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

[D.P.]

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

 

[D.P.]

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.

 

[D.P.]

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.

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. 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.

 

[D.P.]

I had the 14-24. It was an amazing lens, however it was a shame about it not taking regular filters.

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.]

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.

 

[D.P.]

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.

 

[D.P.]

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.

 

[D.P.]

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..

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.

 

[D.P.]

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