Third Party Lenses

Tamron to announce a 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2

Nokishita Camera has reported the specifications of the upcoming Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2.

  • Lens construction: 13 groups 18 pieces
  • Shortest shooting distance: 0.28 m
  • Maximum magnification: 1: 5
  • Size: φ 98.4 mm × 145 mm (for Canon) · 142.5 mm (for Nikon)
  • Weight: 1110 g (for Canon) · 1100 g (for Nikon)
  • Image stabilization effect: 4.5 steps
  • Mount: For Canon · For Nikon
  • Adopt newly developed AX (Anti-reflection eXpand) coating
  • Rear filter holder for Canon only
  • TAP in Console compatible
  • Overseas release date: September 21 (for Nikon) · October 12 (for Canon)

SP1530

tiggy@mac.com

Pentax K-1000
Jan 20, 2014
498
185
Thetford, VT
www.ForestMetrix.com
I had the G1 version of this lens for a long, long time. Really liked it. Sold it for the Sigma Art 24-35 + the Art Sigma 14mm due to vastly higher image quality (that 14mm f/1.8 is a truly unparalleled monster of image quality). Downsides, of course, were the combo was more expensive, and I have to switch lenses more often.

I bought those Sigmas used, so I very likely can sell them for the same price as what I purchased them for (they really keep their resale value quite well when you buy used). I'd be open to trying this G2 and considering swapping back. Would likely just sell the 24-35 and keep the 14mm, for astro and other low light situations. May also compare this new one to the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 III. I look forward to Dustin and others getting their mitts on these lenses for some comparisons.

It's really remarkable how Sigma and Tamron are running circles around the first party lens release schedules.
 

Lurker

EOS 80D
Dec 8, 2012
159
20
Perfect! :):p:geek: I'm about to upgrade my kit, I've been using the Canon 28-80L and 20-35L for ~20 years. I was just about to order the Tamron 24-70 G2 and the 15-30 G1. G1 has/d $100 rebate and timing suggested the G2 could be coming soon so I've been hesitant to pull the trigger. They did a nice job with the 24-70 G2 upgrade so hope they pull off the same for this lens. (y)
 
Addition of rear filter holder is a strong selling point. One of the reasons I recently bought Canon 16-35 f4 L after almost buying the Tamron G1 15-30 instead was the Canon's flat front and ease of use for filters. I also have the Canon 24-70 f4 L but considered swapping it for the Tamron G2 just to get f2.8. These two G2 lenses would certainly make a winning combination.
 

knight427

EOS 80D
Aug 27, 2018
104
160
That rear filter holder is a key selling point for me. I have been waiting to buy one of the adapters required to allow 150mm filters. By avoiding the cost of the adapter plus the cost differential of huge filters, this upgrade could pay for itself.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,153
1,687
Canada
Perfect! :):p:geek: I'm about to upgrade my kit, I've been using the Canon 28-80L and 20-35L for ~20 years. I was just about to order the Tamron 24-70 G2 and the 15-30 G1. G1 has/d $100 rebate and timing suggested the G2 could be coming soon so I've been hesitant to pull the trigger. They did a nice job with the 24-70 G2 upgrade so hope they pull off the same for this lens. (y)
The G2 lenses all work with the docking station, so that means firmware updates.... and that could be important if/when a mirrorless camera is introduced....
 

JP4DESIGNZ

EOS T7i
Jul 25, 2015
93
0
Dallas, TX, USA
flyt1.com
Loving the rear filter holder. I have the G1 version and love it however, it took me 3 copies to get a lens that focused accurately at all focus points on my 5D cameras. I'd love to upgrade for the filter however, since I've had several recent tamron lenses that flopped out on me, I'm nervous about getting another lemon.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,972
502
That rear filter holder is a key selling point for me. I have been waiting to buy one of the adapters required to allow 150mm filters. By avoiding the cost of the adapter plus the cost differential of huge filters, this upgrade could pay for itself.
Disagree IMHO:
  • I don't like breaking down my gear on location to slip in a rear ND. I'd prefer a front-filtering solution.

  • CPLs and ND grads are not an option for rear-filtering.
Again, Tamron is doubling down that 15mm (not just that, but a bulbous front element that ensues) is worth the pain point of eliminating front filtering. I think front-filtering, even if enormous, like 95mm+ would be preferable to this.

This is overwhelmingly why I prefer Canon's 16-35s over Tamron here -- the not the AF or build-quality, but the front-filtering. It's vital for me. I prefer to have a closed camera from the elements and then build up my filtering as the scene requires.

- A
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,102
1,647
Irving, Texas
Disagree IMHO:
  • I don't like breaking down my gear on location to slip in a rear ND. I'd prefer a front-filtering solution.

  • CPLs and ND grads are not an option for rear-filtering.
Again, Tamron is doubling down that 15mm (not just that, but a bulbous front element that ensues) is worth the pain point of eliminating front filtering. I think front-filtering, even if enormous, like 95mm+ would be preferable to this.

This is overwhelmingly why I prefer Canon's 16-35s over Tamron here -- the not the AF or build-quality, but the front-filtering. It's vital for me. I prefer to have a closed camera from the elements and then build up my filtering as the scene requires.

- A
True, but one could still choose a front filter if that is what they want. He did say "for me."
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,972
502
True, but one could still choose a front filter if that is what they want. He did say "for me."

Entirely fair. Didn't mean to imply their position was wrong -- it's just not my position. My sensibilities are not the world's, and I hope it didn't come across that way.

Sorry for not being clear.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,972
502
If it is anything like the previous version, then optical quality is very good.

For astro the coma was almost non-existent.
And the low vignetting just smokes the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III.

That said, if you want an all-purpose UWA zoom instrument and not just an astro tool, your decision is much harder. I still prefer my 16-35 f/4L IS to all other options as a general instrument, but my list of general uses is probably not the same as yours. For instance, I don't shoot astro and I rarely shoot sports (and almost never with UWA FLs).

- A
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,102
1,647
Irving, Texas
And the low vignetting just smokes the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III.

That said, if you want an all-purpose UWA zoom instrument and not just an astro tool, your decision is much harder. I still prefer my 16-35 f/4L IS to all other options as a general instrument, but my list of general uses is probably not the same as yours. For instance, I don't shoot astro and I rarely shoot sports (and almost never with UWA FLs).

- A
Everything I have ever read says the image quality is fantastic with that Canon lens. Although I really liked the Tamron, I always wished I had bought the 11-24 or the 16-35 Canon. I actually went in the store to buy the 11-24(It had just been released), but ended up with the Tamron. I like the 16-35 for the exact reason you state: front filter. I never got around to buying a system for the Tamron.

Honestly, Adam, I just don't have a use for a UWA much. That may have to do with the fact that I lived in the desert at the time and it made things look all the more distant. Here in the DFW area I think one would be much more useful. I even have trouble justifying the keeping of my 35mm prime because the 24-70 is so good even if slower. Really need a second body instead of a new lens. :)
 
Last edited: