I enjoyed your review! Very detailed. It was one of the deciding factors for me getting the lens. It is a great lens! I now have the Tamron Trinity (15-30, 24-70, 70-200)
Nicolaas Strik Me, too. All three of them are really great lenses that I keep getting great photo after great photo from. Thanks for the nice feedback.
Great spot on review Dustin. Just picked up this lens today, threw it on my 5DsR and going to hit the streets of Toronto tomorrow to test it out. SUPER excited lol.
Dustin, I entered digital photography just a few months ago. I bought this lens instead of the Nikon 14-24mm based on budget and some reviews. I hadn't seen yours until now. I have to agree with you on everything you said. When telling a friend about this lens, I included all the accolades you raised. This quickly became one of my favorite zooms and lenses. I look for many excuses to use it. Yes, it is heavy, but I love the feel of it and balance on the camera. Shooting on the D850 seems to bring out the best in this lens and vis a versa. The VC is astounding. Resolution and microcontrast were really surprising. Autofocus is quick and accurate. Manual override on the focus ring is smooth and easy. The build quality feels excellent. Because the build quality was so good, I reached for the 24-70mm Tamron zoom (but I am less enamored with it). I would buy this zoom all over again if I lost it. Shooting night sky, night skylines at 64 ISO, or standing on swaying bridges and handholding the results have been superb. The star bursts are truly beautiful, not distracting. CA is minimal and rarely present for me. Overall, I would have to give this lens super high ratings. Very surprising.
Was just checking it at the store the other day. I was really shocked about how affordable it was. I immediately searched for a review for this lens on your channel and now I find even more impressive that it's such a good performer at this price point. I know that there's a newer version but for my budget I think it would be perfect on my canon 6d mk2.
Hi Dustin, excellent review. You may well be the one and only person who can advise me on this current dilemma... hope you can impart some wisdom. We have a multiple location skydiving video shoot around Australia, filming on the GH4 + A7S with Metabones Canon EF Adapters on both camera bodies. We've decided that a wide-angle lens with image stabilisation will be imperative for video capturing the skydivers in freefall, as I'm sure you can imagine the winds get pretty violent up there. Our only 2 options at this stage seems to be the Tamron 15-30 VC or Canon 16-35 IS. Would you consider one of these lenses to have better image stabilisation than the other in terms of video acquisition? Or are there any other lens options I'm forgetting about? We appreciate your advice Dustin and keep up the good work! Nickolas
Nickolas, if you will keep an eye on my channel, I have already started a three way comparison between the Tamron, Canon, and the EF 16-35mm f//2.8L. I'll include a comparison between the image stabilizers as a part of that. That being said, I can tell already from having previously reviewed them that both of them are effective options. If I were you I would make the decision based more on this question: what is more important to you, the ability to use traditional filters (Canon) or the wider aperture/focal length (Tamron). There is going to be little difference beyond that.
Dustin, great review, I just bought a used copy of this lens yesterday, couldn't resist the price and the quality. It is such an improvement over my Tokina 16-28, no more annoying lens flare and it goes without saying, it's tack sharp. I waited for the Tamron 15-30 G2 to come out so that I could get a good price on the G1.
I bought mine last spring, and its the best lens I own. I shoot Nikon D750-D7100. I am always amazed like you say at the micro-contrast this lens achieve. The only drawback, is the back element near the lens mount is not sealed and its moving inside the lens letting air(dust) entering the lens. So far I add not problems with that, but its a drawback that in dusty area can be a problem over time.
+Dustin Abbott it is possible to get a square circular polariser. Lee and Tiffen make them amongst others. They are commonly used in cinematography with matte boxes. BTW thanks for an awesome review.
"I am very excited to review this...." With the the most serious face I've ever seen. I've never seen someone say "I'm so excited" so many times with the meanest face ever. Please, please smile more. I love your videos though :)
Thank you for the outstanding review and the informational details that make the difference when it comes to a final decision between this lens and another brand.
Indeed great review .. Thanks. It helped me decide on which wide angle lens i am going to buy. I will definitely add this to my lens collection :). Keep up the good work.
Great review Dustin! I was planning to buy Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II but after watching your review on this new Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 lens, you had just successfully convinced me to purchase this lens instead. Great job! :)
Paul Legaspi Wait until you see the resolution comparison I am posting next week between the two Canons and this lens. It will make you really glad you made this choice!
Good info, I will buy this lens for real estate, just bought new EOS R, I heard you saying that EOS R works well with Tamron 15x30 g2. Thank you Dustin
I've recently purchased this lens and it's good. One negative about it it that the zoom ring is SO stiff,especially when starting from 15mm. I purchased this lens for indoor photojournalism work and the stiff zoom ring can be annoying when trying to capture a precise moment. I really hope it'll loosen up over time.
Mrlolibre My copy is stiffer than what I would like, too. I do think that it will loosen up. It is, essentially, an internally zooming lens, so it should free up some.
I'm replying two years later here. . . LOL I bought one (used) and loved it, but was a bit turned off by its size and weight so ended up returning it and getting the Canon 16-35 f4 IS but while being lighter that extra loss of a mm as well as a bit more distortion made me go back -and repurchase, another Tamron. This NEW one (not used) actually has a much stiffer zoom ring on it than the 1st. I am hoping that it does loosed a bit. And yes, it is stiffest at at the 15mm as well as 30mm.
I know this review is a couple years old but it just happens to be pretty timely for me. I recently added "Real Estate Photography" to my list of side incomes and while my Canon 17-40mm is fine for 90-95% of my shots (I always shoot at f8) an extra couple of mm of range would work wonders in all the small guest/master bathrooms as well as walk-in closets I come across. In addition it's f2.8 and IS/VC would make it ideal for taking on hikes when I don't want to carry a tripod.
Thanks, Dustin for this great review. another step on my way to convince myself to buy my own copy. I wish you could compare it to Nikon 14-24 especially at the 20-24-30 mm and in different apertures.
Dustin Abbott I write reviews for a living (not photo gear.) I like your approach, I appreciate the comparisons and detail, and the reasoned points you make are well weighted. Your presentation to camera is excellent, I can hear and understand every word. Watching the video this sounds like a carefully written/scripted presentation, no bad thing but the pace and density of the information you are presenting makes this a bit of a relentless 'wall of words'. If I have a suggestion it would be to slow down, edit your video so you present a point in one take, then move to the next - simple video techniques and editing can make it easier to grasp the point you are making and see where you end one section and move to another. At the moment this views a bit like you write without full stops or paragraphs. Oh and I have subscribed :)
Snapjockey Good feedback. I'm a one man show with a lot of irons in the fire, so these are typically one take, all in one, and unscripted. That is out of necessity because of time. I'm always open to improving, however, so I'll definitely take your comments to heart.
If, like me, you do a lot of shooting from the hip in order to capture candid street shots, that image stabilization can help a lot. Point is, it's not always about lower shutter speeds. Thanks for the review and also the one for the Canon 16-35 f4. I'm leaning towards the Canon.
You're welcome, Dave. I've been comparing the 16-35mm f/2.8 II and f/4L IS the past week and a half and will be comparing both of them to the Tamron in the next ten days. I will publish my thoughts.
Hi Dustin, fantastic review! Was wondering if you think Tamron will update this lens possibly just for cosmetic reasons to match the current G2 SP lenses?
Been following you for a long time and totally trust your assessments. I just bought this lens primarily based on your review. I have owned the Canon 16-35 f4 is since it came out but have to replace it and all my L glass because I just ordered a NIkon D850, yet to be delivered. I also bought the Tamron 24-70 G2. Now scratching my head over the decision for a 70-200. I want the Nikon FL but may end up with the new Tamron. I’ve viewed those reviews and comparisons for three weeks now.
Thanks for the review. I did not know you were canadian until you mentioned that you tried the lens in freezing temperatures. In Pembroke? The white water rafting paradise? You have rafting/kayaking pictures Dustin?
According to DXOMark tests the Tamron 15-30mm outperforms Canon's own EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM with my camera 5D Mark IV. Be advice that you have to see how it performs with a different body so make sure to chose your camera when comparing using DXOMark. I got lucky and saved my self from a $1000 overprice mistake thanks to Tamron. Great review
What is the best prime lens available from your experience? What I need in the lens: 1- a very sharp lens 2- fast auto focusing 3- auto focusing motor sound should not be heard in the video 4- it would be great if it has image stabilization but not a must 5- a f 1.8 but if f1.4 is available for a good price then ok. 6- under 1000$ 7- 35mm, 50mm or 55mm what do you think?
Great review as aways. I no longer shoot Canon (although I love Canon's colours) as I think their bodies need to catch up with Nikon, Sony and Fuji, but the glass you've been recommending in your videos is terrific! I hope Canon gets out of the hole they dug themselves in at some point and I'll reconsider them. Great photos btw Dustin!
Very good reviews, you should add a used Nikon to your kit if possible to add reviews for that platform too. But I know it has a cost, so keep the good work. The videos are long, but they don't feel long. I saw that this was 17 minutes after the fact and was surprised.
Great review. I have the 16-35 f/2.8, but I've never been 100% happy with it. The 11-24 f/4 looks amazing, but the price is just ridiculous in the UK, coming in at £2,799 ($4310) which is a full $1310 more than its price in the USA. I may also look to change to the Canon 16-35 f/4, as I use a lot of Lee 100mm filters. Anyway, thanks for the review, for me it was food for photographic thought.
Malcolm, I think it would be hard to go wrong with either lens, and I will do a head to comparison down the road. The Tamron is more exciting to me, personally, because of the wider aperture and focal length, but I would love the ease of using filters on the Canon.
Dustin Abbott The bulk of my photography is landscape and travel. I recently did a trip around Andalusia in Spain (beautiful part of the world) and I actually left the 16-35 at home just did all my landscapes with my 24-70 mk ii. I did miss having an ultra wide at least twice every day though! For travel work I think IS or VC would be very handy even with an ultra wide, as I don't travel with my tripod as I generally travel super light (camera gear and clothes all in one small back pack), so there's times it would help. I could always invest in a travel tripod too I guess! Thanks for the response and the review's guidance.
dear sir, i am very happy see all your video and comparison , i in the process or buying canon 16-35/f2.8 as i m into new born and wedding photography. the canon cost more then 1750 usd, i need to rethink if i get this tamron cheaper . thanks again regards sameer saxena yellowframes mumbai india
Thanks Dustin for an excellent review. I've pre-ordered one after watching your review. I'm just hoping now it will be delivered prior to my July 2015 Iceland trip to use it there together with my Tamron 150-600 great telephoto lens. Oh one question though, is the new Tamron 15-30 lens made in China too same as the 150-600?
Thanks for this comprehensiv review. Interessting location for a lens review video. Is it a church or a courtroom? Why did you pick this? I find the light situation a bit disturbing, as the right half of your face is always in the dark and also the lens is not really good visible in front of your black vest. But thats just my opinion. The review itself I found really helpful, again, after the review of the canon 100-400 and its comparison the the tamron 150-600.
With all the appreciation for the effort put in the creation of these vids, certain improvements into the lighting setup would certainly be welcome and bring them to a whole new level.
Tomasz W You are right, of course, but I had to do everything around this lens on a pretty tight schedule. I barely had time to fit in this video review.
I love your reviews and for sure helps me a lot. :) I also have a little request if that's possible and you have time. Can you please compare it with Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/15mm in terms of image quality? I know they are in different price range, but both of them starts at 2.8, have 15mm and could be an interesting comparison, since zooms are optimized for the extremes of the focal length, hence 15mm on this new Tamron should be at it's best. Besides that, the moment I saw this lens, I immediately saw the resemblance to the Zeiss, with the same incorporated hood and front cap design, except to the fact that Zeiss can be protected with a front screw-on filter, and as far as I've seen on Zeiss website, for those who wanna use ND grads, the lens can be shipped to them to be modified, removing the integrated hood and replacing it so that it's even more usable in the landscape field.
Cristi, that's a good question, and one that I could best answer with both lenses in hand. That being said, my experience with them both says that image quality would probably be hard to distinguish. The Zeiss will be a little better in the extreme corners, have slightly better contrast, and has much higher vignetting.
Dustin Abbott Thank you! I look forward for a video review if you wish, and to see them side by side. Writing to you, got me another idea to put in the mix if you had used or could you put your hands on one of them. It's about the new Canon 11-24, with a price point at the same level as Zeiss and quite a fine performer as far as I've seen in some reviews. Why so much interest in this type of lenses? I love them! As you said in one of the reviews, it's the type of lens that gives the most wonderful and dramatic images you can ever capture. I'm drawn to them, along with tele ones. I find that, at least for me, lenses below 24mm and above 135mm creates images with a certain appeal to them, something different and unique.
Cristi Biris We'll see. I have no plans to do a review like that right now as I have a number of other lenses lined up for future review. My next planned comparison is between the Canon 50L and the Zeiss Otus 55.
I have heard the Lucroit filter system will also work on this Tamron. Great review and thank you for this video, I have now made up my mind and get this instead of the Nikon 14-24. Cost was really not a factor. Have you reviewed the Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART lens yet? Thank You, Lou
I'm not familiar with that filter system. That's a good tip. If you will take a look at my home page here on RUclips you will find the review of the Sigma 50A
Interesting. I am wondering if larger lenses = bigger image circle. The image circle means that the center is sharp, but as you get towards the corners ... they get softer. Ergo MORE glass, flatter elements, more of a quality center ... and possibly a better overall image and that micro-contrast plays out more with thicker/flatter elements. Nice call. The OTUS for that reason, makes sense on the size.
This lens actually has a flatter plane of focus than the Nikon 14-24. Image quality is more consistent across the frame. I do believe the reason for the increased size here is the image quality and contrast. It is very, very good.
Hey @DustinAbbott =) Do you use your Canon 6D in those temperatures? Where would you say the line is (for malfunctioning, danger levels for the camera) for that model? Love your show and I've been a sub for a while and I plan to stick to it !
+Henrik Karlsson I do use the 6D. I've never found the limit, myself. I've shot it in temperatures well over 100 F (Arizona desert, Negev in Israel) and here in Canada in -40 F/C temps. Never had an issue yet. It's a tough camera.
Dustin Abbott I own it as well and I really like it (I stepped up from the 700D/T5i-line) but I've heard that it is not as tough as a 5DMK3. I live in Sweden so this will be the first time I can shoot in really freezing temps. Any quick tip for when you get inside again with the camera, what should one do? Plastic bag before entering?
Henrik Karlsson That is mostly internet rumors. The 6D is a very robust camera with good sealing. I've used it on multiple continents and in all kinds of weather. Not one issue.
Thanks Dustin for very detailed review. I am looking for a super-wide angle lens that I can use in astrophotography too. I was wondering if you had the chance to try this lens for astrophotography and if you could share your experience. Will you consider this lens to be the best super-wide lens with auto-focus for astrophotography? Thanks
Thanks Dustin, I really appreciate your quick response. I was looking for super-wide angle lens that I could use for landscape and astrophotography too. Its great help ! Regards
Hi Dustin, great review, many thanks. How does this compare to the Tokina 16-28 2.8 as that particular lens is very highly regarded and super sharp. I ask as the Tamron is nearly twice the Tokina's price. I know there's very minor difference in field of view but nothing that's going to be massively noticeable. Does the Tamron justify the huge price difference? Thanks.
