• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Preview: Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,925 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 05 October 2016 - 11:45 PM

Just uploaded sample images to SmugMug:

https://photozone.sm...ron-1530-vc-fx/

-- Markus
Editor (Nikon, Leica, Samsung reviews)
photozone.de

#2 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 06 October 2016 - 01:15 AM

Innsbruck and Geneva... you could have met THXBB12   :) Appears to be worth the price, that lens. Very nice rendering, and not remotely as sensitive to frontlight as Nikon's 14-24/2.8. About sidelight is nothing to say, if I didn't miss the sidelight sample. Anyway it's a massive piece of lens.

 

Could anybody please make a shootout of the current ultra-WWs?  ^_^



#3 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts

Posted 06 October 2016 - 08:08 AM

Yes, a great competitively priced lens which renders well....except the onion bokeh!

 

 It will be interesting to see if it manifests itself in the Zone's set scene test!



#4 southerncross

southerncross

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 06 October 2016 - 11:06 PM

Great photos. The first one was interesting for me, you really can get some depth queues at f/2.8. Pixel peeping was way more satisfying with this Tamron compared to APC sized ultrawides. 

 

The out of focus quality seems good to me for an ultrawide, it is quite smooth. I am not an expert on these things but at least is not questionable, sometimes bad bokeh really ruins photos. 

 

I am very impressed with Tamron lately, at least Pentax will get great rebranded zoom lenses for K-1. :D The era of cheap lenses has ended years ago. Somehow I feel a little sad seeing the whole phtography industry becoming a niche again. 



#5 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 07 October 2016 - 08:08 AM

Moar! :)



#6 GoldRingNikkor

GoldRingNikkor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 23 October 2016 - 04:02 AM

Markus, would it be possible to get a flare resistance comparison between the Nikon 14-24/2.8, this Tarmon (15-30/2.8), the Laowa 12/2.8 (with a sample that they think performs normally) and the Irix 15/2.4? And maybe the Samyang 14/2.8? That would be awesome. :)



#7 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,188 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 23 October 2016 - 04:50 AM

Aaarggh, don't tell him to do that. He's easily distracted ... ;-)


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#8 GoldRingNikkor

GoldRingNikkor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 23 October 2016 - 07:25 AM

Aaarggh, don't tell him to do that. He's easily distracted ... ;-)

 

Well, you know... :) This is one of the characteristics I care most about in an ultrawide. I don't really mind a bit of distortion or somewhat lower corner sharpness. But if I get an ugly flare blob every time I shoot into the sun, the lens is useless for my use.


  • JoJu likes this

#9 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,925 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 23 October 2016 - 11:19 AM

Short answer: no :)

Longer answer: I'd probably struggle to find a fair way of testing flare with different lenses. Most lenses do flare, but the amount and shape of flare depends on the angle of light. So, given a certain light setup, lens A might flare, but B does not, while at a slightly different light angle things might be vice versa.

I prefer to just go out and shoot, and whenever possible I do of course shoot in backlight conditions, too, and then play around with the lens, looking for flare in the viewfinder while trying different angles... that usually gives a first impression if there is an issue or not.

Flare is usually only mentioned in the reviews if the lens is either very prone to flare (like the Nikkor 14-24) or exceptionally flare resistant.

To be honest, I'd prefer to stick to this approach.

Also for practical reasons: a shoot-out would require to have all the mentioned lenses at the same time. That's usually not the case here.

But since this is the Tamron thread, let me already tell: the 15-30 VC does flare (as most lenses do), but a LOT less than the Nikkor 14-24 (ok, must admit, that's an easy target).

-- Markus
  • JoJu likes this
Editor (Nikon, Leica, Samsung reviews)
photozone.de

#10 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 23 October 2016 - 11:20 AM

Well, you know... :) This is one of the characteristics I care most about in an ultrawide. I don't really mind a bit of distortion or somewhat lower corner sharpness. But if I get an ugly flare blob every time I shoot into the sun, the lens is useless for my use.

 

I agree with that, flares are really hard to come by. However I tried once to follow a tutorial of Affinity Photo to get rid of flares, I'm sure there's also some for Photoshop users, and at least parts of the worst effects went into less attention. So, good thing to save a shot, pain in the ass to save all frontlight shots as it really needs time and individual care.

 

As for sharpness or also contrast: Due to different sensors, I use a Sigma dp 0 with 14 mm lens if I want maximum sharpness - but I leave it in the bag as soon as front light is involved as the sensor can't handle this kind of contrast.

 

 

I also would appreciate if the new Sigma 12-24 would be part of this test, but it's not available, I'm afraid. On second thought: On the timeline Marcus is doing tests, it just might become available in time  :D



#11 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,925 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 23 October 2016 - 11:29 AM

Innsbruck and Geneva... you could have met THXBB12   :)


Ha, thanks for pointing that out, I didn't remember :) Yeah, actually, it looks like I'll be regularly travelling to and spending time in Geneva in the near future, so there will be future opportunities :)

Out of curiosity: where are you located? Maybe it's on my way to Geneva :)

-- Markus
Editor (Nikon, Leica, Samsung reviews)
photozone.de

#12 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 23 October 2016 - 11:56 AM

If you travel by train from Zurich, Solothurn is on your way. I could board the same train, so we could end up in Geneva meeting THXBB12, a small PZ meeting with Ex-Nikon and still-Nikon users and some Fuji and Olympus involved.  :) I already wanted to pay him a visit, but so far it didn't happen.


  • mst likes this

#13 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,925 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 23 October 2016 - 02:45 PM

Sounds great :) There's no preferred route for me, I usually pick the cheapest ticket I can get, which then either leads through Basel->Biel->Geneva or Basel->Olten->Geneva, the latter one passing Solothurn.

Let's make that happen :) More via PN though...

-- Markus
Editor (Nikon, Leica, Samsung reviews)
photozone.de

#14 GoldRingNikkor

GoldRingNikkor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 24 October 2016 - 02:36 AM

But since this is the Tamron thread, let me already tell: the 15-30 VC does flare (as most lenses do), but a LOT less than the Nikkor 14-24 (ok, must admit, that's an easy target).

-- Markus

 

Yeah, that seems to be the consensus. The bigger question is whether any of the more lightweight offerings from smaller vendors (Irix, Samyang, Laowa) can compete. It seems to me that all of them have major flare issues (sometimes denied by those manufacturers, but pics don't lie); but still I'm not quite ready to bury my hopes entirely at the moment. The new Sigma 12-24 seems to be decent.



#15 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 24 October 2016 - 09:32 AM

Yeah, that seems to be the consensus. The bigger question is whether any of the more lightweight offerings from smaller vendors (Irix, Samyang, Laowa) can compete. It seems to me that all of them have major flare issues (sometimes denied by those manufacturers, but pics don't lie); but still I'm not quite ready to bury my hopes entirely at the moment. The new Sigma 12-24 seems to be decent.

These are not competing directly against the Tamron / Sigma / Nikon for a simple reason: lack of AF. Therefore they're in a different class, not immediately comparable; some people may not be bothered by that as they're used to focusing manually, while others (like myself) simply do not consider MF lenses at all.



#16 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 24 October 2016 - 11:10 AM

If MF, then Zeiss 15/2.8 (as comparison or reference) needs to be in that line, too. But there's another difference: Nikkor, Tamron, Sigma: all of them are zooms and I'd also say, all those zooms (together with the Canon colleague) perform aside of flare on a very high, nearly prime level.

 

Studor13, those are some useful ideas for work with those lenses - if I have a tripod and umbrella with me. And the latter I take if it looks like a probably rainy day, which usually means, no sun fllares. I'm a bit sceptical if a partially blocked sun will mean "different contrast for blocked and unblocked picture, but there's an easy way to find out.  ^_^



#17 GoldRingNikkor

GoldRingNikkor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 25 October 2016 - 01:27 AM

These are not competing directly against the Tamron / Sigma / Nikon for a simple reason: lack of AF. 

 

For some they don't. For me they do, very directly. Depends on use. I could care less about AF with an ultrawide that I use for landscape and astro.



#18 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 25 October 2016 - 06:00 AM

If "astro" appears in the intended usage list, I would stay away from AF lenses, if I were you. None of them has a mechanical stop at  ∞ . I would try to get my hands on an Irix lens just because of some of their features, try it and if it fulfills my needs, use it and don't care about other offers. If I were you, but I'm not, so for me AF is also important as I trust it more (in LV) than manual focus. PDAF on Nikon - at least at mine - works less reliable, wide open and off center, so it clearly is a case for "better LV, if it has to be wide open".



#19 GoldRingNikkor

GoldRingNikkor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 25 October 2016 - 05:13 PM

If "astro" appears in the intended usage list, I would stay away from AF lenses, if I were you. None of them has a mechanical stop at  ∞ . I would try to get my hands on an Irix lens just because of some of their features, try it and if it fulfills my needs, use it and don't care about other offers. If I were you, but I'm not, so for me AF is also important as I trust it more (in LV) than manual focus. PDAF on Nikon - at least at mine - works less reliable, wide open and off center, so it clearly is a case for "better LV, if it has to be wide open".

 

The problem is that on extended hiking trips, I don't want to carry both an astro and a landscape ultrawide - and the Irix seems to flare like crazy in some situations, so shooting into the setting sun might be a problem.

 

That said, I can usually focus on bright stars using live view at night, so I don't necessarily need a hard infinity stop.



#20 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts

Posted 26 October 2016 - 07:29 AM

 I have shot directly into the sun with the Samyang 14mm F2.8, generally it's pretty resistant to flares but you do get the odd artifact, not quite as resistant as their 8mm fisheye though. The 14mm is MF and as such has a hard infinity focus stop.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de