Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC: reviews and opions

D.P.

D.P.

D.P.

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,654
Slowly getting more reviews of this lens. There was some hype at launch date that it exceeds the mighty Nikon 14-24mm. From the reviews it is obvious that the Tamron does very well but the Nikon ultimately likely very marginally better, at a price. The Tamron does better at 15mm than the Nikon at 14mm but it is know that the Nikon improves significantly by 16mm so the difference between 14mm and 15mm could be quite substantial. Another aspect in the Nikon's favor is the high contrast.




http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/just-the-lenses-tamron-15-30mm-f2-8

http://www.lenstip.com/432.1-Lens_review-Tamron_15-30_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Introduction.html

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-15-30mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd-review-27173

Will update with more links as reviews come in.

Edit: Added ephotozine
 
Last edited:
I'm still a little undecided about this lens because it is quite expensive for a 3rd party lens and I don't have much trust in Tamron QC. There is currently only $600 price difference if I enact on Nikon's current US rebates. That difference could largely disappear based on future resale values.

On then flip side that difference will pay for most of a Nikon 20mm f/1.8 or 18-35mm which would be a very welcome addition being able to take filters and smaller and lighter.
 
The Tamron is aroround £950... the question is.. is it significantly better value than the Nikon 18-35 for £501 that was next on your list? :)

Totally agree on Tamron QC though, they appear to be worse with Nikon than Canon in terms of focus issues according to online user reviews and feedback.
 
Last edited:
Richdog said:
The Tamron is aroround £950... the question is.. is it significantly better value than the Nikon 18-35 for £501 that was next on your list? :)

Totally agree on Tamron QC though, they appear to be worse with Nikon than Canon in terms of focus issues according to online user reviews and feedback.
Click to expand...

That is a good question. The Nikon 18-35mm is still in the running. The price difference isn't so great here but similar, $750 vs $1200 (the Nikon is $2000 but currently with $200 rebate).

I don't think the Nikon 18-35 is in the same kind of category; a stop slower, no VR, and 18mm is very different visually to 15mm or 14mm.i expect the Tamron is optically better, probably enough to be observable wide open but not at landscape apertures. On the flip side the Nikon 18-35 is way smaller and lighter, takes filters and will more likely find its way in to my camera bag.

The thing is I can happily afford even the Nikon 14-24mm but I feel very guilty spending that kind of money as an amateur if I don't use the lens a lot. And that is the only reason the 14-24mm isn't sitting on my shelf, these are specialized lenses that are hard to use and require the right scene. At the moment I have given landscape work a break as it is just too demanding and instead I'm very interested in wildlife so I'm more looking to spend money on a telephoto.

With that in mind I'm pushing the Nikon 18-35 higher up my list.:D I think the 20mm prime is dropping down, it doesn't offer enough optically beyond the zooms, 20mm is even less wide. Perhaps I should start with the Nikon 18-35mm and if I start using it a lot, wishing for better performance or a wider lens then reconsider the Tamron or Nikon 14-24mm.


The Tamron focus issues with thinking are strange because I believe Tamron actually licenses technology from Nikon including access to the focus communication spec. Nikon and Tamron have a fairly close working relationship, Nikon has licensed lens designs such as the 10-24mm in the past.
 
Last edited:
An Exception said:
I had the 14-24. It was an amazing lens, however it was a shame about it not taking regular filters.
Click to expand...

A shame but not a deal breaker because there are loads of 3rd party options that work well at different prices. Also CPLs dont work well at those angles and that would be the only real filter i would want to use frequently. I dont do long exposure shots but I do sometimes use an ND-grad which would be a shame to loose. Exposure blending will work better for static scenes, just requires more time at the computer
 
D.P. said:
That is a good question. The Nikon 18-35mm is still in the running. The price difference isn't so great here but similar, $750 vs $1200 (the Nikon is $2000 but currently with $200 rebate).

I don't think the Nikon 18-35 is in the same kind of category; a stop slower, no VR, and 18mm is very different visually to 15mm or 14mm.i expect the Tamron is optically better, probably enough to be observable wide open but not at landscape apertures. On the flip side the Nikon 18-35 is way smaller and lighter, takes filters and will more likely find its way in to my camera bag.

The thing is I can happily afford even the Nikon 14-24mm but I feel very guilty spending that kind of money as an amateur if I don't use the lens a lot. And that is the only reason the 14-24mm isn't sitting on my shelf, these are specialized lenses that are hard to use and require the right scene. At the moment I have given landscape work a break as it is just too demanding and instead I'm very interested in wildlife so I'm more looking to spend money on a telephoto.

With that in mind I'm pushing the Nikon 18-35 higher up my list.:D I think the 20mm prime is dropping down, it doesn't offer enough optically beyond the zooms, 20mm is even less wide. Perhaps I should start with the Nikon 18-35mm and if I start using it a lot, wishing for better performance or a wider lens then reconsider the Tamron or Nikon 14-24mm.

