photogs can't even picture what I am describing because they always put a close foreground object in the composition that requires stopping down.

I rented the the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/14 for the Thanksgiving holiday and I was shooting these Grand Vista compositions at f1.4 and there was no need to stop down in order to get sharp corners.

 

[m8547]

I am a landscape shooter too. What you say is true but it depends on the composition, of course, and the focal length, but many landscape compositions simulate flat wall test targets in the form of infinity across the frame. Many of my shots are like this, shooting from a ledge, at a Grand Vista. With a 24-70 II, I have found no need to stop down past f5.6 for these kinds of compositions and get plenty sharp corners and edges. Lots of landscape photogs can't even picture what I am describing because they always put a close foreground object in the composition that requires stopping down.

I rented the the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/14 for the Thanksgiving holiday and I was shooting these Grand Vista compositions at f1.4 and there was no need to stop down in order to get sharp corners.

Any examples for us? I'd love to see grand vistas with the Otus.

I think typical composition "rules" say to have something in the foreground for landscapes. When I searched for that, I found a long list of composition rules for paintings (that's somewhat applicable for photography, too). http://photoinf.com/General/Johannes_Vloothuis/landscape_composition_rules.html I don't think it makes sense to do art or photography by a set of rules, but it's an interesting read because for me it's a different way to think about paintings/photos.

 

[ewg963]

I am a landscape shooter too. What you say is true but it depends on the composition, of course, and the focal length, but many landscape compositions simulate flat wall test targets in the form of infinity across the frame. Many of my shots are like this, shooting from a ledge, at a Grand Vista. With a 24-70 II, I have found no need to stop down past f5.6 for these kinds of compositions and get plenty sharp corners and edges. Lots of landscape photogs can't even picture what I am describing because they always put a close foreground object in the composition that requires stopping down.

I rented the the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/14 for the Thanksgiving holiday and I was shooting these Grand Vista compositions at f1.4 and there was no need to stop down in order to get sharp corners.

Any examples for us? I'd love to see grand vistas with the Otus.

I think typical composition "rules" say to have something in the foreground for landscapes. When I searched for that, I found a long list of composition rules for paintings (that's somewhat applicable for photography, too). http://photoinf.com/General/Johannes_Vloothuis/landscape_composition_rules.html I don't think it makes sense to do art or photography by a set of rules, but it's an interesting read because for me it's a different way to think about paintings/photos.

Thank you for the painting composition rules I thought it was a very interesting read...

 

[andrewflo]

Holy moly... I take it this is the most exhaustive test of the new Tamron we'll probably ever see. Obviously it's not a "real world" test but it sure is scientific to say the least.

I think the Canon 16-35mm f/4L is looking like it's taken the lead over the Tamron SP 15-30mm in my GAS cravings.

 

[ahsanford]

I am a landscape shooter too. What you say is true but it depends on the composition, of course, and the focal length, but many landscape compositions simulate flat wall test targets in the form of infinity across the frame. Many of my shots are like this, shooting from a ledge, at a Grand Vista. With a 24-70 II, I have found no need to stop down past f5.6 for these kinds of compositions and get plenty sharp corners and edges. Lots of landscape photogs can't even picture what I am describing because they always put a close foreground object in the composition that requires stopping down.

Of course -- if there's nothing in the background and you are tackling a far off vista, you choose the sharpest aperture. I'm trying to get out of tourist / vista shooting (which can be marvelous, I certainly won't knock it) as it often mutes the sense of scale. Rules are silly, but foreground elements can greatly strengthen landscape compositions. Those shots need a large working DOF or focus stacking to pull off.

And as I'm often not on a tripod when I come across these moments, I'm stuck stopping down past f/11 and trial-of-erroring to get everything basically in focus with the DOF preview button. For those kind of shots, being slightly soft due to diffraction is far preferable to being blurred out of the working DOF, but others may think differently.

- A

 

[e_honda]

Just from my own experience:

I had 2 copies of the 16-35 2.8 II. Did tests on a tripod looking at the same thing and one was clearly sharper than the other, so I naturally sold off the lesser of the two.

I picked up a Tokina 16-28 a few months later because the price dropped. I tested it at all focal lengths vs. the Canon at all apertures up thru F8 and on a tripod and it really was no contest: the Tokina was better in every case. I was happy with it and took some of my best pictures with it, but grew tired of the flare and ghosting problems that plagued it.

I should add: the 16mm on the Canon was clearly wider than 16mm on the Tokina. It wasn't by a huge margin, but it was quite obvious.

Saw a good deal on a used 16-35 F4. Jumped on and it and sold the Tokina. It is slightly sharper than the Tokina, has IS and doesn't have the same flare problems. The 16mm on the Canon f4 was also a bit wider than the Tokina. I also rarely used the Tokina at f2.8 so I don't miss that aspect. It takes filters, is lighter and easier to carry around and (at least with a filter) is weather sealed. I'm a happy camper.

Another thing that made the Tokina unwieldy: Its lens cap is thick and can't easily be shoved into your pocket. I suspect you'll encounter a similar problem with the Tamron, though its cap doesn't look as thick. Not a deal breaker, but a minor annoyance and something those who have never used a bulbous lens should take into account.