Tamron SP 15-30mm - The Digital Picture IQ charts up

[andrewflo]

Looks like The Digital Picture's image quality comparison tool has the Tamron SP 15-30mm up.

Here's the comparison between the Tamron and the Canon 16-35mm f4:
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=0&APIComp=2

Looks pretty comparable at f/4. Edge definitely to Canon for corner CA but mid frame the Tamron looks sharper.

 

[privatebydesign]

And at f2.8 it looks all but unusable, which begs the question, why bother going to 2.8?

 

[Rahul]

And at f2.8 it looks all but unusable, which begs the question, why bother going to 2.8?

+1

@ f/2.8 the Tamron looks even worse off than the 16-35 f/2.8 II.

 

[Lawliet]

And at f2.8 it looks all but unusable, which begs the question, why bother going to 2.8?

The flaws are easily corrected, with a high res image revealed. (+ Without processing a 22MP raw making a 80MP file feel lightweight in comparison.)
Little astigmatism, coma or folding.

 

[privatebydesign]

And at f2.8 it looks all but unusable, which begs the question, why bother going to 2.8?

The flaws are easily corrected, with a high res image revealed. (+ Without processing a 22MP raw making a 80MP file feel lightweight in comparison.)
Little astigmatism, coma or folding.

No they aren't, and I am pretty good at correcting flaws. Even a really good custom lens profile is going to struggle getting decent contrast and resolution back in those corners. I had a Canon 16-35 f2.8 MkI that looked just like that at f2.8, which is why I now have the f4 version.

 

[Lawliet]

And at f2.8 it looks all but unusable, which begs the question, why bother going to 2.8?

The flaws are easily corrected, with a high res image revealed. (+ Without processing a 22MP raw making a 80MP file feel lightweight in comparison.)
Little astigmatism, coma or folding.

No they aren't, and I am pretty good at correcting flaws.

The problem with self assesments.

I had a Canon 16-35 f2.8 MkI that looked just like that at f2.8, which is why I now have the f4 version.

The EF-16-35 suffers strongly from those faults mentioned in the last line...requiring deconvolution from a preferable noisefree and pre-demosaiced image. Even trying to fix that with lens profiles is betraying.

 

[privatebydesign]

And at f2.8 it looks all but unusable, which begs the question, why bother going to 2.8?

The flaws are easily corrected, with a high res image revealed. (+ Without processing a 22MP raw making a 80MP file feel lightweight in comparison.)
Little astigmatism, coma or folding.

No they aren't, and I am pretty good at correcting flaws.

The problem with self assesments.

I had a Canon 16-35 f2.8 MkI that looked just like that at f2.8, which is why I now have the f4 version.

The EF-16-35 suffers strongly from those faults mentioned in the last line...requiring deconvolution from a preferable noisefree and pre-demosaiced image. Even trying to fix that with lens profiles is betraying.

It isn't my opinion, it is others opinions of my post processing abilities.

But our opinions of ourselves doesn't alter the fact that the Tamron sucks at f2.8, and that is why I asked the question. Unless you can show me some well corrected images from a Tamron at f2.8 I will assume you are just blathering nonsense.

 

[expatinasia]

I sincerely hope that something went wrong with the test at f/2.8, I was expecting better things from that lens.

 

[andrewflo]

Have a look at Dustin Abbott's real world testing of this lens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLcyN1TwE4c

I think it looks pretty darn impressive at f/2.8 in his tests. Clearly a landslide over the Samyang 14mm and Tamron SP 24-70.

 

[nightscape123]

And at f2.8 it looks all but unusable, which begs the question, why bother going to 2.8?

Are you looking at the same chart as me?

The one i'm looking at has the corners beating the Nikon 14-24 in both resolution and contrast... considered the best UWA of all time...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=615&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=986&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[sagittariansrock]

In addition Matt Granger posted images showing the Tammy to be equal or better than the 14-24.
Can't check the TDP and TWI links on my phone, but they seem to agree.
Good job, Tamron!

 

[privatebydesign]

And at f2.8 it looks all but unusable, which begs the question, why bother going to 2.8?

Are you looking at the same chart as me?

The one i'm looking at has the corners beating the Nikon 14-24 in both resolution and contrast... considered the best UWA of all time...

Not at f2.8 it isn't, have you used one and tried to get good clean corner detail at f2.8? Check out the Nikon forums where they bemoan the CA and corner sharpness.

Besides, being the best of a bunch of crap doesn't mean you are good, lenses like the 24 TS-E and 17 TS-E from Canon embarrass the Nikon in the wide and ultrawide category, and the 16-35 f4IS is even better than the 17TS-E at f4.

 

[expatinasia]

Are you looking at the same chart as me?

The one i'm looking at has the corners beating the Nikon 14-24 in both resolution and contrast... considered the best UWA of all time...