+DAW1968 I haven't personally used the Tokina, but there is definitely a noticeable difference between it and the Tamron when it comes to image quality (using the Digital Picture's image quality tool). The Tamron has really impressed me with its contrast as well. I'm very happy with the Tamron, but if your budget doesn't extend to it, the Tokina seems like a quality option. One other thing to consider is that a lot of aftermarket companies are designing filter systems for the Tamron; I don't know if the Tokina has gotten the same amount of attention.
+Dustin Abbott No worries, thank you. It's not some much about affording it, it's more about justifying it. Is it really worth twice the price for what you get in terms of image quality? That's more what I'm looking at. I think the best thing to do is try them both and make an assessment on then. Have a good weekend.
I have much respect for your opinion because it saves me much time......In your opinion which has the over all sharpness to be used on the Sony A mount camera bodies, a sony 16-35mm f2.8 ssm ll at 2,200.00 or a tamron 15-30mm f2,8 vc at 1,200.00?...without going deep into these lenses i just would like your bottom line choice between the two?....thank you
hi Dustin this is very detailed review which will be like by anyone who wants to know more about this lens By the way, may I know how the lens working right now in 2017 after 2 years of usage? I scare that the 3rd party lens wont last that long compare to the Nikon lens Regards
Hi there I have got the Tamron 15-30 lens 3 days ago. and quite satisfied. Though I am still in finding the right way to use this lens correctly, this lens is pretty stunning to me. This lens produce sharp images; However, I found that the images are much noisy compare to my other lens (50mm F1.8 or 24-120 f4). Any explanations? Here are the test out images flic.kr/s/aHskTLgLtW Regards
It performs fine, though this doesn't seem like your best choice for APS-C. The focal length isn't particularly wide, and you are dealing with unnecessary weight and size.
hi!! great informative video.! I have a Nikon D90. Can you tell me if this lens would be able to perform at its best with it or would i lose out on its performance? thanks
Hi dustin, i love your videos! Great work! I need help, i was going to buy tamron 15-30mm, for landscape, astrophotography, and maybe wide portraits, but now i am not sure if i should buy this lens, or the sigma art 24-35mm f2! I like the sigma because is a little bit faster and longer, so i can use it for street photography! Should i buy tamrons, and then a 35, or 50mm prime? Or should i go with sigma? and then buy a 20mm prime? Thank you very much.
That really comes down to your own decision. They are both excellent lenses. I will say, however, that the 24-35 is not as good for astro as the Tamron for several reasons. How important is that to you?
Dustin Abbott thank you for answering! I haven't done much astrophotography yet but I want to start planning trips and start doing it more seriously, plus landscapes , so the Tamron was the perfect option, but i also want the lense to be a lense Wich I can rely for trips, and street photography, is 30mm to wide for that? thats why I start thinking about the sigma , but it is not very wide. also, is 2.8 enough por low light and Astro? or would you recommend a f1.4 prime? (sorry for the grammar I am Spanish native) thank you a lot!
I'm afraid you want one lens to do everything, and that lens may not exist. Both the sigma and the Tamron are large, heavy lenses. They will be neither light nor unobtrusive for street photography. The Tamron is a great landscape and astro lens.
Greetings Dustin, I few days back i purchased this lens after seeing your review here... I ran few tests on my Canon 70D with Canon 18-135mm kit lens and i am still in shock @18mm there was barely any difference in the image from kit lens when compared with tamron 15-30f/2.8 @ 18mm f/4. I could not believe my eyes and decision that i spent $1500 CAD for a lens which performs slightly better than a kit lens... I can few more test and the result is same... sometimes the tamron would produce noticeably sharper images but right side bottom the images are really soft in comparison to the kit lens. i dont know what to do with this lens anymore.
+Aaditya Vikram Hmmm, I don't know what to tell you - every review of the Tamron backs up my own. See a comparison of the two that you are describing here and you will see a noticeable difference. www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=986&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=809&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1 That being said, however, the Tamron as a full frame lens (and focal length) is somewhat wasted on a crop sensor body. I would recommend something like the Canon 10-22mm if you intend to stick with a crop sensor body.
+Dustin Abbott Yeah thats what i was planning to buy initially but went with tamron instead as i'm planning to buy a full frame body... I just went through the link you sent... I can see the difference but do you think spending $1500 CAD for probably 5-7% of difference makes sense? is this the norm when you buy expensive lenses or mine is just an off situation?
Aaditya Vikram Believe it or not, but the Tamron is one of the sharpest wide angle lenses out there. I think that the $1500 part will make more sense when you go full frame and get the full potential out of the lens. I've been using mine a lot and just love it.
+Dustin Abbott Hmmm, probably you are right. But have you experienced images being a lot softer around right bottom... or its just my unit which has this unusual softness on right mid corner... ( www.sendspace.com/filegroup/2UVJBMpomfSeJ4Za01Q2GQ ) Images attached if you'd like to see. Thanks a ton for taking out time Dustin it feels good to know there are experienced people like you to answer the questions, I appreciate it :)
Aaditya Vikram I took a look at your photos, and here's a couple of observations. The two images are not focused on the same point. The front right corner on the Tamron is clearly not in focus (look at the bags and also the rings). I would say the Canon is front focused and the Tamron is back focused. What was your point of focus, and how did you focus? You might should try your test again from a further distance to increase depth of field. Secondly, the Tamron's image is much better. Far less vignette, much less distortion (look closely at the shape of the mug - the Canon is distorting even near the middle of the frame). The fine detail on the horizontally striped case or bag is noticeably better. But you also right when you ask if improvements are minor at this point. They are, to a degree, although the Tamron will shine more when you move to full frame.
I was wondering if you would trade of (or upgrade from) from a Samyang 14mm F2.8 (retail 349,- euro) and sell of and "downgrade" from a 35 F1.4 sigma art (749,- euro) in favor of this Tamron 15-35 (1199,- euro). I am used to fast 1.4 sigma primes (50 and 35) so does this Tamron come close in image quality to the Sigma primes (you mentioned Zeiss)? How does this lens VR compare in low light versus a 1.4 prime. Thanks for your excellent reviews!
+Patrick van Baarle Just so you know, I personally sold my Rokinon (Samyang) 14mm in favor of the Tamron. The Tamron's image quality is excellent - at 35mm vs. 30mm on the Tamron the lenses are roughly equal with perhaps a very slight edge in the center if stopped down to f/2.8. www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=986&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3 The VC will help in low light if you have an unmoving subject. If your subject is moving you would need to bring your shutter speed up with either lens. Just remember that you can't use traditional filters with the Tamron and it is pretty big. Otherwise, it is a fantastic lens in every way.
Bahaa Jamal Both of these lenses are very, very sharp. Which do you need more? A wide f/2.8 aperture or the ability to use screw on filters? There's your decision right there.
He was using on a full frame. It would be a waste to use this lens on a crop camera. When there are wider, lighter lens options available for crop cameras.
Have you tried this lens on the Canon 5D mark IV, and if you did has there been any issues with it. Do you think it's worth selling my 16-35mm F2.8L II to buy it? Thanks
I do use it on a 5D Mark IV (used it tonight, in fact), and yes, I did have to have the firmware updated on the lens as it didn't function right in Live View. After the firmware update it worked flawlessly. It is a vastly superior lens to the 16-35L II in almost every way save that it is bigger, heavier, and you can use traditional filters on it.
Thank you Dustin for getting back to me so quickly. I have someone interested in my Lens and I want to buy the new one by this weekend. Do you think the new lenses sold today would have the firmware update or would that be something I would have to do. Thanks again Ralph (As always your reviews are great!!!)
Suppose you already had a 50 and a 70-200. Do you think you would add this or the 24-70 to an all-around kit? (Both for photos *and* video and without the option for both lenses) I'm kind of stuck and don't know if I'd miss 31-49 and 51-69 more than I'd miss 15-23. I've had situations where I've wanted both about equally. (And if it helps, I like shooting basically what you've shown in your example pictures)
hi Dustin I have been using the Tamron 15-30 for a few occasions now. One issue that I encounter is that when I have this lens on a tripod (for 10-30 second) with VC on, this lens produce shaky images. However, once I switch the VC off, It produce sharp images. May I know why is that so? If I am using handheld with VC on, this lens produce no shaky images. Regards
+C SingSing Almost all VC/IS/OS systems are designed to be turned off when used on a tripod. The VC system is trying to correct for camera shake that isn't there, and thus produces blurriness.
Hi there Yea Many of the forums also suggested not to switch the VC on for long exposure. But I have no issue on Nikon lens though Thanks for your reply Regards
Hai Dustin i purchased this to day for my d800 can you advice me it somtime over exposes my images too maney times perhaps i need more time With my New lens perhaps im spoiled With my Zaiss lenses
ted tedsen Interesting. I've not heard any such report from anyone else. I didn't have that issue with Canon bodies, but I have a lot of followers that are Nikon users and none of them have reported a similar issue. I don't know what to tell you. Touch base with Tamron, perhaps.
A couple things not mention here: -Made in china -it is a 16-28mm 3.5 in reality. -Build quality varies from lens to lens -Plastic consumer level quality. -You get what you paid, I learn that the hard way.
Wow, where to start. First of all, I've got the lens in front of me, and it is made in Japan. Secondly, I've compared it to a host of other lenses, and it is very close to 15mm and much wider than any compared 16mm lens (almost all Canon zooms, for instance). It frames as widely as 15mm prime lenses like the Irix 15mm F2.4, the Zeiss Distagon 15mm 2.8, and the Laowa 15mm F2. The light transmission has compared favorably to many lenses I've compared it to and it has the lowest vignette of any that I've compared. The build quality has been rugged and held up for me personally since shortly after I did this review when I bought on for myself. Furthermore, I've demonstrated all of these claims I've made in videos done comparing the lens to other lenses viewed by hundreds of thousands of people Don't just repeat things you've heard on RUclips; they may just be untrue.
For those saying the G1 has a minimum focal length of closer to 15.7mm in reality and a max aperture of closer to F/3.2, anyone know if the G2 is like this?
I've not found that to be true in the past. I've done many comparisons, and I'm highly skeptical about that claim. But the G2 doesn't appear to be any different than the G1 in those basic measurements.
I was really excited to have this lens but unfortunately mine seems very soft. I'm not sure if it's a bad copy but both my Sigma 35 and my Samyang 14mm blow this 15-30 out of the water. I have decided to refund mine since I mostly bought it for the extreme wide angle focal range so I will make do with the Samyang. In the sides and the corners, it's VERY smeary compared to the Samyang and the Sigma is even slightly better. The center and mid frames are also worse with the 15-30. Tamron left, Samyang right (lower left half of full image towards the corners): 1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS1600x1600~forums/57543623/63daf81d12504bc2b5f79fd10490ae25 It is quite a dramatic result, the Tamron is at f/8 and the Samyang f/5.6. My Tamron is not sharper in any situation over the Samyang, I can't stomach that for the price difference!
Dustin Abbott I'm pretty sure I got a bad copy of the Tamron unfortunately so I might try again in the future, at least it looks like I got lucky with the Samyang copy monopoly...
I enjoyed your review! Very detailed. It was one of the deciding factors for me getting the lens. It is a great lens! I now have the Tamron Trinity (15-30, 24-70, 70-200)
Nicolaas Strik Me, too. All three of them are really great lenses that I keep getting great photo after great photo from. Thanks for the nice feedback.
Great spot on review Dustin. Just picked up this lens today, threw it on my 5DsR and going to hit the streets of Toronto tomorrow to test it out. SUPER excited lol.
Enjoy. It's a great city lens. I used it a lot in NYC last year.
Dustin, I entered digital photography just a few months ago. I bought this lens instead of the Nikon 14-24mm based on budget and some reviews. I hadn't seen yours until now. I have to agree with you on everything you said. When telling a friend about this lens, I included all the accolades you raised. This quickly became one of my favorite zooms and lenses. I look for many excuses to use it. Yes, it is heavy, but I love the feel of it and balance on the camera. Shooting on the D850 seems to bring out the best in this lens and vis a versa. The VC is astounding. Resolution and microcontrast were really surprising. Autofocus is quick and accurate. Manual override on the focus ring is smooth and easy. The build quality feels excellent. Because the build quality was so good, I reached for the 24-70mm Tamron zoom (but I am less enamored with it). I would buy this zoom all over again if I lost it. Shooting night sky, night skylines at 64 ISO, or standing on swaying bridges and handholding the results have been superb. The star bursts are truly beautiful, not distracting. CA is minimal and rarely present for me. Overall, I would have to give this lens super high ratings. Very surprising.
It’s a very good one, for sure, and has held up well to the many competitors released since it.
It's such a great lens that I am still seriously considering in 10 years after its release! WOW!
It's still a solid lens.
I have bought the lens recently. The review is informative and enables me to have a better understanding of the lens. Thank you!
Happy to help.
Best lens reviews on youtube hands down!
I like the sound of that!
Was just checking it at the store the other day. I was really shocked about how affordable it was. I immediately searched for a review for this lens on your channel and now I find even more impressive that it's such a good performer at this price point. I know that there's a newer version but for my budget I think it would be perfect on my canon 6d mk2.
It's a really strong lens for the money.
great review, I watched Matt's review now just watched yours.. you both sold me on it
Matt Granger does great work. Thanks for the nice feedback.
Hi Dustin, excellent review. You may well be the one and only person who can advise me on this current dilemma... hope you can impart some wisdom.
We have a multiple location skydiving video shoot around Australia, filming on the GH4 + A7S with Metabones Canon EF Adapters on both camera bodies.
We've decided that a wide-angle lens with image stabilisation will be imperative for video capturing the skydivers in freefall, as I'm sure you can imagine the winds get pretty violent up there.
Our only 2 options at this stage seems to be the Tamron 15-30 VC or Canon 16-35 IS.
Would you consider one of these lenses to have better image stabilisation than the other in terms of video acquisition?
Or are there any other lens options I'm forgetting about?
We appreciate your advice Dustin and keep up the good work!
Nickolas
Nickolas, if you will keep an eye on my channel, I have already started a three way comparison between the Tamron, Canon, and the EF 16-35mm f//2.8L. I'll include a comparison between the image stabilizers as a part of that. That being said, I can tell already from having previously reviewed them that both of them are effective options. If I were you I would make the decision based more on this question: what is more important to you, the ability to use traditional filters (Canon) or the wider aperture/focal length (Tamron). There is going to be little difference beyond that.
Very rarely does anyone confess to being "floored" by a 3rd party lens! great review, very forthright and decided
Dustin, great review, I just bought a used copy of this lens yesterday, couldn't resist the price and the quality. It is such an improvement over my Tokina 16-28, no more annoying lens flare and it goes without saying, it's tack sharp. I waited for the Tamron 15-30 G2 to come out so that I could get a good price on the G1.
This is still a great lens, and while I suspect the G2 is better, I'm still not sure I'll upgrade.