The Tamron focus issues with thinking are strange because I believe Tamron actually licenses technology from Nikon including access to the focus communication spec. Nikon and Tamron have a fairly close working relationship, Nikon has licensed lens designs such as the 10-24mm in the past.
Click to expand...

Lately I am starting to think that starting with a lower lens and using it to find out how it performs outside of online tests and pixel peeping is a promising strategy. I drive myself nuts reading countless reviews and tests yet I think it would be 10x more practical to go out and get a lens, take it for a shoot or two to actually see for myself how it performs, and use the 2 week window to return it in favour of something better if I'm not happy with it. If I am happy with it, then job done and a lot of money has been saved!

I also really don't need an f/2.8 lens for landscapes as I generally shoot at f/8 or thereabouts, and even if I was in a low light situation I'd be using a tripod or similar anyway for longer exposure, so it's a moot point in my eyes. I can't see me using such a lens for indoor party shots either, so it really is a question of how much money I want to spend on a lens that I am going to use for a specific purpose in specific conditions a few times a month.
 
If you want 14mm, you will have to put up with no easy filter solution regardless of where you look. Being honest, I went with the 20mm f1.8 even though I was used to have 17. I have not been dissatisfied with that decision yet. The 20 performs spectacularly well across quite a range of uses. It's pretty good at close ups with smooth bokeh, good for landscapes and is one of the few modern lenses that has nice well defined sunstars from f2.8. If I feel the need for wider, I switch to the 16mm fisheye as it's wider than a 14 and I have the option of "defishing" it which still results in greater FOV than a 14. (or the new 11mm canon for that matter)

Mind you I don't see why the lens manufacturers can't use rear mounted filters like super tele lenses or the fisheye/catadioptrics where the filter screws in as the back element. I'll admit that the above isn't exactly a solution to those wanting to use cokin/lee grads but it would help for others.
 
Another good review for the tamron:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-15-30mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd-review-27173

Edges look softer in this review but this varies depending on what reviewer call the edge. Extreme edges and corners are somewhat less important than say the 1/5 of the frame edge and inwards. Also if the lens has field curvature and the review doesn't make focus adjustments then the edges will get soft by definition.
 
If it was $900 I would have already ordered, or if it as the current price but was convincingly better than the 14-24 and went to 14mm I also would.

At $1200 it is slightly too close to the Nikon to be make it a bargain, probably a sensible price form Tamron.


^^^Since you like primes i'm surprised you wouldn't just go with the Nikon 20mm f/1.8.
 
^^^
I like that it's stabilised. Also there are times where 20-24mm isn't wide enough at a wedding, and shallow DOF's don't work as well for wide angles shot's imo, it just makes the image look a little missed focus. The lack of filters gives me pause, as personally I'd like to stick a ND filter on it for some slower exposures. I actually like 35mm for landscapes though, so may just make do and try out the panorama feature in LR6.
I'm waiting on Sony really, as ideally I want a body with it's IBIS and a decent pdaf focusing system. They are halfway there, just waiting on decent pdaf and a 85 1.4.
 
Last edited:
35mm is certainly easier for landscapes. These ultra wide angles are extremely hard to use effectively, you nearly always end up with huge expanses of boring blue sky or the ground at your feet. They only work for very select scenes where there is loads of foreground, mid-ground and background interest, but without being too crowded and busy.
 
Old thread I know, but anyone using this lens?

Can be had for £700 and am seriously tempted at that price as seems to out perform the Nikon 14-24 which costs a few hundred quid more..
 
Steve M said:
Old thread I know, but anyone using this lens?

Can be had for £700 and am seriously tempted at that price as seems to out perform the Nikon 14-24 which costs a few hundred quid more..
Click to expand...

No, I held off buying it because I've had almost no time for landscape work in the last 2 r more years and purchased a Sigma 150-600mm Sports instead.

I was also hoping for a good price cut but the price hasn't shifted in the US when using reputable buyers. So it still the same trade-offs that I mentioned back in march. It is slightly too close in price to the Nikon and not quite as good or wide.

Still, I think if I was going on a photography where landscapes were going to be a big feature I would snap one up.
 
I bought one a while ago but traded it in a short while later for a 24-105 F4 L.
The specs look great on the Tamron but I didn't find it performed anywhere as well in low light as I'd hoped. I was finding blur in motion way above my expectation given it is both 2.8 and VC. I honestly didn't get any decent pics with it and in the same conditions find my 24-105 far better. Obviously they aren't comparable focal ranges but having made the trade I don't regret it in the slightest. I've been trying to find examples but it looks like none of them made the cut and they all got deleted.

It may be that I had a bad copy, but I didn't enjoy that lens at all.
 
Sounds like you had a bad copy TBH. Both in theoretical lab tests and in real world testing it will outperform the (old) canon 24-105L
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom