That was a great final review. As much as I'd love to own the new Canon lens, I'm just too persuaded by the VC and cost savings of the Tamron. My collection of SP lenses just keeps growing, as It seems that Tamron has become my aftermarket lens manufacturer of choice. Dustin, your videos are costing me a lot of money! LOL
After months of debating and watching all of Dustin Abbott's videos on the 3 way shoot out. I decided to get the Tamron. It was more expensive than the Canon F4 16-35mm. But after watching this review? I would not consider getting the new Mark III. For One, being a thousand dollars more. No image stabilizer. And the real deal killer for me is the 4 stops of vignetting. Every review I've seen, the vignetting is immediately obvious. And I can't live without an image stabilizer. It adds so much value to a lens. Thanks Dustin. Great video!!!
Glad to help out. The Tamron has stood up well in the various comparisons I've thrown it against. I've not yet really come across a lens that made me want to trade.
Fantastic review. Despite some of the limiting factors with the Tamron, I honestly find that if I bought one of these lenses, the 4 stop vignette is much more limiting then the Tamron's disadvantages.
Oh my gosh this is my new favourite channel! Awesome review! Your clear and concise language and presentation is perfect! I bought the Tamron 15-30 about a week ago and I'm loving it so much! My first non Canon lens :).
As always, thank you Dustin for this honest and informative review. Picking up the Tamron 15-30 this week at the nearby camera store. I try whenever possible to shop locally in order to support them and keep them open. The VC and price where the two factors that tupped this decision easily in the this direction. And your reviews and image samples went a long way to help in the decision making process.
I honestly thought this new Canon would make me want to swap lenses despite the high price tag, but it really didn't in the end. I think it is a great lens, but not so compelling that I'm ready to take a $1000+ hit over what I have to acquire it.
Great comparison! I am really glad the Tamron lens held up so well against the Canon. I bought the Tamron lens shortly after your initial review and it has been an amazing workhorse. I have put mine through some rough rough situations, but the lens just works through them and have given me some of the best shot I have ever taken. Consider its 1,000 dollar cheaper than the Canon, I honestly feel it’s worth well above it’s price.
Brilliant vids , I think the most professional I've come across without seeming to promote one over the other, suggesting alternatives, and not being in it for pure entertainment. Well done.... looking for either a 16-35 or 24-70/105 with IS/VC for my 7D Mark II, these kind of perspectives really help, and the links....thank you and cheers from NYC.
That's my goal. These days there are a lot of brilliant lenses, and it's not often a matter of one just being better than another. It's more which strength and weakness set suits your own purposes.
As usual a great review Dustin, albeit I am not one that trusts third party lens (sorry) and I would love to own the Canon Mark III version and the TAMRON zoom ring has more tension that I would like and the limitations on using filters, at least my copy of the TAMRON 15-30 2.8 vc with it's GUCCI kind of slick look is sooo sharp, with contrast and colors that are so beautiful not to mention that I did not have to do any micro adjustments on my Canon 1DX (very fast focusing with this one) or 5D Mark III at all can't say I regretted buying it!!.... I have done important shoots where my clients have paid me big bucks and not once I've said to myself: I should have used another lens. All my other lens in my arsenal are Canon L series (love the red ring) but this heavy alright TAMROM 15-30 2.8 vc is one to swear by.
Thanks for a very nice comparison here, but I would choose to stick with my Canon 16-35 f4L because of its overall sharpness and filter thread (for long exposure shots). In case I need a wide angle image with f2.8, it is perfectly fine for me to use the Canon 24-70 f.28L II as a substitute.
Dustin, Thank you so much for the in depth review. You helped me greatly with my decision. Heading to B&H in Manhattan tomorrow and was still undecided. It looks like I am on board with the Tamron. I am die hard Canon fan but for the pros I think the $$ makes the choice. Really appreciate your time on doing the review. DA
Thank you for your unbiased reviews. I've been shooting astro-photography over the last 12 months with the Tamron and a 6D. The vignetting on the new canon is a deal breaker for me, its just not acceptable for this style of photography. I have found that one of the "cons" for the Tamron was that the light transmission was less than expected. This was compensated for by increasing the ISO, to get the images I am after. Subscribed!
That's true, although having reviewed a lot of other wide angle zooms and primes, I'm left to wonder if Tamron didn't make the right choice. A little less light transmission, yes, but scarcely enough to notice in real world use. But they managed to provide more even illumination across the frame than any other wide angle lens I've used.
First I was thinking you prepare a case for the canon lens. But I really appreciate your video and liked how you worked out all differences and pros and cons. Appreciate your work and the video really was helpful. Thanks for that 👍🏻👍🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
The Tamron is an absolute workhorse of a lens and is still king of the wide angle zooms. The Canon has nothing over the Tamron (filters can still be used), but the Canon can't add on an extra mm or VC. Throw on $1k savings and this is a no-brainer. Worried about future compatibility? Get a dock for $150 and still save $850.
Maybe I missed it in your review, but other reviewers like lenstip have found that the Tamron smears stars less than the Canon. Combined with the wider focal length and lower vignetting it should be the superior astrophotography lens regardless of price. This is often a major selling point for fast wide-angle lenses. Many great wide angle primes don't even perform very well in this area.
I definitely agree on the vignette and focal length point, but I didn't emphasize the coma performance here because I didn't find much of a difference in my test (I do cover that in the Canon review).
Thank you for this great review Dustin. I’m possibly considering the Canon 16-35 f2.8 II or III version. Mainly because I know that the 2nd series captures light so vividly (more richer in color than my 24-70 f2.8 II) , when a colleague of mine uses is 16-35 f2.8 II for indoor night event photography.
Hi Sam, I'm actually surprised to hear you say that, as I would view the 16-35II and the 24-70II in the opposite way. I consider the 24-70II to be superior in most every way. The III version has perhaps caught up, but not the II
Still very happy with the Tamron and not lusting after the Canon! :) I'm sure the sharpness difference is pretty marginal at the wider end. And I guess the tough choice would be regular filters or less vignetting.
I like Haida filters (I have both the ND64 and ND1000 screw in filters from their Pro line). I considered the Haida setup, but had a chance to review the Fotodiox system and ended up keeping it.
Great review Dustin. I shoot a lot of astrophotography and landscape. I own the Tamron but am considering the Canon mainly due to the ability to use my Lee filters. However my research leads me to believe that the Tamron has better coma which is important for astrophotography. Do you have any comment on that.
+Guy Cameron These lenses are fairly close for coma. The bigger difference between them for Astro is the fact that the Tamron has very low vignette by comparison. It has the wider focal length, too, which can also help
Thank you for this very professional video Dustin, and Merry Christmas!! Do you think that the issue with the Tamron not being able to take filters could be resolved by using Canon's RF to EF adapter with built in ND filters? I was going to use it on an EOS R anyway. Thank you! Alex
If the Tamron had a verified reputation of needing repair every 6 months (yes I know 6 year warranty) or some other constant physical defect, I could see going with the Canon. But even then, the F4 seems like such a better value proposition if you wanted to stay OEM. I do not own any zooms in this range for FF, just the crop "equivalent" (10-18mm). I don't feel the need to print beyond 24x36, so this setup on an 80D will be fine for a bit:)
Fortunately that defect doesn't exist, though since it is a "pre Tap In" model, it might require a firmware update for full compatibility with new bodies (like I needed for 5D Mark IV compatibility).
