Tamron SP 15-30mm F/2.8 Di VC USD

[Ozarker]

Today, I was pleasantly surprised.

A week ago a local realtor asked me to photograph a high end home for him. The widest lens I had is the Excellent Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM. The problem is that at 24mm I just could not get enough of any bathroom or closet. Everything in small areas looked strained and forced, not relaxed. I thought to myself, "I need something wider." That, and I need to learn how to do multiple exposure bracketing and combining images.

This was my first ever real estate shoot and I am no pro at anything by any means. However, there is a lot of pressure on me to do something to earn some money soon.

I had things narrowed down to three choices: 1. Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, 2. Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM, and 3. Tamron SP 15-30mm F/2.8 Di VC USD.

The shop in Las Vegas had all three so I drove the 80 odd miles to do a first person comparison, albeit, a completely unscientific comparison. There are people that write great reviews of both Canon lenses, and also bad reviews. I’ve always bought my gear online to avoid the sales tax and the expense of driving to Las Vegas. For this particular purchase I felt I needed to put the lenses on my camera to make a more informed decision. This is the last gear purchase I can make for a long time. Things need to be right.

When I got to the shop I first looked at the Tamron. This lens is heavy and built like a tank. I like heavy lenses. Heavy lenses just feel good in the hand to me. While it is not so massive as Canon’s 11-24mm f/4L USM… it is close weighing less than 3oz less. The Tamron dwarfs Canon’s 14mm f/2.8L II USM and is bigger than the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM.

There are good reviews of all these lenses, but in the back of my mind the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM wasn’t going to make it into my bag. I never even held it.

That only left two choices: The 14mm Canon or the Tamron 15-30mm zoom. The price difference is massive. The Tamron chimes in nicely at $1,199.00. The Canon screams $1,999.00 Hmmmm…

Times are hard for me right now. I had a career ending set of injuries and have not worked since January. As such, this purchase has me a little nervous.

I’m a Canon fan boy. I really am. I clicked off a few photos with the Canon and then the Tamron in the shop with my 5D Mark III. Honestly, on the tiny screen on the back of the camera I can’t tell much of a difference, if any. The Canon is wider, but is that worth $800 more dollars?

I chose the Tamron. While the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 II USM is a fine lens, I feel the Tamron has more to offer at a much more reasonable price. It is not as wide as the Canon. However, it is much more versatile (zoom and vibration control) and costs a whole lot less.

The obsessive side of me will have to get used to having a non-Canon lens as part of my gear, but I think I’ll get over it.

When I got home I shot a photo of my tiny bathroom and small living room. The Tamron will work out well.

At $1,199.00 it is very hard to beat. In fact, I don't think it can be.

 

[privatebydesign]

"At $1,199.00 it is very hard to beat. In fact, I don't think it can be."

Sure it is, especially for real estate and landscape work where f2.8 really isn't used or needed, the Canon 16-35 f4 IS is an amazing optic and available for comfortably under $1,000.

 

[Ozarker]

"At $1,199.00 it is very hard to beat. In fact, I don't think it can be."

Sure it is, especially for real estate and landscape work where f2.8 really isn't used or needed, the Canon 16-35 f4 IS is an amazing optic and available for comfortably under $1,000.

This was not an option I was willing to consider. I wanted f/2.8 for other reasons (astrophotography, etc...). I also wanted wider than 16mm with image stabilization.. To get f/2.8 on an ultra wide at that price with image stabilization is something special, at least in my world it is. This lens competes well with the Canon f/4L according to what I have read. The Canon f/4 is a fine lens. It is not available for significantly less $$$$ here in the states. At both Adorama and B&H it is priced above $1000.00

 

[bholliman]

"At $1,199.00 it is very hard to beat. In fact, I don't think it can be."

Sure it is, especially for real estate and landscape work where f2.8 really isn't used or needed, the Canon 16-35 f4 IS is an amazing optic and available for comfortably under $1,000.

This was not an option I was willing to consider. I wanted f/2.8 for other reasons (astrophotography, etc...). I also wanted wider than 16mm with image stabilization.. To get f/2.8 on an ultra wide at that price with image stabilization is something special, at least in my world it is. This lens competes well with the Canon f/4L according to what I have read. The Canon f/4 is a fine lens. It is not available for significantly less $$$$ here in the states. At both Adorama and B&H it is priced above $1000.00

When I was reading your intended use (interiors) I was thinking the Canon 16-35 f/4 would be ideal. Since you will need to step down somewhat to keep everything sharp, you will probably be shooting at f/5.6 or narrower, and image stabilization would allow you to shoot hand held if you didn't want to work off a tripod. If 16mm isn't wide enough, Lightroom handles basic panorama stitching pretty well. The current "street price" from Canonpricewatch.com is $999 for the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS. So, to my thinking it nicely fit your criteria in the original post and has the advantage of being small and light.

