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

[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.

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

I think my ultra wide shots are in a class by themselves, and probably would make your worst ones look wonderful by comparison. I just do not have the ability to capture a beautiful panoramic scene that I see as a beautiful photo. I think its a matter of practice and experimentation, but I've never found the time. I intended to purchase a Nikon 14-24mm lens to go with my D800, but was turned off by some of the negative issues that pertained to my use so I never reached that point.

 

[candyman]

...... 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.

Agree. It is very subjective. If everbody in the past would stick to 'rules', there would not have been a development in art.

 

[aerofan]

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 don't believe in TDP results. Look at my sample pictures:

Canon 16-35 2.8 II at 2.8:
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/can16.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/brzeg_canon.jpg (focus on the top of the frame)
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/corner_canon.jpg (focus on Tamron box)

Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC at 2.8:
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/tam15.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/brzeg_tamron.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/corner_tamron.jpg

And a lot of my sample pictures from Tamron 15-30 (full size):
http://www.canon-board.info/testy-sprzetu-25/recenzja-tamron-15-30-2-8-vc-usd-99121/

 

[DominoDude]

... Be prepared for some really lousy 11mm shots when I first get my 11-24 f/4, though ;D

I bet that your "lousy", is what many of us strive for. So: Bring it!

 

[AJ]

Looks like the Tamon is in good company.

I wonder how the Tokina 16-28 stacks up.

 

[mackguyver]

... Be prepared for some really lousy 11mm shots when I first get my 11-24 f/4, though ;D

I bet that your "lousy", is what many of us strive for. So: Bring it!

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but my initial work with the Sigma 12-24 was pretty humbling. Lots of good subjects, but everything is so small in the frame and it's really hard to keep track of the angles, your shadow, flare, and get close enough to a foreground that actually works at that focal length. Hopefully those experiences will help with the new lens

 

[LOALTD]

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 don't believe in TDP results. Look at my sample pictures:

Canon 16-35 2.8 II at 2.8:
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/can16.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/brzeg_canon.jpg (focus on the top of the frame)
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/corner_canon.jpg (focus on Tamron box)

Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC at 2.8:
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/tam15.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/brzeg_tamron.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/corner_tamron.jpg

And a lot of my sample pictures from Tamron 15-30 (full size):
http://www.canon-board.info/testy-sprzetu-25/recenzja-tamron-15-30-2-8-vc-usd-99121/

WOW, not even close! Thanks so much for posting. Classic smudgey Canon 16-35 f/2.8 corners.

 

[andrewflo]

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 don't believe in TDP results. Look at my sample pictures:

Canon 16-35 2.8 II at 2.8:
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/can16.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/brzeg_canon.jpg (focus on the top of the frame)
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/corner_canon.jpg (focus on Tamron box)

Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC at 2.8:
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/tam15.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/brzeg_tamron.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/corner_tamron.jpg

And a lot of my sample pictures from Tamron 15-30 (full size):
http://www.canon-board.info/testy-sprzetu-25/recenzja-tamron-15-30-2-8-vc-usd-99121/

Your test shots are great thank you! I'm very surprised though. Both your tests and Dustin Abbott's tests show very very impressive performance from this lens.

But TDP and Lens Rentals lab tests show the lens' performance to be mediocre. Obviously real world images are far more important, but is my interpretation of the lab tests as "mediocre" simply a misunderstanding on my part?

 

[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 don't believe in TDP results. Look at my sample pictures:

Canon 16-35 2.8 II at 2.8:
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/can16.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/brzeg_canon.jpg (focus on the top of the frame)
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/corner_canon.jpg (focus on Tamron box)

Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC at 2.8:
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/tam15.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/brzeg_tamron.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/corner_tamron.jpg

And a lot of my sample pictures from Tamron 15-30 (full size):
http://www.canon-board.info/testy-sprzetu-25/recenzja-tamron-15-30-2-8-vc-usd-99121/

Then you also don't trust LensRentals either and they test multiple copies (and the point of this thread). I only checked the first two of your links for each and the focus quality are not the same for the comparison shots. The Canon has motion blur everywhere for the trees and it's AF point for the walkway is significantly closer than the Tamron's. You might have a bad copy of the 16-35. Personally, I trust TDP and LR much more than your examples.

 

[wickidwombat]

interesting read. looks like i'll hang onto my 16-35 for a while yet
since my most used focla lengths are 16mm, 20mm and 35mm with not much in between
so results at 23mm mean little to me.

still right now my most used UWA is the little 11-22 on the EOS-M

i also really like the way the 7 blade aperture on the 16-35 renders lights at very narrow appertures its much more pleasing than 9 blades the 11-22 is also 7 blade i think

 

[Bennymiata]

I've had my 16-35 2.8 for a year or so, and I'm very happy with it.
I use it mainly for architecture shots for a magazine, and if the corners are soft, I'd certainly hear about it from the art director!

I love my 16-35. It's very sharp and it's light and great fun to use indoors and outdoors.
It's always in my bag.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Like others here I am really awaiting Roger Cicala's first review of the new 16-35/4 IS. I personally never really understood why someone needs such a fast f/2.8 ultra wide angle lens, besides some event photographers shooting in dark environments using ambient light. Typical UWA applications are landscapes and cityscapes, am I right? f/2.8 would produce a much too short depth of field for such a purpose (maybe there are a few exceptions) - so mostly the big block of optical glass is not really used. I have e.g. a Zeiss 18/3.5 - and I never go below f/5.6 with that lens. Btw I use this Zeiss sometimes for street photography, because it can produce funny results, but again never completely wide open.

