Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Image Quality Examination

[BeenThere]

Thanks for doing this. When you add a few more, as mentioned, a corner crop in the star field would be really helpful. Thanks again, I always enjoy your reviews.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's a wide open one for you to peep at a bit here. I've processed it a bit to help the stars pop (and to try to deal with the light pollution everywhere), so at a pixel level there is some extra noise, but it will also make it very easy to check for coma and determine whether it is acceptable for your purposes.

I'm working on the final review right now. The video review is already done and uploaded, but it is still unlisted until I am ready to go live with everything else.

 

[andrewflo]

Very cool thanks Dustin.

 

[Djaaf]

Very nice Dustin.
It seems like there's a bit of decentering, but it's barely noticeable (top left corner is a bit worse than top right corner). And the coma seem to be on par with the Samyang 14mm, which is quite the achievement.

I'll have to see it with my own eyes to see if the size will really be an issue or not, but right now, i'm awfully tempted.

Djaaf.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Very nice Dustin.
It seems like there's a bit of decentering, but it's barely noticeable (top left corner is a bit worse than top right corner). And the coma seem to be on par with the Samyang 14mm, which is quite the achievement.

I'll have to see it with my own eyes to see if the size will really be an issue or not, but right now, i'm awfully tempted.

Djaaf.

I don't know if you have seen the Nikon 14-24mm, but it is just marginally larger than that. Weight wise it falls right between a 24-70 f/2.8 (840g) and 70-200 f/2.8 (1470g); it is 1100g.

 

[Rommel]

All at F2.8 on 5D Mk3 and 15mm

 

[wanderer]

Rommel, could you please post RAW files of these photos. Or at least 100% crops. Thanks

 

[mackguyver]

Have you guys seen this from DPReview - it mirrors Dustin's observations:
Prepare to be impressed: Tamron 15-30 F2.8 vs. Nikon 14-24 F2.8

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Have you guys seen this from DPReview - it mirrors Dustin's observations:
Prepare to be impressed: Tamron 15-30 F2.8 vs. Nikon 14-24 F2.8

Thanks for sharing. That was very interesting. I've got another copy coming in a couple of weeks so that I can do the direct comparison with the Canon 16-35 f/4L (and maybe f/2.8L, too).

 

[BeenThere]

Based to a large extent on Dustin's early review I purchased the new Tamron. One of my interests is night photography and the night shots from Dustin's review looked promising. I was specifically interested in the Coma performance wide open and did some comparisons with a few other wide angle lenses to see how the new Tamron faired. Bottom line was that it did very well in the comparisons. Perhaps my new favorite starry night lens. My results are posted here:

http://www.ronbrunsvold.com/tools/wide-angle-lenses-for-night.html

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Based to a large extent on Dustin's early review I purchased the new Tamron. One of my interests is night photography and the night shots from Dustin's review looked promising. I was specifically interested in the Coma performance wide open and did some comparisons with a few other wide angle lenses to see how the new Tamron faired. Bottom line was that it did very well in the comparisons. Perhaps my new favorite starry night lens. My results are posted here:

http://www.ronbrunsvold.com/tools/wide-angle-lenses-for-night.html

That's a very interesting comparison. Nicely done. I too was rather unimpressed with the 16-35 f/4L IS as an astraphotography lens, although I am retesting it as compared with the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 II and the Tamron 15-30 VC as a part of my three lens shootout I'm working on.

P.S. Those using a mirrorless body should also consider the Rokinon 12mm f/2. It turns in a very nice performance and the distance scale is more accurate than the 14mm Rokinon.

 

[telemaq76]

I just received mine today. Very sharp even wide open, great result at 2.8 on the stars, faaaar better than the 16-35 2.8 II at 2.8 . Strangely i tried a sunset and the highlight are very high, white are overexposed, if you understand what i mean, ( sorry english is not my native langage ) . Seems the lens has a lot of contrast. And great to have an Is, i like to shoot handheld

 

[TeT]

Here's a wide open one for you to peep at a bit here. I've processed it a bit to help the stars pop (and to try to deal with the light pollution everywhere), so at a pixel level there is some extra noise, but it will also make it very easy to check for coma and determine whether it is acceptable for your purposes.

I'm working on the final review right now. The video review is already done and uploaded, but it is still unlisted until I am ready to go live with everything else.

While everyone is still looking; what is your quick fix for making the stars pop and light pollution...? I mostly use Photoshop for post..