In your most recent post you added that you would use the lens for astro photography, and that use makes the Canon a less attractive option (coma, slower). No doubt the Tamron is a fantastic lens, Dustin Abbott's review was very positive. Post some pictures and let us know what you think of the lens after some use both for real estate and astro.

 

[Ozarker]

"At $1,199.00 it is very hard to beat. In fact, I don't think it can be."

Sure it is, especially for real estate and landscape work where f2.8 really isn't used or needed, the Canon 16-35 f4 IS is an amazing optic and available for comfortably under $1,000.

This was not an option I was willing to consider. I wanted f/2.8 for other reasons (astrophotography, etc...). I also wanted wider than 16mm with image stabilization.. To get f/2.8 on an ultra wide at that price with image stabilization is something special, at least in my world it is. This lens competes well with the Canon f/4L according to what I have read. The Canon f/4 is a fine lens. It is not available for significantly less $$$$ here in the states. At both Adorama and B&H it is priced above $1000.00

When I was reading your intended use (interiors) I was thinking the Canon 16-35 f/4 would be ideal. Since you will need to step down somewhat to keep everything sharp, you will probably be shooting at f/5.6 or narrower, and image stabilization would allow you to shoot hand held if you didn't want to work off a tripod. If 16mm isn't wide enough, Lightroom handles basic panorama stitching pretty well. The current "street price" from Canonpricewatch.com is $999 for the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS. So, to my thinking it nicely fit your criteria in the original post and has the advantage of being small and light.

In your most recent post you added that you would use the lens for astro photography, and that use makes the Canon a less attractive option (coma, slower). No doubt the Tamron is a fantastic lens, Dustin Abbott's review was very positive. Post some pictures and let us know what you think of the lens after some use both for real estate and astro.

You are right.

Also, PrivatebyDesign was correct too. If the lens was bought purely for real estate I'd have gotten the f/4. The Canon 16-35 f/2.8 II was never really in the running because of my hope to use the lens in astrophotography (coma), same thing for the f/4. The f/4 vs f/2.8 took it completely off the list.

Real estate is the primary use and the justification for the purchase (Hopefully to earn some money), but it is nice to have gear to cover other interests too. Hence, f/2.8.

 

[Ozarker]

"At $1,199.00 it is very hard to beat. In fact, I don't think it can be."

Sure it is, especially for real estate and landscape work where f2.8 really isn't used or needed, the Canon 16-35 f4 IS is an amazing optic and available for comfortably under $1,000.

This was not an option I was willing to consider. I wanted f/2.8 for other reasons (astrophotography, etc...). I also wanted wider than 16mm with image stabilization.. To get f/2.8 on an ultra wide at that price with image stabilization is something special, at least in my world it is. This lens competes well with the Canon f/4L according to what I have read. The Canon f/4 is a fine lens. It is not available for significantly less $$$$ here in the states. At both Adorama and B&H it is priced above $1000.00

When I was reading your intended use (interiors) I was thinking the Canon 16-35 f/4 would be ideal. Since you will need to step down somewhat to keep everything sharp, you will probably be shooting at f/5.6 or narrower, and image stabilization would allow you to shoot hand held if you didn't want to work off a tripod. If 16mm isn't wide enough, Lightroom handles basic panorama stitching pretty well. The current "street price" from Canonpricewatch.com is $999 for the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS. So, to my thinking it nicely fit your criteria in the original post and has the advantage of being small and light.

In your most recent post you added that you would use the lens for astro photography, and that use makes the Canon a less attractive option (coma, slower). No doubt the Tamron is a fantastic lens, Dustin Abbott's review was very positive. Post some pictures and let us know what you think of the lens after some use both for real estate and astro.

Last night: 5D Mark III and Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD
30 seconds, ISO 1600, f/2.8

The exposure is a little too long so the stars were beginning to elongate. Not too bad though. I'm happy.

 

[TeT]

16mm is OK for real estate. 14mm is so much better. In his situation I would probably grab the 15 also... (I use the old 14mm L which is just fine stopped down)

 

[Ozarker]

16mm is OK for real estate. 14mm is so much better. In his situation I would probably grab the 15 also... (I use the old 14mm L which is just fine stopped down)

Let's be honest... we'd have 1 of everything if we could. I know I would.

 

[tomscott]

The 16-35mm F2.8 MKII, isn't the best, but it isn't awful either just a little soft in the corners. But at current cost is most certainly overpriced. I bought it about 2 years ago pre owned and have used it extensively for a few years and been fairly happy with it does the job, been round the world with it as well as covering events and weddings. Also shot a fair amount of astro and been happy with it

The Tamron is a better lens and I think you made the correct choose. I prefer the canon glass. When the new version comes out I will certainly upgrade to it.