Review: Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD

[Canon Rumors]

<p>Dustin Abbott has completed his review of the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD lens. This is a brand new fast wide angle lens for full frame cameras from Tamron. I have yet to shoot with this lens, but it’s aggressively priced and looks to be a stellar performer.</p>
<p><strong>From Dustin</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>“Consider me impressed. Tamron has brought a lot of goodness to bear here, and this lens is a serious competitor for the best in its class. Some will find the inability to use traditional filters a deal-breaker, and I will confess this is my primary disappointment. I fully suspect that aftermarket square filter systems will fill that void, just as they have for the Nikkor and the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. The size will also be a concern for those who are counting the ounces for backpacking and/or travel. But if neither of those things spoil your interest, you will find a lens that is, in my mind, now the most compelling option available if you own a Canon and still very intriguing if you own a Nikon.” <a href="http://dustinabbott.net/2015/02/tamron-sp-15-30mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Preorder the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC $1199: <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/results/Tamron1530LensRelease" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Cameras/N/0/Ntt/TA153028*/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<div id="adkengage_ssp_div"></div>
<script
    type="text/javascript"
    src="http://adkengage.com/pshandler.js?aid=11563&v=Rzv9QQ%2BeQKSVnAaEOwTXfA%3D%3D&dpid=6638&ru=http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-admin/post.php"
>
</script>

 

[Chaitanya]

Thanks for a quick review .

 

[ahsanford]

Nice work, Dustin. Appreciated!

The more I see of this lens, I see that it might be fine but it's not for me.

Personally, I...

• ...applaud the application of IS here. I often shoot static things handheld in low light, and even in UWA FLs, IS is gold for keeping the ISO reasonable.
• ...question the need for the weight of f/2.8 (nearly twice the weight of the 16-35 F/4L IS!), but I understand that it is vital in some applications.
• ...utterly shake my head at clawing out that one more mm on the wide end. Going to 15mm pushed this lens from being conveniently front-filterable to having that train wreck of a bulbous front end. For ultra-ultra-wide work, I understand why you need the front element like that, but surely, this lens is more attractive to more photographers if you can screw things on easily. So I am shocked they threw that opportunity away for a 1mm wider FOV. This isn't the Nikon 14-24, so don't expect a high-quality Lee filter mount for this lens, so you'd be limited to third party iffyness and the possibility of being locked out of the huge 4x6/4x4 filter ecosystem. That single decision, IMHO, makes this lens a lot less attractive for landscape work compared to other options.

So, put those three things together, and you have a nice event / video / astro lens (though I'm sure some astro folks would prefer an f/1.4 prime even if they can't get one as wide as this Tamron).

But despite the nice shots Dustin has reeled in, landscapers (who strongly value front-filtering and rarely need f/2.8 ) and hiking photogs (weight is king) have far, far better options in an UWA zoom.

- A

 

[mackguyver]

Dustin, thanks for another great review! I really can't see the reasons to choose this over the 16-35 f/4 IS, but given that you like handheld work and bokeh, that may be reason alone. I think it's great to see the 3rd party guys putting out great gear like this - hopefully it's pushing CaNikon to up their game as well

 

[siegsAR]

Thanks for another very informative review Dustin, cheers.

Like ahsanford, I agree on the filter factor. I don't even mind the weight, nor the filter size if there was, nor the range if it would have been only 16-30mm.
The comfort of having f/2.8 without going for the price of Canon's f/2.8 UWAs got me excited for this lens until now.

I really like this lens, but Canon's 16-35mm F4 is perfect for me. I know, can't have it all but dear Tamron, so close.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

This forum certainly has an over-representation of landscape/nature/hobbyist/don't-want-to-have-heavy-stuff photographers, which often makes it hard to get a true sense of a lens' desirability/utility on the larger market and in other genres of the craft (not that forum comments aren't ever a good measure of that : ). The trend as of late has somehow been that f/2.8 is an unnecessary luxury. For the aforementioned crowd, sure, but it really is further form the truth for a large majority of professionals. There are significantly more wedding/event/concert photographers making a living with their camera than landscape photographers or photographers who want to cut 400g from their bag. They also aren't using filters so the bulbous front element is irrelevant. Most those guys have kept their Canon 16-35 f/2.8 in response to the Canon f/4 IS, but they finally have another option, and Tamron really delivered it with this one. It's just a shame Tamron doesn't have the same reputation as the new Sigma Art line. If this was a Sigma Art 15-30 f/2.8 OS I would bet money it would be THE lens you'd see at every wedding reception.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