I bought mine last spring, and its the best lens I own. I shoot Nikon D750-D7100. I am always amazed like you say at the micro-contrast this lens achieve. The only drawback, is the back element near the lens mount is not sealed and its moving inside the lens letting air(dust) entering the lens. So far I add not problems with that, but its a drawback that in dusty area can be a problem over time.
+Dustin Abbott it is possible to get a square circular polariser. Lee and Tiffen make them amongst others. They are commonly used in cinematography with matte boxes.
BTW thanks for an awesome review.
I just received word that FotodioX is sending me their filter system for the lens to review. I look forward to giving it a shot.
"I am very excited to review this...." With the the most serious face I've ever seen. I've never seen someone say "I'm so excited" so many times with the meanest face ever. Please, please smile more. I love your videos though :)
:) :) :) There you go ;)
Thank you for the outstanding review and the informational details that make the difference when it comes to a final decision between this lens and another brand.
Glad to help. I purchased the lens myself and really enjoy it
Indeed great review .. Thanks. It helped me decide on which wide angle lens i am going to buy. I will definitely add this to my lens collection :). Keep up the good work.
Maher Dalal Me, too. It's a winner!
Great lens. I now own the 15-30, the 24-70 and the 70-200 DI VC.
Some good lenses.
Great review Dustin! I was planning to buy Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II but after watching your review on this new Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 lens, you had just successfully convinced me to purchase this lens instead. Great job! :)
Paul Legaspi Wait until you see the resolution comparison I am posting next week between the two Canons and this lens. It will make you really glad you made this choice!
Good info, I will buy this lens for real estate, just bought new EOS R, I heard you saying that EOS R works well with Tamron 15x30 g2. Thank you Dustin
It is pretty much like a native lens via the adapter.
I've recently purchased this lens and it's good. One negative about it it that the zoom ring is SO stiff,especially when starting from 15mm. I purchased this lens for indoor photojournalism work and the stiff zoom ring can be annoying when trying to capture a precise moment. I really hope it'll loosen up over time.
Mrlolibre My copy is stiffer than what I would like, too. I do think that it will loosen up. It is, essentially, an internally zooming lens, so it should free up some.
I'm replying two years later here. . . LOL I bought one (used) and loved it, but was a bit turned off by its size and weight so ended up returning it and getting the Canon 16-35 f4 IS but while being lighter that extra loss of a mm as well as a bit more distortion made me go back -and repurchase, another Tamron. This NEW one (not used) actually has a much stiffer zoom ring on it than the 1st. I am hoping that it does loosed a bit. And yes, it is stiffest at at the 15mm as well as 30mm.
Another great review, I am now fairly sure this one is going into my bag, and not the Canon 16-35, will be watching your future reviews with interest
I know this review is a couple years old but it just happens to be pretty timely for me. I recently added "Real Estate Photography" to my list of side incomes and while my Canon 17-40mm is fine for 90-95% of my shots (I always shoot at f8) an extra couple of mm of range would work wonders in all the small guest/master bathrooms as well as walk-in closets I come across. In addition it's f2.8 and IS/VC would make it ideal for taking on hikes when I don't want to carry a tripod.
Real Estate photography is a nice gig. I've used this lens since its introduction and still think it is an excellent option.
Thanks, Dustin for this great review. another step on my way to convince myself to buy my own copy.
I wish you could compare it to Nikon 14-24 especially at the 20-24-30 mm and in different apertures.
Matt Granger has done that - search for it here. I don't shoot Nikon gear.
This is the best wide zoom period.
+Steven B Whether or not that is true, I know that I love mine.
Excellent quality video and great, articulated speech. I'm now subscribed to your channel and am looking forward to watching your other videos
That's great feedback. Thank you!
Dustin Abbott I write reviews for a living (not photo gear.) I like your approach, I appreciate the comparisons and detail, and the reasoned points you make are well weighted. Your presentation to camera is excellent, I can hear and understand every word.
Watching the video this sounds like a carefully written/scripted presentation, no bad thing but the pace and density of the information you are presenting makes this a bit of a relentless 'wall of words'. If I have a suggestion it would be to slow down, edit your video so you present a point in one take, then move to the next - simple video techniques and editing can make it easier to grasp the point you are making and see where you end one section and move to another. At the moment this views a bit like you write without full stops or paragraphs. Oh and I have subscribed :)
Snapjockey
Good feedback. I'm a one man show with a lot of irons in the fire, so these are typically one take, all in one, and unscripted. That is out of necessity because of time. I'm always open to improving, however, so I'll definitely take your comments to heart.
Dustin Abbott 17 minutes in one take without a script - my hat is off :)
Snapjockey
Maybe it wouldn't be 17 minutes if I had a script ;)
If, like me, you do a lot of shooting from the hip in order to capture candid street shots, that image stabilization can help a lot. Point is, it's not always about lower shutter speeds. Thanks for the review and also the one for the Canon 16-35 f4. I'm leaning towards the Canon.
You're welcome, Dave. I've been comparing the 16-35mm f/2.8 II and f/4L IS the past week and a half and will be comparing both of them to the Tamron in the next ten days. I will publish my thoughts.
Dustin Abbott I look forward to it. Thanks again.
I hardly comment to any review, but for you, here you go, big thumbs up and thanks for good review. :)
Thanks for taking the time to comment, then, Joe! I appreciate the kind feedback.
Hi Dustin, fantastic review! Was wondering if you think Tamron will update this lens possibly just for cosmetic reasons to match the current G2 SP lenses?
+Daniel Fazzari I wouldn't be surprised
Been following you for a long time and totally trust your assessments. I just bought this lens primarily based on your review. I have owned the Canon 16-35 f4 is since it came out but have to replace it and all my L glass because I just ordered a NIkon D850, yet to be delivered. I also bought the Tamron 24-70 G2. Now scratching my head over the decision for a 70-200. I want the Nikon FL but may end up with the new Tamron. I’ve viewed those reviews and comparisons for three weeks now.
It's tough, these days, as there is a lot of parity out there. The good news, though, is that it is hard to make a wrong decision.
subscribed, very nice review. ordering one this week
+Ryan Walvoord I think you will really enjoy it. Many of my top images from 2015 were taken with this lens.
thanks for this review i really want that lens but no way to find any in france yet ! :) i can t wait !
Early on I think that demand is going to outstrip supply (that is what my contact with Tamron has said).
Thank you for the great content your delivering. Keep doing it
That's the plan :)
I have this lence. And bet it receive my expectations.
+Helge Larsen It's definitely one of my current favorites.
Thanks for the review. I did not know you were canadian until you mentioned that you tried the lens in freezing temperatures. In Pembroke? The white water rafting paradise? You have rafting/kayaking pictures Dustin?
+Patrick Blart I do have some, for sure.
Nice, well spoken review. I totally believe what you're saying, which is bad because now I'm seriously considering spending $1,200 on another lens.
Marc Meeks That's the problem, isn't it? If it is any consolation, know that mine arrives next week :)
I hope you didn't pay for it with tithes and offerings money. Ha!
Marc Meeks
LOL. Nope, my photography definitely pays for itself!!
According to DXOMark tests the Tamron 15-30mm outperforms Canon's own EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM with my camera 5D Mark IV. Be advice that you have to see how it performs with a different body so make sure to chose your camera when comparing using DXOMark. I got lucky and saved my self from a $1000 overprice mistake thanks to Tamron. Great review
I do a number of direct comparisons when reviewing the Canon lens - you can find those in my playlist.
I wasn't directing my comment towards you. Was more like a FYI for everyone ;) I'm checking out your playlist right now. Thanks for letting me know.
What is the best prime lens available from your experience? What I need in the lens:
1- a very sharp lens
2- fast auto focusing
3- auto focusing motor sound should not be heard in the video
4- it would be great if it has image stabilization but not a must
5- a f 1.8 but if f1.4 is available for a good price then ok.