"...both lenses are excellent..." as well as the review! ps I hope you will not skip to audio testing [ which I am very keen on]; however, I consider you a PHOTO equipment reviewer and let it continue:)
Thanks. I do some audio reviews because I have interest there (and this is my channel, after all!!), but my primary interest is and will remain photography.
Dustin, Thanks for your review. It makes me want to go out and rent one so i can compare some more test shots to the Tamron 15-30. On another note, I had been really interested in the IriX 15mm lens when they announced it. But since then, crickets. I thought it would be out late summer. Now its winter so i wonder if it will even be made. Do you have any Intel out there on the Irix 15mm Blackstone?
I spoke too soon lol. I just went and looked for it after i typed this in. The Irix 15mm Blackstone is out in Europe. Dustin, will you be reviewing it for Landscape Astro Photography if you can get your hands on a copy?
+steve m I will, but B&H isn't carrying it, so I've got to find an alternate connection to IRIX. If anyone out there has a connection to them I'd appreciate them facilitating my getting in touch with them.
Do you feel the infinity focus mark is accurate in the Tamron? I have the 16-35 f4 and it is spot on accurate which is handy at night,, but of course it is slower than the 2.8. I'm leaning towards the 15-30 since I have the 16-35 f4.
Hi Clay - that won't be a universal truth. There's a little bit of flexibility in these for thermal expansion in either very hot or very cold conditions, and another copy of the 16-35 might not identical to yours either.
so when you say the cannon is sharper I'm assuming relatively they are both sharp. like i have a nikon d750 and I'm learning that a good lens is just as important. Considering i like landscape photography my first additional lens purchase will probably a wide angle lens. My nikon came with a (nikkor 24-120) so I'm just wondering would the tamron be better quality sharpness compared to the nikkor? thanks!
Since the people want light camera equipment that item is already tossed out due to the quality E mount lenses weigh what the A mount class weighs and the mirrorless bodies are also getting larger and heavier to allow the A mount features, so smaller and lighter is no longer a reason to go to an ?E mount.....And there goes your argument !
Great Video! :) I'm planning to purchase this Canon 16-35L III mainly for Astrophotography, but the newly announced Sigma 14mm f1.8 (specs-wise) seems very tempting to me. Do you think f1.8 will perform far better than f2.8? Also, how do you feel about Sigma lenses in general?
I can't really comment on a lens that I haven't evaluated. I've not yet reviewed a Sigma lens with amazing coma control, but I have no doubt that this will be a priority for Sigma with this type of lens. The new Rokinon 14mm f/2.4 seems very good in this regard.
Thank you Dustin! If the price of new Sigma 14mm f/1.8 is too crazy. I'll stick with Rokinon 14mm f/2.4. Btw I purchased the extension tube you recommended, working great. Again, thank you so much! :)
First off great review; I have been using Canon L glass for 22 years out of my 27 years as a professional photographer, I have to admit that I was extremely worried about buying a third party lens after testing the Canon 16-35 F4L IS and not being completely happy with what I saw, not to mention it felt like a toy in my hands, of course I tested the Canon 16-35 2.8L III and specially when compared to the F4L IS I was blown away, but the price tag is too high and I don't have money to burn. Conclusion, the sharpness on the TAMRON is superb corner to corner, the contrast and color depth are amazing, extremely fast focusing , silent enough, fast F2.8 aperture from 15 to 30MM and the advantage of the VC which is a big plus for me.... Draw backs are kind of heavy (and I like heavy lens), wish the zoom ring was a bit smoother ( as the focusing ring ) and not being able to use filters to protect the front element (this last one) neither does the Canon 11-14 MM F4, let me just say those cons not a deal breaker for me at all. Summary based on price and the IQ this lens produces for me no doubt is the TAMRON SP 15-30mm 2.8 VC
Hey Dustin, thanks for the review, informative. I have a question though... Would their be any advantages using the canon 16-35 f 2.8 USM II version instead? I have the Tamron 15-30 that I bought about a year ago, but the thing is bulky and not suitable for travel. I am considering either the 16-35 or the 14mm. However, at the costs, I am considering to buy the older versions, is the 16-35 USM II going to vignette just as bad as the Mark III?
I would not recommend the L II version. It has a lot of optical flaws and you will find the image quality lacking compared to your Tamron. I would recommend the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS if you want a lighter option for travel.
Thanks Dustin. I went to Canon's office to try the L III vs. my Tamron... Same photos... I noticed that with the camera firmware updated to include the L III that the same photos taken that the Tamron will be yellow and the L III to be white. So it seems that the Tamron is picking up the natural yellowing lighting wereas the L III is somehow interpreting that as white light. The firmware does seem to fix the vignetting issues though. The Tamron is just really bulky as you know. I like it, I like it alot, but for traveling half way around the world and carrying it around all day at 1.1kg is really a headache.
I am torn between buying a used Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8 USM (mark 2 ) or this Tamron lens, my biggest question is, how much of a difference will i have for stabilization with the r6 mark ii because it has great IBIS, if a combo of Tamrons VC and R6 IBIS will be groundbreaking or if i should just go with the overall build and quality of the canon lens and expect the IBIS to be enough?
The IBIS on the R6 will pretty much remove the stabilization issue from the equation. You'll get pretty much the same performance with either lens on the R6
Then i think it is settled, i mean if money is not the diciding matter and ibis isnt either then canon is pretty much a no brainer, thanks for the response !@@DustinAbbottTWI
The G2 is improved in areas like the VC, the focus, and the build, but it isn't much different optically. Add that information into this video and make your choice based on your personal priorities
There is some ghosting, though it's not terribly destructive. There is some CA with the Tamron (lateral CA) near the very edges of the frame, though it easily corrects.
Dustin Abbott thank you! I have a 5D Mark IV and I'm looking for a wide angle lenses, thought about the new Canon III but after your review for more than half of the price I think I can still get very good pictures with the Tamron, you saved me 1200$!
Jonathan Gedye thank you, I already made my decision for Tamron, with the rest of the money add some adds to the camera. I've been buying L Canon lenses but after all these reviews available sometimes the difference money /quality is not worth it. ✌
im now torn between the tamron and the 16-35 f4. i dont do astro but i want to learn and the extra strop would be nice for other condention but the 6d can handle real well in low light situations for the most part
What options are out there for us Nikon shooters who don't necessarily need a 2.8 lens but need image stabilization? I own the Tamron 15-30 and it has wonderful IQ, but I simply can't deal with its ridiculous flare and so I will not consider any lens with a bulbous front element. But this severely limits my options. I've owned a Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR briefly, but it is an ancient lens with rubbish optics and a refresh is no where in sight. I don't think Tamron would make another wide angle to compete with its own 15-30, so what about Sigma?
I am interested in using the Tamron 15-30 F2.8 as a video lens for use with the Canon 5D Mark IV while in the 4K video recording mode. Can anyone speak to how well the DPAF auto focus works on the Tamron while recording video?
You compared this 2 great wide angle zooms know. In the past you also compared the Rokinon 14mm f 2.8 as well as the Zeiss Distagon 15mm f2.8 as well. What Do you think IQ wise: will the Milvus 15mm f2.8 blow that away?
The Milvus 15mm won't blow the Distagon away because it is the same optical formula. Coatings will be improved, but the lens is pretty much the same. It is a fabulous lens, but not much better than these modern zooms anymore.
Dustin Abbott my question is: how good are these zooms in comparison to the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 -ish lenses. You tested the Distagon, but you compared "classic" Zeiss lenses with the Milvus lenses, too.
Dustin Abbott thanks for answering so quickly. Another reviewer claimed he detected focus breathing, but I hadn’t heard that from anyone else. Gracias!
Like this review, that's a complicated question. There are aspects of the Tamron that are better and aspects of the Canon that are better. Canon is a bit sharper, and with slight better AF. The Tamron has the nicer build, less vignette, and includes VC.
You made a mistake! You should have ADDED and matched these lenses against the Zeiss (sony) 16-35 f2.8 ssm ll lens, that would have been a much better comparison........i still gave you a thumbs up!!!!
Howard, you know I don't shoot Sony A-Mount, nor ever have, nor am I about to start. Please stop this. I don't want to have to report you, but you are pushing this Sony A-mount thing way too much and its getting very irritating. If you don't like what I review, find a channel that reviews what you like and stick with that.
Sorry buddy, i did not mean to cause you grief, i review all your videos and you have done so much on Sony cameras (E Mount) and their 'lenses, My mistake.......... I am not ranting on Sony any longer that i am aware of.........
But I've told you repeatedly that I don't have any experience with Sony A, and yet you constantly ask me questions about Sony A mount. I don't have those answers.
This should be a help, sigma website tells about Sony lenses------://www.sigmaphoto.com/lp/grow-your-sony-arsenal?Sigma+Corp+of+America&EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_1&mc_cid=200aa51fb3&mc_eid=d98a8e0462
I haven't reviewed the Yongnuo, so I can't comment on that. How important are using traditional filters to you? With the Tamron or Sigma you will have to use rear gel filters or an add-on filter system. I think the Sigma is my favorite of the bunch, but if you needed image stabilization, I would go with the G2.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Not necessary, but would be good. (Maybe for long exposure and high speed synchronization) I'll just use it when the Canon 35 1.4 is insufficient. 35mm and 70-200 are sometimes insufficient in weddings and outside shots. Distortion, sharpness and price / performance are important to me. Canon is cheap but f4, Sigma is sharp but expensive and doesn't filter, Tamron has stabilizor (how is the video performance?) But expensive and no filter , flare .. If I find it cheap, my Canon 16-35 f4 is my favorite. Sorry for my bad english :)
Being able to apply a lens filter is nice...but an extra 1k nice? Not so much. I suppose the weight is a big factor too, but seeing those two as the biggest selling points, it's hard to justify both at about $500 a pop.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Hey, thanks for the comment! :D The review was solid, and I liked how in-depth you went. There was obviously also other factors like sharpness, and a few other things, but I was kind of shocked at how little extra benefit I would be getting by spending such a large amount of extra dollars. I know that above a certain level, the law of diminishing returns comes into play, but given that we have lenses that can cost tens of thousands of dollars, it just seems really bizarre that there was such limited benefit on lenses that are priced at the low to mid-range.
Don't know why I watched this video,I have my wide angle lens ! I had the Tamron 15-30 but wasn't wide enough for interiors (Show the whole space) and I sold it and bought an IRIX 11mm...Crazy difference.I loved the Tamron but is So big and heavy... Couldn't walk more than an hour with it
Center resolution is NOT the primary focus of a ultra-wide angle lens and that is the only part of resolution that you state is clearly superior on the Canon. You state that it is definitely not as sharp at the edges which is a primary purpose of ultra-wide angle lens. The 4-stop vignette you state is really bad on the Canon. Add to that getting rid of the vignette destroys even more resolution at the edge. You state that the distortion correction on the Canon is more destructive on the Canon than on the Tamron. I can not get how you claim the Canon has less optical compromises than the Tamron (to my the lens flare of the Tamron is not a pro point). The Tamron is clearly a better lens optically for most of the ways that the lens will be used. This is troubling to me given your historically excellent reviews.
Across the frame the Canon is sharper in most places, and it is give and take along the edges. The Canon has less chromatic aberrations and is more flare resistant. I love the Tamron lens (I own it), but it isn't really accurate to say that it is "clearly the better lens optically", and that's not a point I make in any of my coverage of these lenses. I think you are putting words in my mouth. To be fair, I do prefer the Tamron for my own purposes, but I don't think that it is the better lens. I just think that its strengths and weaknesses work fairly well for me.
I clearly do not get your statement that the Canon is sharper in most places from a detailed look at your review. Give and take at the edges ? I never heard you say once that the Canon is better there (edges are edges). So the Tamron takes it both absolute sense and the pretty bad 4-stops of vignette of the Canon that further wrecks the image quality trying to make up for the failings of the Canon in post. Credibility counts. I think lens flare in Tamron is a definite downside. Once you know about it you can do your best to limit it. But...............this is a big but.........you can do zero to compensate for the worse edge sharpness of the Canon and the much worse vignette. You say you can not name a time you could not get the same quality of image out of the Tamron in conclusion statements but with the negatives optically you cite on the Canon. Just call a spade a spade. Be true to your Dustin Abbott standards of the past.
Roger Miller With all due respect, Roger, what makes me credible is my ability to be subjective. I have been very critical of the Canon's faults, but to try to say that the Tamron is actually sharper simply isn't true. This is from Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals who benchmarked a number of copies of the Canon. He said this, "This summary is quick and simple. From a resolution standpoint, the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 Mk III is the best f/2.8 wide-angle zoom available. You might be better served with the f/4 IS and some money in your pocket. There are also some very good wide-angle f/2.8 zooms available from third party manufacturers that are a lot less expensive and might offer more bang-for-the-buck. But if your style of photography needs the highest resolution you can get with a wide-angle lens, well this is it. I don’t use a wide-angle zoom all that often, but when I do, it will be this one."
Thanks, man! I see you are pretty happy with the Nikkor 70-200. Glad to see the focus breathing issue is fixed. I do kind of lament how expensive all of the new first party lenses are, though. They seem to be opening the door wide open for the third party alternatives.
Dustin Abbott yes, my wallet is still screaming, but in 3000 videos, its the ONLY "crazy expensive" lens that id say is "worth every penny" its faster than a jackrabbit on crack and sharper than a razor, and the bokeh is amazing, and its SO lightweight, theres no worries of lens mount stress holding only the camera. surely the synthetic flourite crystal 3rd element cost a lot, but adjusted for inflation is the SAME price as the VRII when it came out U gotta test it :)
Hmmm....if i would put a 15-30 tamron on my 5d mark 3 than i have almost the same angle (15-16)if i would put a 10-24 on my 7d....thats half the cost of the 15-30..than it would all come down to the image quality and 2.8 vs 3.5....thats gonna give me a headache....anyone some advice to think about?
