Review: Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC

[Canon Rumors]

<p>Bryan at The-Digital-Picture has <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-15-30mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">completed his review</a> of the brand new Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC lens.</p>
<p>Bryan says:</p>
<blockquote><p>For those wanting a full frame ultra-wide angle focal length range (or any focal length under 24mm) with an f/2.8 aperture and image stabilization, there is no other option. Fortunately, that sole option is a good one. The Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC Lens’ introduction raised eyebrows and, with the performance this lens is turning in, those eyebrows remain raised.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1083947-REG/tamron_sp_15_30mm_f_2_8_di.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC in stock at B&H Photo $1199</a> | <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-15-30mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></p>

 

[nightscape123]

I was hoping this review would come out before I had enough money to actually buy it. Good timing as next week was my purchase plan.

Looks like this lens is living up to everyone's expectations. I'm quite happy with its coma performance. If this lens is as popular as it seems like it is then I have no doubt that there will be a filter holder for it soon, which will make it even more attractive.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

A nicely balanced review that was pretty consistent with my own findings (with the exception of the focus accuracy issues - I did not notice that at all). If Tamron had been able to develop this lens with the ability to use traditional filters it would be just about perfect. I have a standing order with Tamron that will be shortly fulfilled for my own copy of it.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

A nicely balanced review that was pretty consistent with my own findings (with the exception of the focus accuracy issues - I did not notice that at all). If Tamron had been able to develop this lens with the ability to use traditional filters it would be just about perfect. I have a standing order with Tamron that will be shortly fulfilled for my own copy of it.

If front end filter is not required for use, would you recommend trading up from the Canon 16-35/f2.8L II to the Tamron?

The answer is yes, but I actually will have a 16-35 f/2,8L, 16-35 f/4L IS, and the Tamron 15-30 VC in hand at the beginning of April for a detailed three-way shootout. You probably couldn't get the Tamron before then anyway, so you will probably find the results from that interesting.

 

[mackguyver]

The answer is yes, but I actually will have a 16-35 f/2,8L, 16-35 f/4L IS, and the Tamron 15-30 VC in hand at the beginning of April for a detailed three-way shootout. You probably couldn't get the Tamron before then anyway, so you will probably find the results from that interesting.

I look forward to reading about your results!

 

[andrewflo]

The answer is yes, but I actually will have a 16-35 f/2,8L, 16-35 f/4L IS, and the Tamron 15-30 VC in hand at the beginning of April for a detailed three-way shootout. You probably couldn't get the Tamron before then anyway, so you will probably find the results from that interesting.

I also look forward to this! The reviews so far looks pretty solid for the Tamron. But a thorough comparison to the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS is really what would win me over for it.

I find myself slightly unsatisfied with the focus speed and accuracy of the SP 24-70mm. While focus speed isn't too much concern with an UWA (and the new SP 15-30mm looks pretty fast anyhow), this new accuracy finding is slightly alarming. Hopefully it is an isolated incident.

 

[expatinasia]

I actually will have a 16-35 f/2,8L, 16-35 f/4L IS, and the Tamron 15-30 VC in hand at the beginning of April for a detailed three-way shootout. You probably couldn't get the Tamron before then anyway, so you will probably find the results from that interesting.

I am very interested to see the results between these two: Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, and the Tamron 15-30 VC. Though will most likely have bought one of them by the end of this month.

I liked Bryan's review but when you use his image quality tool, the Tamron seems to really suffer in comparison.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=986&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2

 

[TommyLee]

I had the 16-35 II, still have the 14L II....a nice straight-line lens...

I rented the 16-35, f4 to 'see' ... it was a very very nice lens..... sharp, contrasty....to the edge.....
BUT....... f4 was like a boring date....... not that I am a big catch....

but I have a 24-105...
this 16-35 f4 was not enough for me

I wanted more light
....
so I got my tamron..
a big fat mother.... waayy fatter than the canon f4 I.S. ...

but I made my choice..

and it is just fine
this lens..... sharp ...hits it... no focus issues for me.....
I like the extra stop...

with this lens and a 100 L macro or a 100-400 II you have most stuff..
I could add the sigma on a trip and get almost anything I need....



/

I did try 1/20, 1/6th etc shots to see the I.S. work... it is about a 3 stop IMO....

makes a lot of difference added to f2.8......

a cafe shot at night in a city.... no sweat......
in a dark club...it will be at the limit... thats where I would use a sigma 35 f1.4, 85L II....
they work... f2.8 is a stretc h...

my 14L II is almost redundant ...but straighter lines
BUT it is not as distorted as 15mm on Tamron (not terrible just noticeable...easilty corrected. but not absolutely needed..