This forum certainly has an over-representation of landscape/nature/hobbyist/don't-want-to-have-heavy-stuff photographers, which often makes it hard to get a true sense of a lens' desirability/utility on the larger market and in other genres of the craft (not that forum comments aren't ever a good measure of that : ). The trend as of late has somehow been that f/2.8 is an unnecessary luxury. For the aforementioned crowd, sure, but it really is further form the truth for a large majority of professionals. There are significantly more wedding/event/concert photographers making a living with their camera than landscape photographers or photographers who want to cut 400g from their bag. They also aren't using filters so the bulbous front element is irrelevant. Most those guys have kept their Canon 16-35 f/2.8 in response to the Canon f/4 IS, but they finally have another option, and Tamron really delivered it with this one. It's just a shame Tamron doesn't have the same reputation as the new Sigma Art line. If this was a Sigma Art 15-30 f/2.8 OS I would bet money it would be THE lens you'd see at every wedding reception.

Great POV. This lens is my choice because of the ability to do all of the above. I do think that square filters will arrive for this lens. Also, in my real world use I found something that I'm not sure that chart testing will reveal - the lens has amazing microcontrast that is very much like using a Zeiss lens. I think that I will get a review copy of the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 and compare the two side by side in a month or two. I fully expect the images to have much more "bite" from the Tamron. Real world images will LOOK sharper from a lens with superior microcontrast.

The 16-35 f/4L IS is a great lens. I found basically nothing to criticize. But that lens did not excite me as a photographer; this one does.

 

[mackguyver]

Carl, I would agree to some extent, but I haven't heard many complain about the weight of their gear. I used to shoot a lot of events and I found it to be really rough on gear, so I don't know if I would want a bulbous lens like this one. For other types of stuff, it wouldn't concern me, but I got elbowed, bumped, tripped, and pushed into walls and stuff a lot when I shot events and I would be really worried.

If I still did that kind of work, I would stick with the 16-35 f/2.8 II, which, to me, is plenty sharp for event type work. Could it be better? Sure, but then again, I always found the 24L II a much better fit with the 2 extra stops.

 

[m8547]

Way too many people complain about lenses that can't take filters. The only filters you can't replicate in post are polarizer and ND. People complained about it for the Canon 11-24, but there are very few situations where you should use a polarizer at 11mm. If they sky takes up more than a small part of the frame, you shouldn't use a polarizer at wide angles. And 11mm is so wide that you will need huge square filters anyway if you go that route for ND. I suspect 11mm is wider than most people need.

I most of the complaints are probably from
-People that like to complain
-People that want to use clear/UV protection filters

If you don't want a bulbous front element, don't buy a lens that has one! If you can't afford to fix the lens if the front element gets damaged, get insurance or don't buy one. Lenses like the Tokina 16-28 are cheap enough to be almost disposable. And Canon can usually replace front elements if you damage one.

 

[mackguyver]

m8547, I have the TS-E 17 and had the Sigma 12-24 and I can say that you definitely learn to get comfortable with the bulb at the front. Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable shooting events or sports with a lens like that, but plenty of sports shooters use the Nikon 14-24 so maybe I'm just overly paranoid.

The filter situation is what it is and you're right, most things I've read suggest that 28mm is the widest you should go with a polarizer, at least if you want even effects in the sky. I'm getting the 11-24 (someday, it's been delayed a week now) and I also agree that 11mm is more than most people need. Probably way more.

 

[Schruminator]

I just wish they would have included a rear filter holder on this lens so I could use my 9-10 stop gels.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I just wish they would have included a rear filter holder on this lens so I could use my 9-10 stop gels.

That would have been a great inclusion. Glad to see that the new Canon 11-24mm allows for that.