Dustin Abbott Dont want to take too much of your time....but why....maybe you have time for a brief explanation...im really struggling to purchase....i would like to cover a pretty big range of zoom...but dont like to switch too much....therefore i placed my canon 70-300 is usm l on my 7d for the extra zoom...i thought about pairing this one with the 10-24 tamron...ive mounted the tamron 70-200 g2 on my 5d,completing this with the 24-70 g2 tamron....
Ok hi guys I need advice. I need a new wide I already have the 11-24mm f4 from Canon but for interior shots I need a better fstop so im looking at these lens Here are what I've found in my area 16-35mm Mark 3 used at 2000$ CAN 15-30 Tamron SP for 1000$ CAN 15-30 Tamaron G2 for 2000$ CAN What would you buy. I'm leaning on the 1000$ SP and save money but I also shoot with a C200 also sometimes so the new motor on the G2 is nice but the Canon is lighter but no IS....
I think you are leaning in the right direction. The G2 isn't worth twice as much, IMO. I'm actually about to sell my 15-30 SP because I'm mostly shooting Sony now and have a number of wide angle options. PM me if you would like to save a bit buying used (mine is in flawless condition).
Good catch: what I meant to say was stabilized, wide aperture zoom (and that's for Canon and Nikon systems, as Pentax has a rebranded version of the Tamron available sold as a Pentax lens).
I don't know. I don't trust this reviewer. In every instance where first he says there is little to no difference between the lenses he then goes on to say, "I give the edge to Canon." Specifically he says both cameras offer up weather sealing, then he says, "But I suspect the Canon is more robust." What kind of analysis is it to say, "I suspect.." ?? He gives every single point to the Canon lens and glosses over at the very beginning, in the hopes that you might forget, that the Canon lens is more than twice the price. I've worked in advertising and marketing and I SUSPECT I know a biased opinion when I hear it. I've can't remember where I've seen a review of two lenses when one lens won out in every single aspect.
LETS hope Sony rethinks killing off the A Mount!......The only A mount lenses being produced today are by Sony and Zeiss and they are marketed out of sight cost wise.....Tamron makes better or just as good lenses as both those companies at half the price, so much for quality glass costing a bundle, unless of course Sony is paying more for theirs which i seriously doubt..... Problem is, Tamron and Sigma stopped making lenses for the Sony A Mount, most probably because Sony owns much Tamron stock and has much influence in their business....Sigma, followed suit, a very very stupid business move SIGMA!......i own most all Sigma Lenses for Sony A mount cause they are less expensive and better...... Show less REPLY
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
That was a great final review. As much as I'd love to own the new Canon lens, I'm just too persuaded by the VC and cost savings of the Tamron. My collection of SP lenses just keeps growing, as It seems that Tamron has become my aftermarket lens manufacturer of choice. Dustin, your videos are costing me a lot of money! LOL
I've been accused of that before!
Well, it's costing you less money than if you got the Canon! :)
After months of debating and watching all of Dustin Abbott's videos on the 3 way shoot out. I decided to get the Tamron. It was more expensive than the Canon F4 16-35mm. But after watching this review? I would not consider getting the new Mark III. For One, being a thousand dollars more. No image stabilizer. And the real deal killer for me is the 4 stops of vignetting. Every review I've seen, the vignetting is immediately obvious. And I can't live without an image stabilizer. It adds so much value to a lens. Thanks Dustin. Great video!!!
Glad to help out. The Tamron has stood up well in the various comparisons I've thrown it against. I've not yet really come across a lens that made me want to trade.
So youre a video guy? Why would a still guy a need image stabilization on a WA?
Fantastic review. Despite some of the limiting factors with the Tamron, I honestly find that if I bought one of these lenses, the 4 stop vignette is much more limiting then the Tamron's disadvantages.
I don't disagree. That vignette was very disappointing to me, too.
LOL Most dramatic lighting I've every seen in a review/comparison video.
The "floating head" effect :)
Oh my gosh this is my new favourite channel! Awesome review! Your clear and concise language and presentation is perfect! I bought the Tamron 15-30 about a week ago and I'm loving it so much! My first non Canon lens :).
+A Fertility Journey I'm glad you are enjoying the lens. Thanks for the feedback
As always, thank you Dustin for this honest and informative review. Picking up the Tamron 15-30 this week at the nearby camera store. I try whenever possible to shop locally in order to support them and keep them open. The VC and price where the two factors that tupped this decision easily in the this direction. And your reviews and image samples went a long way to help in the decision making process.
I honestly thought this new Canon would make me want to swap lenses despite the high price tag, but it really didn't in the end. I think it is a great lens, but not so compelling that I'm ready to take a $1000+ hit over what I have to acquire it.
Great comparison! I am really glad the Tamron lens held up so well against the Canon. I bought the Tamron lens shortly after your initial review and it has been an amazing workhorse. I have put mine through some rough rough situations, but the lens just works through them and have given me some of the best shot I have ever taken. Consider its 1,000 dollar cheaper than the Canon, I honestly feel it’s worth well above it’s price.
I do agree that it has held up well. There's usually some give and take with newer options, but none of them blow it away.
Brilliant vids , I think the most professional I've come across without seeming to promote one over the other, suggesting alternatives, and not being in it for pure entertainment. Well done.... looking for either a 16-35 or 24-70/105 with IS/VC for my 7D Mark II, these kind of perspectives really help, and the links....thank you and cheers from NYC.
That's my goal. These days there are a lot of brilliant lenses, and it's not often a matter of one just being better than another. It's more which strength and weakness set suits your own purposes.
As usual a great review Dustin, albeit I am not one that trusts third party lens (sorry) and I would love to own the Canon Mark III version and the TAMRON zoom ring has more tension that I would like and the limitations on using filters, at least my copy of the TAMRON 15-30 2.8 vc with it's GUCCI kind of slick look is sooo sharp, with contrast and colors that are so beautiful not to mention that I did not have to do any micro adjustments on my Canon 1DX (very fast focusing with this one) or 5D Mark III at all can't say I regretted buying it!!.... I have done important shoots where my clients have paid me big bucks and not once I've said to myself: I should have used another lens. All my other lens in my arsenal are Canon L series (love the red ring) but this heavy alright TAMROM 15-30 2.8 vc is one to swear by.
I agree. I think it is one of Tamron's best
Thanks for a very nice comparison here, but I would choose to stick with my Canon 16-35 f4L because of its overall sharpness and filter thread (for long exposure shots). In case I need a wide angle image with f2.8, it is perfectly fine for me to use the Canon 24-70 f.28L II as a substitute.
Fair enough. Two excellent lenses.
I was thinking this tamron or the 16-35 f4 I was a canon 6d
Dustin, Thank you so much for the in depth review. You helped me greatly with my decision. Heading to B&H in Manhattan tomorrow and was still undecided. It looks like I am on board with the Tamron. I am die hard Canon fan but for the pros I think the $$ makes the choice. Really appreciate your time on doing the review. DA
It's a fantastic value and a lens that I continue to enjoy making images with!
Thank you for your unbiased reviews. I've been shooting astro-photography over the last 12 months with the Tamron and a 6D. The vignetting on the new canon is a deal breaker for me, its just not acceptable for this style of photography. I have found that one of the "cons" for the Tamron was that the light transmission was less than expected. This was compensated for by increasing the ISO, to get the images I am after. Subscribed!
