# Tamron to announce a 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 27, 2018)

> Nokishita Camera has reported the specifications of the upcoming Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2.
> 
> Lens construction: 13 groups 18 pieces
> Shortest shooting distance: 0.28 m
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 27, 2018)

Very interesting.... I will be following this one closely....


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 27, 2018)

I had the G1 version of this lens for a long, long time. Really liked it. Sold it for the Sigma Art 24-35 + the Art Sigma 14mm due to vastly higher image quality (that 14mm f/1.8 is a truly unparalleled monster of image quality). Downsides, of course, were the combo was more expensive, and I have to switch lenses more often. 

I bought those Sigmas used, so I very likely can sell them for the same price as what I purchased them for (they really keep their resale value quite well when you buy used). I'd be open to trying this G2 and considering swapping back. Would likely just sell the 24-35 and keep the 14mm, for astro and other low light situations. May also compare this new one to the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 III. I look forward to Dustin and others getting their mitts on these lenses for some comparisons.

It's really remarkable how Sigma and Tamron are running circles around the first party lens release schedules.


----------



## Lurker (Aug 27, 2018)

Perfect!  I'm about to upgrade my kit, I've been using the Canon 28-80L and 20-35L for ~20 years. I was just about to order the Tamron 24-70 G2 and the 15-30 G1. G1 has/d $100 rebate and timing suggested the G2 could be coming soon so I've been hesitant to pull the trigger. They did a nice job with the 24-70 G2 upgrade so hope they pull off the same for this lens.


----------



## fox40phil (Aug 27, 2018)

Nice! Rear filter holder! 
Maybe we can test it on Photokina?


----------



## MrFotoFool (Aug 27, 2018)

Addition of rear filter holder is a strong selling point. One of the reasons I recently bought Canon 16-35 f4 L after almost buying the Tamron G1 15-30 instead was the Canon's flat front and ease of use for filters. I also have the Canon 24-70 f4 L but considered swapping it for the Tamron G2 just to get f2.8. These two G2 lenses would certainly make a winning combination.


----------



## knight427 (Aug 27, 2018)

That rear filter holder is a key selling point for me. I have been waiting to buy one of the adapters required to allow 150mm filters. By avoiding the cost of the adapter plus the cost differential of huge filters, this upgrade could pay for itself.


----------



## SkynetTX (Aug 27, 2018)

Just as I said before: a 16-35 with the possibility to accept screw-in filters would have been better.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 27, 2018)

Lurker said:


> Perfect!  I'm about to upgrade my kit, I've been using the Canon 28-80L and 20-35L for ~20 years. I was just about to order the Tamron 24-70 G2 and the 15-30 G1. G1 has/d $100 rebate and timing suggested the G2 could be coming soon so I've been hesitant to pull the trigger. They did a nice job with the 24-70 G2 upgrade so hope they pull off the same for this lens.


The G2 lenses all work with the docking station, so that means firmware updates.... and that could be important if/when a mirrorless camera is introduced....


----------



## JP4DESIGNZ (Aug 27, 2018)

Loving the rear filter holder. I have the G1 version and love it however, it took me 3 copies to get a lens that focused accurately at all focus points on my 5D cameras. I'd love to upgrade for the filter however, since I've had several recent tamron lenses that flopped out on me, I'm nervous about getting another lemon.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 27, 2018)

I wish I hadn't had to sell my 15-30 a few months back (my 400mm f/5.6L too). But this with a rear filter holder makes it very attractive.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

knight427 said:


> That rear filter holder is a key selling point for me. I have been waiting to buy one of the adapters required to allow 150mm filters. By avoiding the cost of the adapter plus the cost differential of huge filters, this upgrade could pay for itself.



Disagree IMHO:

I don't like breaking down my gear on location to slip in a rear ND. I'd prefer a front-filtering solution.


CPLs and ND grads are not an option for rear-filtering.
Again, Tamron is doubling down that 15mm (not just that, but a bulbous front element that ensues) is worth the pain point of eliminating front filtering. I think front-filtering, even if enormous, like 95mm+ would be preferable to this.

This is overwhelmingly why I prefer Canon's 16-35s over Tamron here -- the not the AF or build-quality, but the front-filtering. It's vital for me. I prefer to have a closed camera from the elements and then build up my filtering as the scene requires.

- A


----------



## RGF (Aug 27, 2018)

optical quality?


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 27, 2018)

RGF said:


> optical quality?


If it is anything like the previous version, then optical quality is very good.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Disagree IMHO:
> 
> I don't like breaking down my gear on location to slip in a rear ND. I'd prefer a front-filtering solution.
> 
> ...


 True, but one could still choose a front filter if that is what they want. He did say "for me."


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 27, 2018)

RGF said:


> optical quality?


If it is anything like the previous version, then optical quality is very good.[/QUOTE]

For astro the coma was almost non-existent.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> True, but one could still choose a front filter if that is what they want. He did say "for me."




Entirely fair. Didn't mean to imply their position was wrong -- it's just not my position. My sensibilities are not the world's, and I hope it didn't come across that way.

Sorry for not being clear.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> If it is anything like the previous version, then optical quality is very good.
> 
> For astro the coma was almost non-existent.



And the low vignetting just smokes the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III.

That said, if you want an all-purpose UWA zoom instrument and not just an astro tool, your decision is much harder. I still prefer my 16-35 f/4L IS to all other options as a general instrument, but my list of general uses is probably not the same as yours. For instance, I don't shoot astro and I rarely shoot sports (and almost never with UWA FLs).

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> And the low vignetting just smokes the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III.
> 
> That said, if you want an all-purpose UWA zoom instrument and not just an astro tool, your decision is much harder. I still prefer my 16-35 f/4L IS to all other options as a general instrument, but my list of general uses is probably not the same as yours. For instance, I don't shoot astro and I rarely shoot sports (and almost never with UWA FLs).
> 
> - A



Everything I have ever read says the image quality is fantastic with that Canon lens. Although I really liked the Tamron, I always wished I had bought the 11-24 or the 16-35 Canon. I actually went in the store to buy the 11-24(It had just been released), but ended up with the Tamron. I like the 16-35 for the exact reason you state: front filter. I never got around to buying a system for the Tamron.

Honestly, Adam, I just don't have a use for a UWA much. That may have to do with the fact that I lived in the desert at the time and it made things look all the more distant. Here in the DFW area I think one would be much more useful. I even have trouble justifying the keeping of my 35mm prime because the 24-70 is so good even if slower. Really need a second body instead of a new lens.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Aug 27, 2018)

I'm in the market for UWA. This or Sigma 14-24 2.8?


----------



## RGF (Aug 28, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> If it is anything like the previous version, then optical quality is very good.



For astro the coma was almost non-existent.[/QUOTE]

That is good to new. I am not very family with Tamron lenses


----------



## tron (Aug 28, 2018)

Right now I am more than full with UWA lenses. Last year I added the 16-35 2.8 III to my collection and I have been very happy with it shooting inside churches and museums.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 29, 2018)

I bought the G1 version last year as a replacement for my Canon 17-40 f/4, which has a very low corner sharpness, and it was really a big leap forward. 15mm at f/2.8 combined with image stabilization is perfect for handheld night shots of still subjects. The large curved front element looks really nice. The lens is very big and heavy for a wide angle lens, but that is no minus for me, as I also love big and heavy cameras. 

Using filters on that lens is quite complicated, but I do not use filters anyway. Software like Viveza allows you to achieve a look that used to be only possible with a polarizer in that past. Today you only need a polarizer if you want to get rid of reflections.


----------



## rosw (Sep 7, 2018)

Hi Guys,

Can this lens be used on Canon EOS R?

do you think there will be any lagging / slow in auto focus?

Hope to hear your thoughts

many thanks!


----------