14L II has more CA.. correctable ...
this Tamron needed correction there... but a lightroom link would be useful ...and make it easy..

//////


I consdered the 11-24 but I cant see a need for me for 11mm....and f4..
versus 15mm with f2.8 and stabilized.....

the quality of images seem close..

so 2.5 times the price...or so...
I might try something else after Tamron..
like a sigma 135 f2 I.s. ....PLEASE....

i LIKE THE tAM LENS... SEEMS WORTH THE $$

tom

 

[LovePhotography]

I actually will have a 16-35 f/2,8L, 16-35 f/4L IS, and the Tamron 15-30 VC in hand at the beginning of April for a detailed three-way shootout. You probably couldn't get the Tamron before then anyway, so you will probably find the results from that interesting.

I am very interested to see the results between these two: Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, and the Tamron 15-30 VC. Though will most likely have bought one of them by the end of this month.

I liked Bryan's review but when you use his image quality tool, the Tamron seems to really suffer in comparison.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=986&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2

Boy, no kidding!

 

[expatinasia]

I actually will have a 16-35 f/2,8L, 16-35 f/4L IS, and the Tamron 15-30 VC in hand at the beginning of April for a detailed three-way shootout. You probably couldn't get the Tamron before then anyway, so you will probably find the results from that interesting.

I am very interested to see the results between these two: Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, and the Tamron 15-30 VC. Though will most likely have bought one of them by the end of this month.

I liked Bryan's review but when you use his image quality tool, the Tamron seems to really suffer in comparison.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=986&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=2

Boy, no kidding!

Yes, I would love to know why that is as those image quality charts are normally quite accurate. But when you play around comparing the Canon 16-35 f/4 IS to the Tamron, the latter looks shockingly bad at times.

But, that is not what some are claiming in real world usage. But, because those charts are generally pretty accurate, it makes me wonder if something went wrong with the test, or whether it really is not all that good in the middle and corners. Definitely makes me want the Canon more.

Oh well, I will be testing the Canon 16-35 f/4 IS and the 11-24 tomorrow and on Monday so will have a closer look at those two then.

 

[mackguyver]

Yes, I would love to know why that is as those image quality charts are normally quite accurate. But when you play around comparing the Canon 16-35 f/4 IS to the Tamron, the latter looks shockingly bad at times.

But, that is not what some are claiming in real world usage. But, because those charts are generally pretty accurate, it makes me wonder if something went wrong with the test, or whether it really is not all that good in the middle and corners. Definitely makes me want the Canon more.

Oh well, I will be testing the Canon 16-35 f/4 IS and the 11-24 tomorrow and on Monday so will have a closer look at those two then.

Brian's stuff is pretty solid, but copy variation and other factors are possible. As for the 16-35 f/4 IS vs 11-24 f/4, I think you'll find that the 11-24 is just as sharp but with less vignetting and distortion in the corners. CA seems a tiny bit better, but flare is a bit worse when it happens. Compared to the Tamron (on Brian's site), it looks a bit better at all equivalent settings, but it is a $3,000 lens! The Tamron puts in one helluva performance for the price, and it's f/2.8 and has VC/IS as well.

 

[andrewflo]

I had the 16-35 II, still have the 14L II....a nice straight-line lens...

I rented the 16-35, f4 to 'see' ... it was a very very nice lens..... sharp, contrasty....to the edge.....
BUT....... f4 was like a boring date....... not that I am a big catch....

but I have a 24-105...
this 16-35 f4 was not enough for me

I wanted more light
....
so I got my tamron..
a big fat mother.... waayy fatter than the canon f4 I.S. ...

but I made my choice..

and it is just fine
this lens..... sharp ...hits it... no focus issues for me.....
I like the extra stop...

with this lens and a 100 L macro or a 100-400 II you have most stuff..
I could add the sigma on a trip and get almost anything I need....



/

I did try 1/20, 1/6th etc shots to see the I.S. work... it is about a 3 stop IMO....

makes a lot of difference added to f2.8......

a cafe shot at night in a city.... no sweat......
in a dark club...it will be at the limit... thats where I would use a sigma 35 f1.4, 85L II....
they work... f2.8 is a stretc h...

my 14L II is almost redundant ...but straighter lines
BUT it is not as distorted as 15mm on Tamron (not terrible just noticeable...easilty corrected. but not absolutely needed..