That's true, although having reviewed a lot of other wide angle zooms and primes, I'm left to wonder if Tamron didn't make the right choice. A little less light transmission, yes, but scarcely enough to notice in real world use. But they managed to provide more even illumination across the frame than any other wide angle lens I've used.
Even though I'm a Nikon / Fuji shooter, your reviews are the best. Extremely polished and informative Dustin.
+Jonathan Fletcher That's very kind. Thank you!
Im so in love with 70-200 Vc that I know the tamron will be the one for me. Thanks for your review, Dustin. Amazing work.
I'm glad this helps. I try to be as subjective as possible in these comparisons.
First I was thinking you prepare a case for the canon lens. But I really appreciate your video and liked how you worked out all differences and pros and cons. Appreciate your work and the video really was helpful. Thanks for that 👍🏻👍🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Glad it was helpful!
The Tamron is an absolute workhorse of a lens and is still king of the wide angle zooms. The Canon has nothing over the Tamron (filters can still be used), but the Canon can't add on an extra mm or VC. Throw on $1k savings and this is a no-brainer. Worried about future compatibility? Get a dock for $150 and still save $850.
I enjoy it as well. I've been using it since shortly after it came out and it has produced a lot of great images for me.
future compability?what do you mean?
marioplus321 m.dpreview.com/news/6911492360/tamron-announces-tap-in-console-to-customize-lens-af-firmware-and-more
Clinton Spindley well I thought you'd mentioned a different issue. thx
Clinton Spindley The 15-30 VC is NOT supported by the Tap In Console. It was released before the Tap IN.
Maybe I missed it in your review, but other reviewers like lenstip have found that the Tamron smears stars less than the Canon. Combined with the wider focal length and lower vignetting it should be the superior astrophotography lens regardless of price. This is often a major selling point for fast wide-angle lenses. Many great wide angle primes don't even perform very well in this area.
I definitely agree on the vignette and focal length point, but I didn't emphasize the coma performance here because I didn't find much of a difference in my test (I do cover that in the Canon review).
Dustin will you be reviewing the new Tamron 15-30???
I definitely will, but Tamron has been rolling out Nikon mounts first, so it may be a few weeks out yet.
Dustin Abbott I will wait a couple of weeks before buying one or the other!👍🏽
You are amazing! This video is just what I need to see!!
Glad to hear it!
Thanks for the great comparison. Was considering the Tamron 17-35mm and this Tamron 15-30mm f/2,8 VC G2 earlier.
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent reviews, thanks Dustin.
You're welcome!
Thank you for this great review Dustin. I’m possibly considering the Canon 16-35 f2.8 II or III version. Mainly because I know that the 2nd series captures light so vividly (more richer in color than my 24-70 f2.8 II) , when a colleague of mine uses is 16-35 f2.8 II for indoor night event photography.
Hi Sam, I'm actually surprised to hear you say that, as I would view the 16-35II and the 24-70II in the opposite way. I consider the 24-70II to be superior in most every way. The III version has perhaps caught up, but not the II
Nice review, was about to by a second hand 16-35 mark 2 but got my hands on a Tamron 15-30 for only 250 dollars . It was to cheap to not buy
That is an unbelievable price.
@@DustinAbbottTWI haha yeah action site with few bidders , almost felt like i robbert them
Great review, you made me feel much better about my purchase of the Tamron
It's true. I started the review thinking that I would be wanting to make the switch by the end, but never really felt that way.
Still very happy with the Tamron and not lusting after the Canon! :) I'm sure the sharpness difference is pretty marginal at the wider end.
And I guess the tough choice would be regular filters or less vignetting.
That, and price. I think there are still a number of pro shooters that don't trust third party lenses, too.
nice review with the usual set of stunning images! :)
Thanks. I've got a great catalog with the Tamron because I've actually owned a copy for 17-18 months.
for my tamron 15-30, I went with the Haida filter holder system. also Haida's ND3.0 filter has less color cast than the Lee big stopper.
I like Haida filters (I have both the ND64 and ND1000 screw in filters from their Pro line). I considered the Haida setup, but had a chance to review the Fotodiox system and ended up keeping it.
thanks for informative review! i have been watching your reviews interestingly!
I'm glad you are enjoying them.
Very nice review. Thanks for such detailed review. Really helpful... Appreciated
+Farrukh You're welcome!
Thx I am sold, the Tamron for me, price is important provide it's optically good and it certainly seems to be.
+molan If you can live with the inability to use traditional filters, it's hard to beat the Tamron as an excellent value and all around performer.
Great review Dustin. I shoot a lot of astrophotography and landscape. I own the Tamron but am considering the Canon mainly due to the ability to use my Lee filters. However my research leads me to believe that the Tamron has better coma which is important for astrophotography. Do you have any comment on that.
+Guy Cameron These lenses are fairly close for coma. The bigger difference between them for Astro is the fact that the Tamron has very low vignette by comparison. It has the wider focal length, too, which can also help
Thank you for this very professional video Dustin, and Merry Christmas!! Do you think that the issue with the Tamron not being able to take filters could be resolved by using Canon's RF to EF adapter with built in ND filters? I was going to use it on an EOS R anyway. Thank you! Alex
Of course.
bro ur videos are amazing. Keep it up
Thank you
If the Tamron had a verified reputation of needing repair every 6 months (yes I know 6 year warranty) or some other constant physical defect, I could see going with the Canon. But even then, the F4 seems like such a better value proposition if you wanted to stay OEM. I do not own any zooms in this range for FF, just the crop "equivalent" (10-18mm). I don't feel the need to print beyond 24x36, so this setup on an 80D will be fine for a bit:)
Fortunately that defect doesn't exist, though since it is a "pre Tap In" model, it might require a firmware update for full compatibility with new bodies (like I needed for 5D Mark IV compatibility).
"...both lenses are excellent..." as well as the review! ps I hope you will not skip to audio testing [ which I am very keen on]; however, I consider you a PHOTO equipment reviewer and let it continue:)
Thanks. I do some audio reviews because I have interest there (and this is my channel, after all!!), but my primary interest is and will remain photography.
Dustin Abbott Audio is of the highest interest of mine as well. The channel is yours, indeed , so I apologise for the remark_
Dustin, Thanks for your review. It makes me want to go out and rent one so i can compare some more test shots to the Tamron 15-30. On another note, I had been really interested in the IriX 15mm lens when they announced it. But since then, crickets. I thought it would be out late summer. Now its winter so i wonder if it will even be made. Do you have any Intel out there on the Irix 15mm Blackstone?
I spoke too soon lol. I just went and looked for it after i typed this in. The Irix 15mm Blackstone is out in Europe. Dustin, will you be reviewing it for Landscape Astro Photography if you can get your hands on a copy?
+steve m I will, but B&H isn't carrying it, so I've got to find an alternate connection to IRIX. If anyone out there has a connection to them I'd appreciate them facilitating my getting in touch with them.
Hi Dustin, I'm a huge fan of your work. I have a question here, is Tamron E-mount compatible with Sony cameras?
That's what it is designed for.
Do you feel the infinity focus mark is accurate in the Tamron? I have the 16-35 f4 and it is spot on accurate which is handy at night,, but of course it is slower than the 2.8. I'm leaning towards the 15-30 since I have the 16-35 f4.
