TDP Image Quality of 16-35 f/2.8L III posted

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin. Very interesting comparison pictures, as always. Thank you. My two cents. It appears to my that the TDP pictures shows superior contrast in the Canon lens. Sharpness is harder to compare to the Tamron due to the different camera bodies that are used. The test pictures you have provided so far may not be the best in order to compare contrast differences between these two lenses.

Fair enough, and quick screenshots don't necessarily tell the whole story. My video episode will break it down in more detail. That being said - if you look at the TDP comparison the 16-35 f/4 seems to destroy the Tamron; a result that I've not seen duplicated anywhere else. He seems to have gotten really rotten copies of a few Tamrons, as his results don't jive with my own. For what it's worth, the 15-30 actually gets a higher sharpness rating than the 16-35 f/4 at DXO. I found the 16-35 a hair sharper, but it was so close as to be undetectable except when comparing side by side.

I guess my point is that chart tests frequently don't tell the whole story of what a lens does in the field. The Sigma 35 ART charts sharper than, say, the Tamron 35 VC, but the latter's flatter field of focus makes it actually sharper in real world shooting. The Sigma also looks pretty close to the 35L II in chart tests, but when I shot them side by side I chose the images from the 35L II every time. The 15-30 VC is a better lens than what Bryan's test suggest.

At f/2.8 on the wide end I find the Tamron a bit sharper in the corners, and I had others look at the monitor in a blind test and tell me which one they thought was sharper (Tamron). At 18 and 20mm I slightly preferred the Canon. Stopped down I think the Canon improves more than the Tamron. It's definitely better in the CA and flare departments. It vignettes much more heavily and has more distortion than the Tamron, though.

If I were just choosing a lens, I'd probably choose the Canon. When one costs twice as much as the other, though, I think the buying decision gets much, much harder.

 

[LordofTackle]

Hi Dustin,

thanks for the valuable input, as always.

Fair enough, and quick screenshots don't necessarily tell the whole story. My video episode will break it down in more detail. That being said - if you look at the TDP comparison the 16-35 f/4 seems to destroy the Tamron; a result that I've not seen duplicated anywhere else. He seems to have gotten really rotten copies of a few Tamrons, as his results don't jive with my own. For what it's worth, the 15-30 actually gets a higher sharpness rating than the 16-35 f/4 at DXO. I found the 16-35 a hair sharper, but it was so close as to be undetectable except when comparing side by side.

Might very well be true, and/or you could have an exceptionally good copy of the Tamron (I don't recall whether you got that lens from Tamron for the Review or whether you bought it?). But it is really nice to see some real world pictures, they always tell a little different story than test charts. I'm looking forward to your final review of the 16-35/2.8.

If I were just choosing a lens, I'd probably choose the Canon. When one costs twice as much as the other, though, I think the buying decision gets much, much harder.

Me too. I have been rather unhappy with the mark II lens for quite some time now, but was also never really happy with the options to choose from (Tamron 15-30 or 16-35/4). I was always struggling with the idea to buy the Tamron since it does not accept filters and I also had some bad experience with the 150-600 (IQ and AF). I also use the 2.8 quite often so I didn't really wanted to loose that 1 stop of light by buying the f/4 version.
So now I'm really happy that canon brought us the Mark III which really seems to deliver in term of IQ (about the AF I have no doubts since it's a canon lens). The only real problem is the hefty price! But I guess I will have to bite that bullet at some point since filter option is really important to me.

Sebastian

 

[Larsskv]

Dustin. Very interesting comparison pictures, as always. Thank you. My two cents. It appears to my that the TDP pictures shows superior contrast in the Canon lens. Sharpness is harder to compare to the Tamron due to the different camera bodies that are used. The test pictures you have provided so far may not be the best in order to compare contrast differences between these two lenses.

Fair enough, and quick screenshots don't necessarily tell the whole story. My video episode will break it down in more detail. That being said - if you look at the TDP comparison the 16-35 f/4 seems to destroy the Tamron; a result that I've not seen duplicated anywhere else. He seems to have gotten really rotten copies of a few Tamrons, as his results don't jive with my own. For what it's worth, the 15-30 actually gets a higher sharpness rating than the 16-35 f/4 at DXO. I found the 16-35 a hair sharper, but it was so close as to be undetectable except when comparing side by side.

I guess my point is that chart tests frequently don't tell the whole story of what a lens does in the field. The Sigma 35 ART charts sharper than, say, the Tamron 35 VC, but the latter's flatter field of focus makes it actually sharper in real world shooting. The Sigma also looks pretty close to the 35L II in chart tests, but when I shot them side by side I chose the images from the 35L II every time. The 15-30 VC is a better lens than what Bryan's test suggest.

At f/2.8 on the wide end I find the Tamron a bit sharper in the corners, and I had others look at the monitor in a blind test and tell me which one they thought was sharper (Tamron). At 18 and 20mm I slightly preferred the Canon. Stopped down I think the Canon improves more than the Tamron. It's definitely better in the CA and flare departments. It vignettes much more heavily and has more distortion than the Tamron, though.

If I were just choosing a lens, I'd probably choose the Canon. When one costs twice as much as the other, though, I think the buying decision gets much, much harder.

The reason why I (we) love your reviews, Dustin, is that you give us the insights that chart tests don't. Keep up the good work!

 

[Ozarker]

Anyone interested in a very lightly used Tamron 15-30?

 

[Ozarker]

Dustin says "the following is one I took tomorrow." ...
Now that's a future proof lens!! Have a nice trip ;D

He's got a buddy that can walk on water too.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin says "the following is one I took tomorrow." ...
Now that's a future proof lens!! Have a nice trip ;D

He's got a buddy that can walk on water too.

LOL

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Thanks to both TDP and Dustin for the samples!

Massive improvement over the II, but considering the price hike I would have been unimpressed with anything less...

Not sure if it is worth the big premium over the f4 version though unless one absolutely requires f2.8 if I'm honest.

 

[[email protected]]

Agree with Dustin on the TDP's copy of the Tamron 15-30. It just doesn't reflect the IQ I see in my copy. Brian, if you're out there, I'm happy to let you borrow mine if you want to put another copy through your ringer.

 

[ahsanford]

Agree with Dustin on the TDP's copy of the Tamron 15-30. It just doesn't reflect the IQ I see in my copy. Brian, if you're out there, I'm happy to let you borrow mine if you want to put another copy through your ringer.

The official review at TDP is posted. Over 4 stops of vignetting in the corners, wow.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1073&Camera=979&LensComp=986

- A

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The thing is about the Tamron...if it's the only tamron in your kit bag and all your other lenses are Canon L's then you will see colour and contrast differences. The other thing is that I've not had a Tamron lens that has lasted in a professional context for more than a few years. I went through two Tamron 17-35mm dii lenses before I bought a 16-35IIL. The latter is now really old and a little tatty looking, but it's still performing well and it's well outlasted any 3rd party lens that I've bought. Ironically....even in it's current state, it is still worth more s/h than when I paid for it. I guess that's lens inflation and resale values for you! If I bought the Tamron, I would be concerned over long term reliability and I'd know that I could only sell it for a fraction of the price of the Canon...plus there's that whole front filter issue with it.