You can see in Roger's review that those big lenses needed for making such UWA zooms create a lot of optical problems, and no lensmaker so far can control this completely. For landscape and cityscape you need a lens that is really tack sharp right from the middle to the edges at medium and far distances. That's crucial, as many of you here in this forum certainly know. So I think it is quite logical that a less fast UWA zoom with a modern optical design should deliver overall superior results, because it is simpler to make it.

 

[aerofan]

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 don't believe in TDP results. (...)

Then you also don't trust LensRentals either and they test multiple copies (and the point of this thread). I only checked the first two of your links for each and the focus quality are not the same for the comparison shots. The Canon has motion blur everywhere for the trees and it's AF point for the walkway is significantly closer than the Tamron's. You might have a bad copy of the 16-35. Personally, I trust TDP and LR much more than your examples.

I checked yesterday another copy of 16-35/2.8 II and 16-35 f/4 IS. Results are pretty the same:

http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/crops.jpg

Look at other shots from 16-35:

http://pl.pixelpeeper.com/lenses/?lens=27&perpage=25&is_fullframe=3&focal_min=16&focal_max=16&aperture_min=2.8&aperture_max=4&res=3

I don't think I have bad copy. Everyone has

 

[KimH]

Like others here I am really awaiting Roger Cicala's first review of the new 16-35/4 IS. I personally never really understood why someone needs such a fast f/2.8 ultra wide angle lens, besides some event photographers shooting in dark environments using ambient light. Typical UWA applications are landscapes and cityscapes, am I right? f/2.8 would produce a much too short depth of field for such a purpose (maybe there are a few exceptions) - so mostly the big block of optical glass is not really used. I have e.g. a Zeiss 18/3.5 - and I never go below f/5.6 with that lens. Btw I use this Zeiss sometimes for street photography, because it can produce funny results, but again never completely wide open.

You can see in Roger's review that those big lenses needed for making such UWA zooms create a lot of optical problems, and no lensmaker so far can control this completely. For landscape and cityscape you need a lens that is really tack sharp right from the middle to the edges at medium and far distances. That's crucial, as many of you here in this forum certainly know. So I think it is quite logical that a less fast UWA zoom with a modern optical design should deliver overall superior results, because it is simpler to make it.

He actually already reviewed the 16-35 f4 - it about 6 months ago

 

[ahsanford]

Like others here I am really awaiting Roger Cicala's first review of the new 16-35/4 IS. I personally never really understood why someone needs such a fast f/2.8 ultra wide angle lens, besides some event photographers shooting in dark environments using ambient light. Typical UWA applications are landscapes and cityscapes, am I right? f/2.8 would produce a much too short depth of field for such a purpose (maybe there are a few exceptions) - so mostly the big block of optical glass is not really used. I have e.g. a Zeiss 18/3.5 - and I never go below f/5.6 with that lens. Btw I use this Zeiss sometimes for street photography, because it can produce funny results, but again never completely wide open.

You can see in Roger's review that those big lenses needed for making such UWA zooms create a lot of optical problems, and no lensmaker so far can control this completely. For landscape and cityscape you need a lens that is really tack sharp right from the middle to the edges at medium and far distances. That's crucial, as many of you here in this forum certainly know. So I think it is quite logical that a less fast UWA zoom with a modern optical design should deliver overall superior results, because it is simpler to make it.

He actually already reviewed the 16-35 f4 - it about 6 months ago

One more time on the 16-35 f/4L IS: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/canon-wide-angle-zoom-comparison

- A

 

[Rick]

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.

This is about as ignorant as it gets.

 

[Rick]

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.

[/quote]

Your comment may be tongue in cheek but I'll forge ahead in a serious manner.

I haven't processed that trip yet. I am still working on my October Zion NP trip.

However, in the meantime, there are many, many Grand Vista-type examples on the web including many from review sites who reviewed the Otus 55mm as 'across the frame' sharpness @ f1.4 is one of the lens' most notable features. I am surprised anyone is surprised about this. It was pretty big news.

I most likely will not buy the lens for reasons including the fact that 55mm is sort of awkward for me and the lens wasn't focus-friendly for me.

 

[justaCanonuser]

He actually already reviewed the 16-35 f4 - it about 6 months ago
[/quote]

Ah, thanks. I was working like hell past months and had no time to check his blog...

 

[andrewflo]

I think there was a mistake in LensRentals' test...

I was looking for LensRentals' older test of the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS to pit it against the new Tamron tests and I noticed their new MTF charts show the 16-35mm f/2.8L II @ f/2.8 nearly identical in performance to the older MTF charts of the 16-35mm f/4L IS @ f/4 (both at 16mm).

Matter of fact, in the f/4L vs f/2.8L II comparison, the f/2.8L II @ f/4 has significantly lower results than what's said in the new Tamron article of the f/2.8L II @ f/2.8.

I think we all know without a shadow of a doubt that the f/2.8L II's corner performance wide open is put to shame by the f/4L IS's wide open... Is it possible they tested the Tamron 15-30mm vs. Canon 16-35 f/4L IS and either made a mistake or typo by labeling those new charts as the f/2.8L II or am I going crazy? Someone please correct me if I've got this all wrong! ???

Attached is the charts compared in a quick Photoshop combo to save you some time.


Articles:
f/4L vs f/2.8L II article (7/30/14): http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/canon-wide-angle-zoom-comparison
Tamron vs f/2.8L II article (2/24/15): http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/just-the-lenses-tamron-15-30mm-f2-8

 

[martti]

Yes, looks like it. Did you notify Roger?