In addition Matt Granger posted images showing the Tammy to be equal or better than the 14-24.

Why are people comparing this Tamron to a Nikon lens. This is a Canon forum, and as such not many of us will have Nikon.

Comparisons are only really worth anything if they are against a comparable Canon-compatible lens such as the 16-35 f/4 IS.

And from where I am sitting the Tamron does not do too well at all in the TDP tests against that lens at f/2.8.

Real world is all that counts but unless there was a serious mistake in the TDP assessment then it looks disappointing at f/2.8.

Mind you, I wonder how many would actually be using it at f/2.8, but still.

 

[nightscape123]

Are you looking at the same chart as me?

The one i'm looking at has the corners beating the Nikon 14-24 in both resolution and contrast... considered the best UWA of all time...

In addition Matt Granger posted images showing the Tammy to be equal or better than the 14-24.

Why are people comparing this Tamron to a Nikon lens. This is a Canon forum, and as such not many of us will have Nikon.

Comparisons are only really worth anything if they are against a comparable Canon-compatible lens such as the 16-35 f/4 IS.

And from where I am sitting the Tamron does not do too well at all in the TDP tests against that lens at f/2.8.

Real world is all that counts but unless there was a serious mistake in the TDP assessment then it looks disappointing at f/2.8.

Mind you, I wonder how many would actually be using it at f/2.8, but still.

Most canon landscape users I know use the Nikon with an adaptor since it was so much better than anything canon offered. That will probably start to change now with the 16-35 f/4 and the 11-24 f/4. I think that's why you are going to see a lot of comparisons to that lens instead of canons.

I've personally been using the Rokinon 14mm, and the Tamron definitely beats that one, so i'll probably be getting the Tamron since it is much cheaper than the Canon 2.8 II, and should hopefully have better corners, and certainly has better coma correction which is what matters the most to me.

 

[lycan]

Looking at the lab results, the 16.35 f/4 IS by Canon is a lot better than Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I don't really know what to make with this, but it does not at all equate to what I am seeing.

I won't elaborate further other to say that I have yet to see a Tamron lens "chart" particularly well at TDP.

I've thoroughly tested both lenses, and they are both great, but my personal preorder is in for the Tamron.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Are you looking at the same chart as me?

The one i'm looking at has the corners beating the Nikon 14-24 in both resolution and contrast... considered the best UWA of all time...

In addition Matt Granger posted images showing the Tammy to be equal or better than the 14-24.

Why are people comparing this Tamron to a Nikon lens. This is a Canon forum, and as such not many of us will have Nikon.

Comparisons are only really worth anything if they are against a comparable Canon-compatible lens such as the 16-35 f/4 IS.

And from where I am sitting the Tamron does not do too well at all in the TDP tests against that lens at f/2.8.

Real world is all that counts but unless there was a serious mistake in the TDP assessment then it looks disappointing at f/2.8.

Mind you, I wonder how many would actually be using it at f/2.8, but still.

Because there are people who primarily shoot Nikon, don't own the 16-35, and are gobsmacked by the 14-24 (I am talking about Matt Granger).
I cited it because there aren't many comparisons out there yet.
But if someone can post another comparison with the 16-35, that will be swell
TDP doesn't need to make a mistake- it could just be sample variation. In any case, it seems the jury is still out.

 

[Viggo]

The TDP tests, and please correct me if I'm wrong, are center focused and then crops of the corners are from that, so any distortion will make corners extremely soft. If one test the lens focusing on the corners, results may look way sharper.

Just on my way to pick up my spanking new 16-35 f4 from the post office now, nice to see people think it's great. I'm sure I will too

 

[mackguyver]

I don't really know what to make with this, but it does not at all equate to what I am seeing.

I won't elaborate further other to say that I have yet to see a Tamron lens "chart" particularly well at TDP.

I've thoroughly tested both lenses, and they are both great, but my personal preorder is in for the Tamron.

Are you sure you made the right choice? I only ask because your reviews and websites are so full of test charts and brick walls, I wonder if you ever get out and shoot outdoors. Apparently the cold must keep you inside

Just kidding of course and that's what I like best about your reviews - you actually use the gear for real shooting and talk about how it does for those purposes.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I don't really know what to make with this, but it does not at all equate to what I am seeing.

I won't elaborate further other to say that I have yet to see a Tamron lens "chart" particularly well at TDP.

I've thoroughly tested both lenses, and they are both great, but my personal preorder is in for the Tamron.

Are you sure you made the right choice? I only ask because your reviews and websites are so full of test charts and brick walls, I wonder if you ever get out and shoot outdoors. Apparently the cold must keep you inside

Just kidding of course and that's what I like best about your reviews - you actually use the gear for real shooting and talk about how it does for those purposes.

What can I say? There is just something about brick walls that I love. And cats. Lots and lots of cat photos.