6- under 1000$
7- 35mm, 50mm or 55mm
what do you think?
Sic Lusifer The Sigma 50mm ART is probably your best bet.
Thank you for your exceptional reviews Dustin. Just subscribed to your channel.
+argentiniangoddess glad to hear it! Thanks for the nice feedback
Great review as aways. I no longer shoot Canon (although I love Canon's colours) as I think their bodies need to catch up with Nikon, Sony and Fuji, but the glass you've been recommending in your videos is terrific! I hope Canon gets out of the hole they dug themselves in at some point and I'll reconsider them. Great photos btw Dustin!
+Enrico Marconi Thanks for the nice feedback.
Very good reviews, you should add a used Nikon to your kit if possible to add reviews for that platform too. But I know it has a cost, so keep the good work. The videos are long, but they don't feel long. I saw that this was 17 minutes after the fact and was surprised.
Jaime Duncan That's a great compliment. I probably will add a Nikon body at some point, but, you are right, it is all expense.
Great review. I have the 16-35 f/2.8, but I've never been 100% happy with it. The 11-24 f/4 looks amazing, but the price is just ridiculous in the UK, coming in at £2,799 ($4310) which is a full $1310 more than its price in the USA. I may also look to change to the Canon 16-35 f/4, as I use a lot of Lee 100mm filters. Anyway, thanks for the review, for me it was food for photographic thought.
Malcolm, I think it would be hard to go wrong with either lens, and I will do a head to comparison down the road. The Tamron is more exciting to me, personally, because of the wider aperture and focal length, but I would love the ease of using filters on the Canon.
Dustin Abbott The bulk of my photography is landscape and travel. I recently did a trip around Andalusia in Spain (beautiful part of the world) and I actually left the 16-35 at home just did all my landscapes with my 24-70 mk ii. I did miss having an ultra wide at least twice every day though! For travel work I think IS or VC would be very handy even with an ultra wide, as I don't travel with my tripod as I generally travel super light (camera gear and clothes all in one small back pack), so there's times it would help. I could always invest in a travel tripod too I guess! Thanks for the response and the review's guidance.
dear sir,
i am very happy see all your video and comparison , i in the process or buying canon 16-35/f2.8 as i m into new born and wedding photography. the canon cost more then 1750 usd, i need to rethink if i get this tamron cheaper . thanks again regards
sameer saxena yellowframes mumbai india
I personally would definitely choose this lens over the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L
you have a voice of a preacher
That's because I am one!
I’ve been watching Dustin’s reviews for years, and I had no idea!
You think?!
Thanks for the review. Now I need to book more jobs to have this lens in my bag. So 'thanks' for that ;)
I tend to have that effect on people :)
Thanks Dustin for an excellent review. I've pre-ordered one after watching your review. I'm just hoping now it will be delivered prior to my July 2015 Iceland trip to use it there together with my Tamron 150-600 great telephoto lens. Oh one question though, is the new Tamron 15-30 lens made in China too same as the 150-600?
Fingers crossed! I believe the 15-30 is made in Japan. I will have another copy in hand in a couple of days, and if I'm incorrect, I'll comment here.
I have this on a Nikon D810. It is awesome.
It is an awesome lens. Love it!
Thanks for this comprehensiv review. Interessting location for a lens review video. Is it a church or a courtroom? Why did you pick this? I find the light situation a bit disturbing, as the right half of your face is always in the dark and also the lens is not really good visible in front of your black vest. But thats just my opinion. The review itself I found really helpful, again, after the review of the canon 100-400 and its comparison the the tamron 150-600.
I shot it in a church, which is appropriate considering I am also a pastor. Thanks for the feedback.
With all the appreciation for the effort put in the creation of these vids, certain improvements into the lighting setup would certainly be welcome and bring them to a whole new level.
Tomasz W
You are right, of course, but I had to do everything around this lens on a pretty tight schedule. I barely had time to fit in this video review.
I love your reviews and for sure helps me a lot. :) I also have a little request if that's possible and you have time. Can you please compare it with Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/15mm in terms of image quality? I know they are in different price range, but both of them starts at 2.8, have 15mm and could be an interesting comparison, since zooms are optimized for the extremes of the focal length, hence 15mm on this new Tamron should be at it's best. Besides that, the moment I saw this lens, I immediately saw the resemblance to the Zeiss, with the same incorporated hood and front cap design, except to the fact that Zeiss can be protected with a front screw-on filter, and as far as I've seen on Zeiss website, for those who wanna use ND grads, the lens can be shipped to them to be modified, removing the integrated hood and replacing it so that it's even more usable in the landscape field.
Cristi, that's a good question, and one that I could best answer with both lenses in hand. That being said, my experience with them both says that image quality would probably be hard to distinguish. The Zeiss will be a little better in the extreme corners, have slightly better contrast, and has much higher vignetting.
Dustin Abbott Thank you! I look forward for a video review if you wish, and to see them side by side. Writing to you, got me another idea to put in the mix if you had used or could you put your hands on one of them. It's about the new Canon 11-24, with a price point at the same level as Zeiss and quite a fine performer as far as I've seen in some reviews. Why so much interest in this type of lenses? I love them! As you said in one of the reviews, it's the type of lens that gives the most wonderful and dramatic images you can ever capture. I'm drawn to them, along with tele ones. I find that, at least for me, lenses below 24mm and above 135mm creates images with a certain appeal to them, something different and unique.
Cristi Biris
We'll see. I have no plans to do a review like that right now as I have a number of other lenses lined up for future review. My next planned comparison is between the Canon 50L and the Zeiss Otus 55.
Great review = new subscriber !
I have heard the Lucroit filter system will also work on this Tamron. Great review and thank you for this video, I have now made up my mind and get this instead of the Nikon 14-24. Cost was really not a factor. Have you reviewed the Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART lens yet? Thank You, Lou
I'm not familiar with that filter system. That's a good tip. If you will take a look at my home page here on RUclips you will find the review of the Sigma 50A
Dustin Abbott Thank's, I watched it. Good video.
Interesting. I am wondering if larger lenses = bigger image circle. The image circle means that the center is sharp, but as you get towards the corners ... they get softer. Ergo MORE glass, flatter elements, more of a quality center ... and possibly a better overall image and that micro-contrast plays out more with thicker/flatter elements. Nice call. The OTUS for that reason, makes sense on the size.
This lens actually has a flatter plane of focus than the Nikon 14-24. Image quality is more consistent across the frame. I do believe the reason for the increased size here is the image quality and contrast. It is very, very good.
Dustin Abbott It only makes sense. Tilt shift ideology kind of made me think about the size of image circle in particular, which really clued me.
what are some of the filter holder options ?
Hey @DustinAbbott =) Do you use your Canon 6D in those temperatures? Where would you say the line is (for malfunctioning, danger levels for the camera) for that model?
Love your show and I've been a sub for a while and I plan to stick to it !
+Henrik Karlsson I do use the 6D. I've never found the limit, myself. I've shot it in temperatures well over 100 F (Arizona desert, Negev in Israel) and here in Canada in -40 F/C temps. Never had an issue yet. It's a tough camera.
Dustin Abbott I own it as well and I really like it (I stepped up from the 700D/T5i-line) but I've heard that it is not as tough as a 5DMK3.
I live in Sweden so this will be the first time I can shoot in really freezing temps.
Any quick tip for when you get inside again with the camera, what should one do?
Plastic bag before entering?
Henrik Karlsson
That is mostly internet rumors. The 6D is a very robust camera with good sealing. I've used it on multiple continents and in all kinds of weather. Not one issue.
Dustin Abbott Superb! That's reassuring to hear. Sometimes the internet gets ya and it is moment like these I should pay attention to =)
nice review
You're welcome!