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Based to a large extent on Dustin's early review I purchased the new Tamron. One of my interests is night photography and the night shots from Dustin's review looked promising. I was specifically interested in the Coma performance wide open and did some comparisons with a few other wide angle lenses to see how the new Tamron faired. Bottom line was that it did very well in the comparisons. Perhaps my new favorite starry night lens. My results are posted here:

http://www.ronbrunsvold.com/tools/wide-angle-lenses-for-night.html

Ron, with your permission I would like to link to your findings in my upcoming three way shootout. You've given more time to this than what I will have time to do.

P.S. My single greatest challenge with shooting nightscapes with the 16-35mm f/4L IS has been because infinity focus (manually) isn't calibrated properly. You can focus beyond infinity, and as a result get blurry results. This has been true on both copies I've used thus far. With familiarity I would find the proper place to focus, but sometimes during the length of time that I have lenses I don't always get an opportunity to spend a lot of time figuring that out. The Tamron 15-30 was much easier - I just twisted the dial to infinity, went out and shot, and got great results.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's a wide open one for you to peep at a bit here. I've processed it a bit to help the stars pop (and to try to deal with the light pollution everywhere), so at a pixel level there is some extra noise, but it will also make it very easy to check for coma and determine whether it is acceptable for your purposes.

I'm working on the final review right now. The video review is already done and uploaded, but it is still unlisted until I am ready to go live with everything else.

While everyone is still looking; what is your quick fix for making the stars pop and light pollution...? I mostly use Photoshop for post..

Curves are your friend. I will often first make a selection where I am working only on the sky. You want a tone curve with low shadow (to make the sky dark) and pull up the highlights (to make the stars really show).

 

[BeenThere]

Based to a large extent on Dustin's early review I purchased the new Tamron. One of my interests is night photography and the night shots from Dustin's review looked promising. I was specifically interested in the Coma performance wide open and did some comparisons with a few other wide angle lenses to see how the new Tamron faired. Bottom line was that it did very well in the comparisons. Perhaps my new favorite starry night lens. My results are posted here:

http://www.ronbrunsvold.com/tools/wide-angle-lenses-for-night.html

Ron, with your permission I would like to link to your findings in my upcoming three way shootout. You've given more time to this than what I will have time to do.

Dustin
I don't have any problem with you linking to my findings. As far as infinity focus goes, when testing, I almost always use live view to find infinity and it is hardly ever exactly at the hard stop or infinity mark. Even the Zeiss 21 mm Distagon that i tested wasn't quite at the hard stop though it was very close.

Ron



P.S. My single greatest challenge with shooting nightscapes with the 16-35mm f/4L IS has been because infinity focus (manually) isn't calibrated properly. You can focus beyond infinity, and as a result get blurry results. This has been true on both copies I've used thus far. With familiarity I would find the proper place to focus, but sometimes during the length of time that I have lenses I don't always get an opportunity to spend a lot of time figuring that out. The Tamron 15-30 was much easier - I just twisted the dial to infinity, went out and shot, and got great results.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Based to a large extent on Dustin's early review I purchased the new Tamron. One of my interests is night photography and the night shots from Dustin's review looked promising. I was specifically interested in the Coma performance wide open and did some comparisons with a few other wide angle lenses to see how the new Tamron faired. Bottom line was that it did very well in the comparisons. Perhaps my new favorite starry night lens. My results are posted here:

http://www.ronbrunsvold.com/tools/wide-angle-lenses-for-night.html

Ron, with your permission I would like to link to your findings in my upcoming three way shootout. You've given more time to this than what I will have time to do.

Dustin
I don't have any problem with you linking to my findings. As far as infinity focus goes, when testing, I almost always use live view to find infinity and it is hardly ever exactly at the hard stop or infinity mark. Even the Zeiss 21 mm Distagon that i tested wasn't quite at the hard stop though it was very close.

Ron



P.S. My single greatest challenge with shooting nightscapes with the 16-35mm f/4L IS has been because infinity focus (manually) isn't calibrated properly. You can focus beyond infinity, and as a result get blurry results. This has been true on both copies I've used thus far. With familiarity I would find the proper place to focus, but sometimes during the length of time that I have lenses I don't always get an opportunity to spend a lot of time figuring that out. The Tamron 15-30 was much easier - I just twisted the dial to infinity, went out and shot, and got great results.

That was a strength for the first copy of the Tamron 15-30 that I test. Infinity was right around the hard stop.