14L II has more CA.. correctable ...
this Tamron needed correction there... but a lightroom link would be useful ...and make it easy..

//////


I consdered the 11-24 but I cant see a need for me for 11mm....and f4..
versus 15mm with f2.8 and stabilized.....

the quality of images seem close..

so 2.5 times the price...or so...
I might try something else after Tamron..
like a sigma 135 f2 I.s. ....PLEASE....

i LIKE THE tAM LENS... SEEMS WORTH THE $$

tom

Curious to know if the Tamron's 15mm FOV seems like a true 15mm compared to the Canon 14mm and 16-35mm.

I was reading a review of the Tamron vs the Nikon 14-24mm saying the Tammy's 15mm was closer to the Nikon's 16mm.

If the Tamron has only a slightly wider FOV than the Canon 16-35mm f/4 (say 15.5mm or 15.75mm) as opposed to a true 15mm, I think that's a bit disappointing.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I had the 16-35 II, still have the 14L II....a nice straight-line lens...

I rented the 16-35, f4 to 'see' ... it was a very very nice lens..... sharp, contrasty....to the edge.....
BUT....... f4 was like a boring date....... not that I am a big catch....

but I have a 24-105...
this 16-35 f4 was not enough for me

I wanted more light
....
so I got my tamron..
a big fat mother.... waayy fatter than the canon f4 I.S. ...

but I made my choice..

and it is just fine
this lens..... sharp ...hits it... no focus issues for me.....
I like the extra stop...

with this lens and a 100 L macro or a 100-400 II you have most stuff..
I could add the sigma on a trip and get almost anything I need....



/

I did try 1/20, 1/6th etc shots to see the I.S. work... it is about a 3 stop IMO....

makes a lot of difference added to f2.8......

a cafe shot at night in a city.... no sweat......
in a dark club...it will be at the limit... thats where I would use a sigma 35 f1.4, 85L II....
they work... f2.8 is a stretc h...

my 14L II is almost redundant ...but straighter lines
BUT it is not as distorted as 15mm on Tamron (not terrible just noticeable...easilty corrected. but not absolutely needed..

14L II has more CA.. correctable ...
this Tamron needed correction there... but a lightroom link would be useful ...and make it easy..

//////


I consdered the 11-24 but I cant see a need for me for 11mm....and f4..
versus 15mm with f2.8 and stabilized.....

the quality of images seem close..

so 2.5 times the price...or so...
I might try something else after Tamron..
like a sigma 135 f2 I.s. ....PLEASE....

i LIKE THE tAM LENS... SEEMS WORTH THE $$

tom

Curious to know if the Tamron's 15mm FOV seems like a true 15mm compared to the Canon 14mm and 16-35mm.

I was reading a review of the Tamron vs the Nikon 14-24mm saying the Tammy's 15mm was closer to the Nikon's 16mm.

If the Tamron has only a slightly wider FOV than the Canon 16-35mm f/4 (say 15.5mm or 15.75mm) as opposed to a true 15mm, I think that's a bit disappointing.

That's another thing I will look at when I compare the 16-35 f/2.8 + f/4L IS + Tamron 15-30. By their rating, the angle of view is 110 degrees for the Tamron and 108 for the Canon. The Rokinon 14mm beats everyone (including the Nikon and Canon 14II = 114 degrees) with a 115.7 degree angle of view. BTW, the Zeiss distagon 15 frames at 110 degrees - same as the Tamron.

 

[telemaq76]

hey tamron 15-30 users, i just readed NISI released a new filter holder 150 for this lens. I know haida have one too. Any of you tried them? i just can t find them in france now

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Am I the only one who saw huge amounts of CA in many of the photos, even stopped down. It could be some other factor, but it did not look good to me.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Am I the only one who saw huge amounts of CA in many of the photos, even stopped down. It could be some other factor, but it did not look good to me.

There aren't. I just purchased the lens, so it is the third copy I've used (two other review copies). There is minute amount more of CA than the 16-35 f/4L, but barely.

P.S. I'll be testing the NiSi system shortly for the supplier here in Canada.

 

[telemaq76]

i didnt notice any Ca on my pictures.

Just one sunset taken few hours ago near home

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

i didnt notice any Ca on my pictures.

Just one sunset taken few hours ago near home

Nice!