I dont want to hear about other lenses.. just this one !
+kingdom777866 I have been using this lens a LOT the last several months.
Thanks Dustin for very detailed review. I am looking for a super-wide angle lens that I can use in astrophotography too. I was wondering if you had the chance to try this lens for astrophotography and if you could share your experience. Will you consider this lens to be the best super-wide lens with auto-focus for astrophotography? Thanks
+Ashwani Tiwari That's exactly what I would call it. It is my choice for astro and other wide angle work. Love the lens.
Thanks Dustin, I really appreciate your quick response. I was looking for super-wide angle lens that I could use for landscape and astrophotography too. Its great help ! Regards
Did you buy this lens for astrophotography? If so, how was it?
Hi Dustin, great review, many thanks. How does this compare to the Tokina 16-28 2.8 as that particular lens is very highly regarded and super sharp. I ask as the Tamron is nearly twice the Tokina's price. I know there's very minor difference in field of view but nothing that's going to be massively noticeable. Does the Tamron justify the huge price difference? Thanks.
+DAW1968 I haven't personally used the Tokina, but there is definitely a noticeable difference between it and the Tamron when it comes to image quality (using the Digital Picture's image quality tool). The Tamron has really impressed me with its contrast as well. I'm very happy with the Tamron, but if your budget doesn't extend to it, the Tokina seems like a quality option.
One other thing to consider is that a lot of aftermarket companies are designing filter systems for the Tamron; I don't know if the Tokina has gotten the same amount of attention.
+Dustin Abbott No worries, thank you.
It's not some much about affording it, it's more about justifying it. Is it really worth twice the price for what you get in terms of image quality? That's more what I'm looking at. I think the best thing to do is try them both and make an assessment on then.
Have a good weekend.
I have much respect for your opinion because it saves me much time......In your opinion which has the over all sharpness to be used on the Sony A mount camera bodies, a sony 16-35mm f2.8 ssm ll at 2,200.00 or a tamron 15-30mm f2,8 vc at 1,200.00?...without going deep into these lenses i just would like your bottom line choice between the two?....thank you
I haven't used the Sony, so I can't comment, Howard.
hi Dustin
this is very detailed review which will be like by anyone who wants to know more about this lens
By the way, may I know how the lens working right now in 2017 after 2 years of usage?
I scare that the 3rd party lens wont last that long compare to the Nikon lens
Regards
It works great. I continue to use it on a regular basis, and it still looks like new.
Is good to hear from you as a professional photographer that the lens is great. I am planning to get one soon.
Cheers
Hi there
I have got the Tamron 15-30 lens 3 days ago. and quite satisfied. Though I am still in finding the right way to use this lens correctly, this lens is pretty stunning to me.
This lens produce sharp images; However, I found that the images are much noisy compare to my other lens (50mm F1.8 or 24-120 f4). Any explanations?
Here are the test out images flic.kr/s/aHskTLgLtW
Regards
How did this perform on a crop sensor body? Looking at this for my new Nikon D7200 for event photography, so often shooting wide open.
It performs fine, though this doesn't seem like your best choice for APS-C. The focal length isn't particularly wide, and you are dealing with unnecessary weight and size.
DID you ever test this lens against the zeiss (sony) 16-35mm f2.8 ssm ll lens??
I did not
hi!! great informative video.! I have a Nikon D90. Can you tell me if this lens would be able to perform at its best with it or would i lose out on its performance? thanks
APS-C won't produce the best performance mostly because the crop factor makes the focal length less attractive.
Hi dustin, i love your videos! Great work! I need help, i was going to buy tamron 15-30mm, for landscape, astrophotography, and maybe wide portraits, but now i am not sure if i should buy this lens, or the sigma art 24-35mm f2! I like the sigma because is a little bit faster and longer, so i can use it for street photography! Should i buy tamrons, and then a 35, or 50mm prime? Or should i go with sigma? and then buy a 20mm prime?
Thank you very much.
That really comes down to your own decision. They are both excellent lenses. I will say, however, that the 24-35 is not as good for astro as the Tamron for several reasons. How important is that to you?
Dustin Abbott thank you for answering! I haven't done much astrophotography yet but I want to start planning trips and start doing it more seriously, plus landscapes , so the Tamron was the perfect option, but i also want the lense to be a lense Wich I can rely for trips, and street photography, is 30mm to wide for that?
thats why I start thinking about the sigma , but it is not very wide.
also, is 2.8 enough por low light and Astro? or would you recommend a f1.4 prime?
(sorry for the grammar I am Spanish native)
thank you a lot!
I'm afraid you want one lens to do everything, and that lens may not exist. Both the sigma and the Tamron are large, heavy lenses. They will be neither light nor unobtrusive for street photography. The Tamron is a great landscape and astro lens.
Dustin Abbott you are right, I'm going for the Tamron. thank you
is this lens made for weddings
Definitely. I've used it at several of them
Greetings Dustin,
I few days back i purchased this lens after seeing your review here... I ran few tests on my Canon 70D with Canon 18-135mm kit lens and i am still in shock @18mm there was barely any difference in the image from kit lens when compared with tamron 15-30f/2.8 @ 18mm f/4.
I could not believe my eyes and decision that i spent $1500 CAD for a lens which performs slightly better than a kit lens... I can few more test and the result is same... sometimes the tamron would produce noticeably sharper images but right side bottom the images are really soft in comparison to the kit lens. i dont know what to do with this lens anymore.
+Aaditya Vikram Hmmm, I don't know what to tell you - every review of the Tamron backs up my own. See a comparison of the two that you are describing here and you will see a noticeable difference. www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=986&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=809&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1 That being said, however, the Tamron as a full frame lens (and focal length) is somewhat wasted on a crop sensor body. I would recommend something like the Canon 10-22mm if you intend to stick with a crop sensor body.
+Dustin Abbott Yeah thats what i was planning to buy initially but went with tamron instead as i'm planning to buy a full frame body... I just went through the link you sent... I can see the difference but do you think spending $1500 CAD for probably 5-7% of difference makes sense? is this the norm when you buy expensive lenses or mine is just an off situation?
Aaditya Vikram
Believe it or not, but the Tamron is one of the sharpest wide angle lenses out there. I think that the $1500 part will make more sense when you go full frame and get the full potential out of the lens. I've been using mine a lot and just love it.
+Dustin Abbott Hmmm, probably you are right. But have you experienced images being a lot softer around right bottom... or its just my unit which has this unusual softness on right mid corner... ( www.sendspace.com/filegroup/2UVJBMpomfSeJ4Za01Q2GQ ) Images attached if you'd like to see.
Thanks a ton for taking out time Dustin it feels good to know there are experienced people like you to answer the questions, I appreciate it :)
Aaditya Vikram
I took a look at your photos, and here's a couple of observations. The two images are not focused on the same point. The front right corner on the Tamron is clearly not in focus (look at the bags and also the rings). I would say the Canon is front focused and the Tamron is back focused. What was your point of focus, and how did you focus? You might should try your test again from a further distance to increase depth of field.
Secondly, the Tamron's image is much better. Far less vignette, much less distortion (look closely at the shape of the mug - the Canon is distorting even near the middle of the frame). The fine detail on the horizontally striped case or bag is noticeably better.
But you also right when you ask if improvements are minor at this point. They are, to a degree, although the Tamron will shine more when you move to full frame.
Are planning on reviewing the new Tamron 24-70?
+john barreto yes I am, but it is delayed in the Canon mount for another month
Hi sir...any information about 15-30 g2...??
I was planning to buy this lens,as Tamron releasing new g2 series so thought of waiting for it...
I haven't heard anything yet.
Dustin Abbott thanks a lot sir..
I was wondering if you would trade of (or upgrade from) from a Samyang 14mm F2.8 (retail 349,- euro) and sell of and "downgrade" from a 35 F1.4 sigma art (749,- euro) in favor of this Tamron 15-35 (1199,- euro). I am used to fast 1.4 sigma primes (50 and 35) so does this Tamron come close in image quality to the Sigma primes (you mentioned Zeiss)? How does this lens VR compare in low light versus a 1.4 prime. Thanks for your excellent reviews!
+Patrick van Baarle Just so you know, I personally sold my Rokinon (Samyang) 14mm in favor of the Tamron. The Tamron's image quality is excellent - at 35mm vs. 30mm on the Tamron the lenses are roughly equal with perhaps a very slight edge in the center if stopped down to f/2.8. www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=986&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
The VC will help in low light if you have an unmoving subject. If your subject is moving you would need to bring your shutter speed up with either lens. Just remember that you can't use traditional filters with the Tamron and it is pretty big. Otherwise, it is a fantastic lens in every way.
Love the bow tie.
Thanks. Felt like a fool the first time I wore one, but they've grown on me.
Please please help me decide
I want to buy either canon's 16-35 f4 IS USM or this lens
I really need a sharp lens
Bahaa Jamal Both of these lenses are very, very sharp. Which do you need more? A wide f/2.8 aperture or the ability to use screw on filters? There's your decision right there.
Were you using this on a full frame or crop sensor camera ?
He was using on a full frame. It would be a waste to use this lens on a crop camera. When there are wider, lighter lens options available for crop cameras.
Benjamin Wong You are definitely right. This lens is overkill for crop sensors. You can find cheaper, smaller, and wider solutions for a crop.
Have you tried this lens on the Canon 5D mark IV, and if you did has there been any issues with it. Do you think it's worth selling my 16-35mm F2.8L II to buy it? Thanks
I do use it on a 5D Mark IV (used it tonight, in fact), and yes, I did have to have the firmware updated on the lens as it didn't function right in Live View. After the firmware update it worked flawlessly. It is a vastly superior lens to the 16-35L II in almost every way save that it is bigger, heavier, and you can use traditional filters on it.
Thank you Dustin for getting back to me so quickly. I have someone interested in my Lens and I want to buy the new one by this weekend. Do you think the new lenses sold today would have the firmware update or would that be something I would have to do. Thanks again Ralph (As always your reviews are great!!!)
I would think that retail copies on the shelf now should have the update. The 5D Mark IV has been out for 8 months.
THANKS !!!
Suppose you already had a 50 and a 70-200. Do you think you would add this or the 24-70 to an all-around kit? (Both for photos *and* video and without the option for both lenses)
I'm kind of stuck and don't know if I'd miss 31-49 and 51-69 more than I'd miss 15-23. I've had situations where I've wanted both about equally. (And if it helps, I like shooting basically what you've shown in your example pictures)
I have this lens, a 35mm and 50mm prime, and then a 70-200.
Alright. Thank you.
do you think this lens is the best wide angle lens? I have nikon d7100?
Best is a strong term. I can't say that definitely, but I do think it is among the best and I really enjoy shooting with it.
Abu Faris on the D810 yes it is the best.
Abu Faris why would you get a full frame wide angle for dx camera D7100? It's a waste, imho. U should consider tokina 11 16 instead
hi Dustin
I have been using the Tamron 15-30 for a few occasions now.
One issue that I encounter is that when I have this lens on a tripod (for 10-30 second) with VC on, this lens produce shaky images. However, once I switch the VC off, It produce sharp images.
May I know why is that so?
If I am using handheld with VC on, this lens produce no shaky images.
Regards
+C SingSing Almost all VC/IS/OS systems are designed to be turned off when used on a tripod. The VC system is trying to correct for camera shake that isn't there, and thus produces blurriness.
Hi there
Yea Many of the forums also suggested not to switch the VC on for long exposure.
But I have no issue on Nikon lens though
Thanks for your reply
Regards
It's always a good practice. Some lenses are supposed to "detect" when mounted on a tripod, but it isn't always reliable.
Hai Dustin i purchased this to day for my d800 can you advice me it somtime over exposes my images too maney times perhaps i need more time With my New lens perhaps im spoiled With my Zaiss lenses
ted tedsen Interesting. I've not heard any such report from anyone else. I didn't have that issue with Canon bodies, but I have a lot of followers that are Nikon users and none of them have reported a similar issue. I don't know what to tell you. Touch base with Tamron, perhaps.
A couple things not mention here:
-Made in china
-it is a 16-28mm 3.5 in reality.
-Build quality varies from lens to lens
-Plastic consumer level quality.
-You get what you paid, I learn that the hard way.
Wow, where to start. First of all, I've got the lens in front of me, and it is made in Japan. Secondly, I've compared it to a host of other lenses, and it is very close to 15mm and much wider than any compared 16mm lens (almost all Canon zooms, for instance). It frames as widely as 15mm prime lenses like the Irix 15mm F2.4, the Zeiss Distagon 15mm 2.8, and the Laowa 15mm F2. The light transmission has compared favorably to many lenses I've compared it to and it has the lowest vignette of any that I've compared. The build quality has been rugged and held up for me personally since shortly after I did this review when I bought on for myself. Furthermore, I've demonstrated all of these claims I've made in videos done comparing the lens to other lenses viewed by hundreds of thousands of people Don't just repeat things you've heard on RUclips; they may just be untrue.
For those saying the G1 has a minimum focal length of closer to 15.7mm in reality and a max aperture of closer to F/3.2, anyone know if the G2 is like this?
I've not found that to be true in the past. I've done many comparisons, and I'm highly skeptical about that claim. But the G2 doesn't appear to be any different than the G1 in those basic measurements.
haven't seen any in depth reviews yet of the G2 but I'm leaning toward saving money and buying a used G1
My G2 coverage starts today.
Thank u for the review... got one in India :) n its as perfect as u described it :)
Great to hear, Pranav. Enjoy!
Dustin Abbott thank you :)
For weddings???? and other social events
Isidro Hernández Fotografía y Video Digital Definitely.
Hi Dusttin is Made in japan ??
Yes
Great review. And, I think you might just have bridged the gap between atheists and your folks. Respect dude!
+stephen fleming That's pretty cool. Thanks!
You're welcome. Peace brother!
I was really excited to have this lens but unfortunately mine seems very soft. I'm not sure if it's a bad copy but both my Sigma 35 and my Samyang 14mm blow this 15-30 out of the water. I have decided to refund mine since I mostly bought it for the extreme wide angle focal range so I will make do with the Samyang. In the sides and the corners, it's VERY smeary compared to the Samyang and the Sigma is even slightly better. The center and mid frames are also worse with the 15-30. Tamron left, Samyang right (lower left half of full image towards the corners): 1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS1600x1600~forums/57543623/63daf81d12504bc2b5f79fd10490ae25
It is quite a dramatic result, the Tamron is at f/8 and the Samyang f/5.6. My Tamron is not sharper in any situation over the Samyang, I can't stomach that for the price difference!
+Luke Interesting. That wasn't my findings (or other reviewers) at all. I own the Tamron myself, and am very satisfied with its sharpness.
Dustin Abbott I'm pretty sure I got a bad copy of the Tamron unfortunately so I might try again in the future, at least it looks like I got lucky with the Samyang copy monopoly...
5 seconds handhold shot ???!!!!!!!!!! For Gods sake, respect the people minds ....
Ridiculous size. There are actually several great DIY filters over the front of this.
I had hoped that I could modify my system for the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm. The actual holder doesn't work, but I'm sure the filters (150mm) would.