Hi Clay - that won't be a universal truth. There's a little bit of flexibility in these for thermal expansion in either very hot or very cold conditions, and another copy of the 16-35 might not identical to yours either.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks, that makes sense
so when you say the cannon is sharper I'm assuming relatively they are both sharp. like i have a nikon d750 and I'm learning that a good lens is just as important. Considering i like landscape photography my first additional lens purchase will probably a wide angle lens. My nikon came with a (nikkor 24-120) so I'm just wondering would the tamron be better quality sharpness compared to the nikkor? thanks!
I suspect the Tamron will be much sharper.
Dustin Abbott okay thanks
Since the people want light camera equipment that item is already tossed out due to the quality E mount lenses weigh what the A mount class weighs and the mirrorless bodies are also getting larger and heavier to allow the A mount features, so smaller and lighter is no longer a reason to go to an ?E mount.....And there goes your argument !
Great Video! :) I'm planning to purchase this Canon 16-35L III mainly for Astrophotography, but the newly announced Sigma 14mm f1.8 (specs-wise) seems very tempting to me. Do you think f1.8 will perform far better than f2.8? Also, how do you feel about Sigma lenses in general?
I can't really comment on a lens that I haven't evaluated. I've not yet reviewed a Sigma lens with amazing coma control, but I have no doubt that this will be a priority for Sigma with this type of lens. The new Rokinon 14mm f/2.4 seems very good in this regard.
Thank you Dustin! If the price of new Sigma 14mm f/1.8 is too crazy. I'll stick with Rokinon 14mm f/2.4. Btw I purchased the extension tube you recommended, working great. Again, thank you so much! :)
First off great review; I have been using Canon L glass for 22 years out of my 27 years as a professional photographer, I have to admit that I was extremely worried about buying a third party lens after testing the Canon 16-35 F4L IS and not being completely happy with what I saw, not to mention it felt like a toy in my hands, of course I tested the Canon 16-35 2.8L III and specially when compared to the F4L IS I was blown away, but the price tag is too high and I don't have money to burn. Conclusion, the sharpness on the TAMRON is superb corner to corner, the contrast and color depth are amazing, extremely fast focusing , silent enough, fast F2.8 aperture from 15 to 30MM and the advantage of the VC which is a big plus for me.... Draw backs are kind of heavy (and I like heavy lens), wish the zoom ring was a bit smoother ( as the focusing ring ) and not being able to use filters to protect the front element (this last one) neither does the Canon 11-14 MM F4, let me just say those cons not a deal breaker for me at all. Summary based on price and the IQ this lens produces for me no doubt is the TAMRON SP 15-30mm 2.8 VC
It's an excellent lens for the money.
Hey Dustin, thanks for the review, informative. I have a question though... Would their be any advantages using the canon 16-35 f 2.8 USM II version instead? I have the Tamron 15-30 that I bought about a year ago, but the thing is bulky and not suitable for travel. I am considering either the 16-35 or the 14mm. However, at the costs, I am considering to buy the older versions, is the 16-35 USM II going to vignette just as bad as the Mark III?
I would not recommend the L II version. It has a lot of optical flaws and you will find the image quality lacking compared to your Tamron. I would recommend the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS if you want a lighter option for travel.
Thanks Dustin. I went to Canon's office to try the L III vs. my Tamron... Same photos... I noticed that with the camera firmware updated to include the L III that the same photos taken that the Tamron will be yellow and the L III to be white. So it seems that the Tamron is picking up the natural yellowing lighting wereas the L III is somehow interpreting that as white light. The firmware does seem to fix the vignetting issues though. The Tamron is just really bulky as you know. I like it, I like it alot, but for traveling half way around the world and carrying it around all day at 1.1kg is really a headache.
I am torn between buying a used Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8 USM (mark 2 ) or this Tamron lens, my biggest question is, how much of a difference will i have for stabilization with the r6 mark ii because it has great IBIS, if a combo of Tamrons VC and R6 IBIS will be groundbreaking or if i should just go with the overall build and quality of the canon lens and expect the IBIS to be enough?
The IBIS on the R6 will pretty much remove the stabilization issue from the equation. You'll get pretty much the same performance with either lens on the R6
Then i think it is settled, i mean if money is not the diciding matter and ibis isnt either then canon is pretty much a no brainer, thanks for the response !@@DustinAbbottTWI
Hi Dustin,
I'm thinking about buying a new glass and my favorites are Canon 16-35 f/2.8 III and Tamron 15-35 G2, which is better, thanks :)
Peter
The G2 is improved in areas like the VC, the focus, and the build, but it isn't much different optically. Add that information into this video and make your choice based on your personal priorities
Hi Dustan, how is the Tamron 15-30 when shooting near the sun, how is the flaring and is chromatic abbé ration pretty much a none issue wide open
There is some ghosting, though it's not terribly destructive. There is some CA with the Tamron (lateral CA) near the very edges of the frame, though it easily corrects.
Dear Dustin,
Do you consider the Tamron better than the EF 16-35F/2.8 II from Canon? Thank you for your reviews!
I definitely do. I did a three way comparison series here that breaks down why: ruclips.net/p/PLwWFV2kake9EchCnhDJddxN8cPDV5Mq1m
Dustin Abbott thank you! I have a 5D Mark IV and I'm looking for a wide angle lenses, thought about the new Canon III but after your review for more than half of the price I think I can still get very good pictures with the Tamron, you saved me 1200$!
The 5D Mark iv will correct the vignetting of the Canon lens in camera if this helps with your decision.
Jonathan Gedye thank you, I already made my decision for Tamron, with the rest of the money add some adds to the camera. I've been buying L Canon lenses but after all these reviews available sometimes the difference money /quality is not worth it. ✌
I have a 6d and kinda on a budget. I was gonna get the 17-40 canon but I saw this! Should I consider this tamron instead !
It’s a solid option
im now torn between the tamron and the 16-35 f4. i dont do astro but i want to learn and the extra strop would be nice for other condention but the 6d can handle real well in low light situations for the most part
What options are out there for us Nikon shooters who don't necessarily need a 2.8 lens but need image stabilization? I own the Tamron 15-30 and it has wonderful IQ, but I simply can't deal with its ridiculous flare and so I will not consider any lens with a bulbous front element. But this severely limits my options. I've owned a Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR briefly, but it is an ancient lens with rubbish optics and a refresh is no where in sight. I don't think Tamron would make another wide angle to compete with its own 15-30, so what about Sigma?
Sigma has not been big on adding OS to it's prime lenses. I'm not sure what your other alternatives are.
I would love to get the tamron but not having a filter thread like the canon makes me not want the tamron version lens at all.
That's definitely an issue for some shooters.
Dustin Abbott just got a used version of the canon 16-35mm f2.8 iii today for $1300 and it’s like brand new, so I guess that works.
I am interested in using the Tamron 15-30 F2.8 as a video lens for use with the Canon 5D Mark IV while in the 4K video recording mode.
Can anyone speak to how well the DPAF auto focus works on the Tamron while recording video?
Budgieboots doesn’t work well with my 1dx Mark 2. Not a smooth transition when video focusing
You compared this 2 great wide angle zooms know. In the past you also compared the Rokinon 14mm f 2.8 as well as the Zeiss Distagon 15mm f2.8 as well. What Do you think IQ wise: will the Milvus 15mm f2.8 blow that away?
The Milvus 15mm won't blow the Distagon away because it is the same optical formula. Coatings will be improved, but the lens is pretty much the same. It is a fabulous lens, but not much better than these modern zooms anymore.
Dustin Abbott I know. But what's ab
Dustin Abbott what's about the other two? You have tested the Distagon but the Zooms, too
Johannes Trbola
I'm not sure what your question is. It might be getting lost in translation.
Dustin Abbott my question is: how good are these zooms in comparison to the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 -ish lenses. You tested the Distagon, but you compared "classic" Zeiss lenses with the Milvus lenses, too.
Dustin, pardon me if this question was asked before; Does the Tamron 15-30 have focus breathing?
Not that I'm aware of, and I've used it for a long time.
Dustin Abbott thanks for answering so quickly. Another reviewer claimed he detected focus breathing, but I hadn’t heard that from anyone else. Gracias!
Milvus 18mm or 16-35mm iii? I really cant descide which to buy...
How important is autofocus to you? I would probably go with the 16-35 myself.
Sounds like a Canon fan boy to me. Bought the Tamron. Wicked lens.
LOL - I own the Tamron, so your accusation is, umm, weak at best.
pls tell which one is better NEW G2 version of Tamron or Canon 16-35 II?
Like this review, that's a complicated question. There are aspects of the Tamron that are better and aspects of the Canon that are better. Canon is a bit sharper, and with slight better AF. The Tamron has the nicer build, less vignette, and includes VC.
You made a mistake! You should have ADDED and matched these lenses against the Zeiss (sony) 16-35 f2.8 ssm ll lens, that would have been a much better comparison........i still gave you a thumbs up!!!!
Howard, you know I don't shoot Sony A-Mount, nor ever have, nor am I about to start. Please stop this. I don't want to have to report you, but you are pushing this Sony A-mount thing way too much and its getting very irritating. If you don't like what I review, find a channel that reviews what you like and stick with that.
Sorry buddy, i did not mean to cause you grief, i review all your videos and you have done so much on Sony cameras (E Mount) and their 'lenses, My mistake.......... I am not ranting on Sony any longer that i am aware of.........
But I've told you repeatedly that I don't have any experience with Sony A, and yet you constantly ask me questions about Sony A mount. I don't have those answers.
This should be a help, sigma website tells about Sony lenses------://www.sigmaphoto.com/lp/grow-your-sony-arsenal?Sigma+Corp+of+America&EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_1&mc_cid=200aa51fb3&mc_eid=d98a8e0462
Hi. Which one would you recommend:
Sigma 14-24 Art// Tamron 15-30 G2 // Canon 16-35 F4 // Youngnou 14mm
I haven't reviewed the Yongnuo, so I can't comment on that. How important are using traditional filters to you? With the Tamron or Sigma you will have to use rear gel filters or an add-on filter system. I think the Sigma is my favorite of the bunch, but if you needed image stabilization, I would go with the G2.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Not necessary, but would be good. (Maybe for long exposure and high speed synchronization) I'll just use it when the Canon 35 1.4 is insufficient. 35mm and 70-200 are sometimes insufficient in weddings and outside shots.
Distortion, sharpness and price / performance are important to me. Canon is cheap but f4, Sigma is sharp but expensive and doesn't filter, Tamron has stabilizor (how is the video performance?) But expensive and no filter , flare ..
If I find it cheap, my Canon 16-35 f4 is my favorite.
Sorry for my bad english :)
If you don't need the wider maximum aperture, the Canon is a great lens.
Thank you very much!
as always a great video thank you very much
Thanks for the feedback.
Being able to apply a lens filter is nice...but an extra 1k nice? Not so much. I suppose the weight is a big factor too, but seeing those two as the biggest selling points, it's hard to justify both at about $500 a pop.
Fair enough.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Hey, thanks for the comment! :D
The review was solid, and I liked how in-depth you went. There was obviously also other factors like sharpness, and a few other things, but I was kind of shocked at how little extra benefit I would be getting by spending such a large amount of extra dollars.
I know that above a certain level, the law of diminishing returns comes into play, but given that we have lenses that can cost tens of thousands of dollars, it just seems really bizarre that there was such limited benefit on lenses that are priced at the low to mid-range.
Great summary.
Thank you
love how the slideshow is super fast hahaha
Don't know why I watched this video,I have my wide angle lens ! I had the Tamron 15-30 but wasn't wide enough for interiors (Show the whole space) and I sold it and bought an IRIX 11mm...Crazy difference.I loved the Tamron but is So big and heavy... Couldn't walk more than an hour with it
11mm really only works well for a few applications, but interiors are one of them. It's way too wide for most landscape use.
Center resolution is NOT the primary focus of a ultra-wide angle lens and that is the only part of resolution that you state is clearly superior on the Canon. You state that it is definitely not as sharp at the edges which is a primary purpose of ultra-wide angle lens. The 4-stop vignette you state is really bad on the Canon. Add to that getting rid of the vignette destroys even more resolution at the edge. You state that the distortion correction on the Canon is more destructive on the Canon than on the Tamron. I can not get how you claim the Canon has less optical compromises than the Tamron (to my the lens flare of the Tamron is not a pro point). The Tamron is clearly a better lens optically for most of the ways that the lens will be used. This is troubling to me given your historically excellent reviews.
Across the frame the Canon is sharper in most places, and it is give and take along the edges. The Canon has less chromatic aberrations and is more flare resistant. I love the Tamron lens (I own it), but it isn't really accurate to say that it is "clearly the better lens optically", and that's not a point I make in any of my coverage of these lenses. I think you are putting words in my mouth. To be fair, I do prefer the Tamron for my own purposes, but I don't think that it is the better lens. I just think that its strengths and weaknesses work fairly well for me.
I clearly do not get your statement that the Canon is sharper in most
places from a detailed look at your review. Give and take at the edges ?
I never heard you say once that the Canon is better there (edges are
edges). So the Tamron takes it both absolute sense and the pretty bad
4-stops of vignette of the Canon that further wrecks the image quality
trying to make up for the failings of the Canon in post. Credibility
counts. I think lens flare in Tamron is a definite downside. Once you
know about it you can do your best to limit it. But...............this
is a big but.........you can do zero to compensate for the worse edge
sharpness of the Canon and the much worse vignette. You say you can not
name a time you could not get the same quality of image out of the
Tamron in conclusion statements but with the negatives optically you
cite on the Canon. Just call a spade a spade. Be true to your Dustin
Abbott standards of the past.
Roger Miller With all due respect, Roger, what makes me credible is my ability to be subjective. I have been very critical of the Canon's faults, but to try to say that the Tamron is actually sharper simply isn't true. This is from Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals who benchmarked a number of copies of the Canon. He said this, "This summary is quick and simple. From a resolution standpoint, the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 Mk III is the best f/2.8 wide-angle zoom available. You might be better served with the f/4 IS and some money in your pocket. There are also some very good wide-angle f/2.8 zooms available from third party manufacturers that are a lot less expensive and might offer more bang-for-the-buck. But if your style of photography needs the highest resolution you can get with a wide-angle lens, well this is it. I don’t use a wide-angle zoom all that often, but when I do, it will be this one."
I unsubscribed a year ago for these reasons, boring time looking at LR screens, and too many Sony reviews.
i have canon mark4.. is that ok to buy tamron 15-30? mainly for video
That's fine. It produces excellent looking footage, though big focus pulls wont' be completely silent.
Does anyone know of any compatibility issues with newer canon bodies? I have a 6D mark ii
There should be no compatibility issue with Canon bodies
0:55 ... u mean canon 16-35 f4 IS USM? i think i heard u saying 15-35 f4 IS
Good catch. I did say 15 rather than 16
Excellent review, thank you
My pleasure
wasssup man, sending U holiday hugs!!! :)
Thanks, man! I see you are pretty happy with the Nikkor 70-200. Glad to see the focus breathing issue is fixed. I do kind of lament how expensive all of the new first party lenses are, though. They seem to be opening the door wide open for the third party alternatives.
Dustin Abbott yes, my wallet is still screaming, but in 3000 videos, its the ONLY "crazy expensive" lens that id say is "worth every penny" its faster than a jackrabbit on crack and sharper than a razor, and the bokeh is amazing, and its SO lightweight, theres no worries of lens mount stress holding only the camera.
surely the synthetic flourite crystal 3rd element cost a lot, but adjusted for inflation is the SAME price as the VRII when it came out
U gotta test it :)
Theoria Apophasis
I would, except I'd have to grab a Nikon body to do it. That's a pretty high recommendation, though.
oh whoops, i thought U still had a nikon body :) heheh my error
Hmmm....if i would put a 15-30 tamron on my 5d mark 3 than i have almost the same angle (15-16)if i would put a 10-24 on my 7d....thats half the cost of the 15-30..than it would all come down to the image quality and 2.8 vs 3.5....thats gonna give me a headache....anyone some advice to think about?
I'm personally far more fond of a wide angle performance on full frame bodies, but this is a matter of preference.
Dustin Abbott
Dont want to take too much of your time....but why....maybe you have time for a brief explanation...im really struggling to purchase....i would like to cover a pretty big range of zoom...but dont like to switch too much....therefore i placed my canon 70-300 is usm l on my 7d for the extra zoom...i thought about pairing this one with the 10-24 tamron...ive mounted the tamron 70-200 g2 on my 5d,completing this with the 24-70 g2 tamron....
Ok hi guys I need advice. I need a new wide I already have the 11-24mm f4 from Canon but for interior shots I need a better fstop so im looking at these lens
Here are what I've found in my area
16-35mm Mark 3 used at 2000$ CAN
15-30 Tamron SP for 1000$ CAN
15-30 Tamaron G2 for 2000$ CAN
What would you buy. I'm leaning on the 1000$ SP and save money but I also shoot with a C200 also sometimes so the new motor on the G2 is nice but the Canon is lighter but no IS....
I think you are leaning in the right direction. The G2 isn't worth twice as much, IMO. I'm actually about to sell my 15-30 SP because I'm mostly shooting Sony now and have a number of wide angle options. PM me if you would like to save a bit buying used (mine is in flawless condition).
@@DustinAbbottTWI sure are you located in Canada
I’m about an hour and a half from Ottawa
@@DustinAbbottTWI I sent you a message on Facebook my name is Chris
Sounds good. I'll respond there.
Nice review. Spooky floating head!
I just wanted to scare you into listening :)
Just helped me a tonne - sehnt the money for the Tamron
Enjoy your new lens.
Dustin Abbott 😃 thanks - will do.
I prefer the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS lens to my other wide angle zooms.
+Yizchal Levi It's a nice mix of reasonable size and great image quality.
That's not to say there aren't technically better lenses; I just find the 16-35 F4 to render well and to meet my needs. Thank you!
Thank you sir. Tamron it is ...
Enjoy!
Excellent review Thank you keep it up
I think 15-30 is more sharp than canon 🤔
It depends on where you look, but yes, the Tamron has aged very nicely.
Best review!!!
Thanks!
Спасибо за видео, очень помогло при выборе.
I regret buying the version3 now im returning it and instead going to 14mm 1.8 of sigma of the tamrons 15-30
The Sigma is a nice lens. My current favorite lens in this class is the Sigma 14-24 ART
At 8:45 you claim that it's the Tamron is the only stabilized wide-angle zoom lens...
Good catch: what I meant to say was stabilized, wide aperture zoom (and that's for Canon and Nikon systems, as Pentax has a rebranded version of the Tamron available sold as a Pentax lens).
Anyway I'm nitpicking (I work as QA engineer...). Great review as always, even though it didn't convince me to replace my wonderful 16-35 f/4L IS.
***** I don't blame you. That's a great lens, and I doubt you would feel that you had twice the lens if you upgraded.
VERY GOOD...спасибо
Thank you
Please, turn up the light a little bit. No need to hide half of your face in the shadows ;)
Don't worry - I only show the good side :)
I don't know. I don't trust this reviewer. In every instance where first he says there is little to no difference between the lenses he then goes on to say, "I give the edge to Canon." Specifically he says both cameras offer up weather sealing, then he says, "But I suspect the Canon is more robust." What kind of analysis is it to say, "I suspect.." ?? He gives every single point to the Canon lens and glosses over at the very beginning, in the hopes that you might forget, that the Canon lens is more than twice the price. I've worked in advertising and marketing and I SUSPECT I know a biased opinion when I hear it. I've can't remember where I've seen a review of two lenses when one lens won out in every single aspect.
You obviously didn't watch the whole episode, as the latter half speaks of the ways where the Tamron is superior.
The Canon is sharper but the vignette really kills it for my use.
That's a serious vulnerability, for sure.
Bought canon .
Enjoy the lens
only 50 to reach 20K...
Hopefully before the day is out!
they even chose tamron 15-30 over nikkor 14-24. so rip canon 16-35.
I doubt that, but there are some great options these days.
So dark at your studio
That was intentional, but maybe not an effect that has aged well.
LETS hope Sony rethinks killing off the A Mount!......The only A mount lenses being produced today are by Sony and Zeiss and they are marketed out of sight cost wise.....Tamron makes better or just as good lenses as both those companies at half the price, so much for quality glass costing a bundle, unless of course Sony is paying more for theirs which i seriously doubt..... Problem is, Tamron and Sigma stopped making lenses for the Sony A Mount, most probably because Sony owns much Tamron stock and has much influence in their business....Sigma, followed suit, a very very stupid business move SIGMA!......i own most all Sigma Lenses for Sony A mount cause they are less expensive and better......
Show less
REPLY
Nice review Dustin, but I cant see anything other than your face everything else is dark, didn't you pay your electric bill lol
Once I get over 20,000 subscribers I'll be able to afford more light ;)
I think his lighting gives a unique look to his videos to be honest, more so then the average reviewer in a studio.
dustin abbott, the floating head reviewer
Bobo Bo-Bobo
Yes, I've just started trying the disembodied look :)
Biased to Canon.
LOL - what in the world are you basing that on? I own the Tamron and have for years.