# Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC Gets First Test



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 22, 2014)

```
<p>Matt Granger got to spend some time with the recently announced Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC lens for full frame cameras. We think he’s one of very few that’s been able to take images and video with the lens.</p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qlwKq8fiBJE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p><a href="http://www.mattgranger.com/tamron1530" target="_blank">You can see more at MattGranger.com</a></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 22, 2014)

Looks very promising. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on this soon and comparing it the 16-35mm f/4L IS I'm testing right now.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 22, 2014)

I know this sounds a little weird, but using my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye has almost totally eliminated my desire for an ultrawide. I rarely use my 17-40L anymore, and I think this lens is in the same category. The fish is great optically, and defishing is so easy in Lightroom now that I can do it with no effort when I want a rectilinear image. Yeah, I lose a lot of pixels when cropping to 15mm or 24mm equivalent (half and three-quarters, respectively) but I rarely find that to be a problem, and I can usually overlap with my standard zoom (starting at 24mm) when I really do need the pixels.

I'm currently considering selling all my lenses but two, and those two are the 70-200/2.8L IS II and the Sigma 15mm fisheye. I'd be replacing that middle range with either the Tamron 24-70/2.8VC or the rumored Sigma 24-70/2 OS.


----------



## siegsAR (Sep 22, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Looks very promising. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on this soon and comparing it the 16-35mm f/4L IS I'm testing right now.



I'd be waiting for that review Dustin. Hope you can have your hands on the lens the soonest.


----------



## Too_Many_Hobbies (Sep 22, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Looks very promising. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on this soon and comparing it the 16-35mm f/4L IS I'm testing right now.



Excellent - If you post your findings I'll be very interested to read what you think. These are the 2 lenses that I will be considering for my next purchase as I currently have a gap between my Sigma 15mm fisheye and the Canon 24-105. I know Lee Jay said the opposite here, but personally I would like to have the IS.


----------



## Zv (Sep 22, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I know this sounds a little weird, but using my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye has almost totally eliminated my desire for an ultrawide. I rarely use my 17-40L anymore, and I think this lens is in the same category. The fish is great optically, and defishing is so easy in Lightroom now that I can do it with no effort when I want a rectilinear image. Yeah, I lose a lot of pixels when cropping to 15mm or 24mm equivalent (half and three-quarters, respectively) but I rarely find that to be a problem, and I can usually overlap with my standard zoom (starting at 24mm) when I really do need the pixels.
> 
> I'm currently considering selling all my lenses but two, and those two are the 70-200/2.8L IS II and the Sigma 15mm fisheye. I'd be replacing that middle range with either the Tamron 24-70/2.8VC or the rumored Sigma 24-70/2 OS.



I'm the same but only with the SY 14mm. Coupled to a standard zoom it's a very light and capable combo. I hardly ever use the 17-40L now and for my last vacation I didn't even bother taking it. You're right about the cropping, taking it down to about 17mm from 14mm isn't a problem at all. Between 17mm and 24mm I don't find much going on. Either I want ultra wide, or wide. 

I did find IS quite useful on the EF-M 11-22 lens and I'm very curious about this new Tamron vs the 16-35 IS. What I found about the IS was that I kept wanting a third point of contact (my eye socket) to stabilize it further. But even without it was possible to get an acceptably sharp shot at 1s.


----------



## wickidwombat (Sep 22, 2014)

cant wait to see it put head to head with the canon 16-35 mk2 f2.8


----------



## Hannes (Sep 22, 2014)

Very interesting, it sounds like the perfect travel lens to be honest. It looks sharp enough and that makes for some crazy hand holding shutter speeds.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 22, 2014)

Too_Many_Hobbies said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Looks very promising. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on this soon and comparing it the 16-35mm f/4L IS I'm testing right now.
> ...


This lens looks very interesting having aperture of f2.8 and image stabilisation system. I own the Canon 15mm f2.8 and still find use for my Canon 16-35mm f4L IS. They serve different purposes and the 16-35 is tack sharp. Better borders and mid-frame sharpness than my previous 16-35mm f2.8L II.
I currently use more the combo 16-35mm and my 70-200mm than the same but using the 24-70mm and I don't miss the 35-70mm gap.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 22, 2014)

I love what Tamron has been doing with their zoom lenses.

I wonder why Canon seems incapable of making a standard and UWA f/2.8 zoom with IS.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2014)

Has there been any release on what this thing might cost?


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 23, 2014)

Don't really know why, but am not the biggest fan of Granger's videos and reviews.

Regardless of that minor point, this is a lens I am very interested in, and it would be my first non-Canon lens I have ever bought if Canon do not release a 16-40 f/2.8 IS (or similar) soon.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 23, 2014)

This is a cool lens 8) However it also continues the trend of bigger (and heavier) ='better' ? ???


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Has there been any release on what this thing might cost?



No exact pricing, but my contact says under $1500 (how much is the question).


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 23, 2014)

One of the best things that I saw in this video was the microcontrast on that page of text. If you have watched his video on the Zeiss Otus 85, you will find that this text compares very nicely to the what the Otus did in similar situations, where he contrasted it with the 85L II. That microcontrast could mean some serious pop in shots taken for, say, wedding photography (that, to me, is one of the potentially most exciting applications for this lens).


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> One of the best things that I saw in this video was the microcontrast on that page of text. If you have watched his video on the Zeiss Otus 85, you will find that this text compares very nicely to the what the Otus did in similar situations, where he contrasted it with the 85L II. That microcontrast could mean some serious pop in shots taken for, say, wedding photography (that, to me, is one of the potentially most exciting applications for this lens).



Really? I actively avoid rectilinear ultrawides for people photography because of the egg-head phenomenon you get at the edges of the frame. That's why I like the fisheye for that - keeps people's heads round. In fact, when I have shot rectilinear, I've often added a massive amount of barrel distortion in post just for this reason.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > One of the best things that I saw in this video was the microcontrast on that page of text. If you have watched his video on the Zeiss Otus 85, you will find that this text compares very nicely to the what the Otus did in similar situations, where he contrasted it with the 85L II. That microcontrast could mean some serious pop in shots taken for, say, wedding photography (that, to me, is one of the potentially most exciting applications for this lens).
> ...



Oh, I'm most thinking for dramatic interior shots and also for shooting large groups when space is tight. I frequently use the 24mm end of the 24-70 VC for that purpose.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Yeah, I frequently use the 24 end of my 24-105 for that. Any wider than that (rectilinear), and you have a group of people surrounded by aliens.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 23, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


----------



## andrewflo (Sep 24, 2014)

Super excited for this lens 

And thanks for the extra details Dustin!


----------



## moreorless (Sep 24, 2014)

Certainly an interesting lens, I ended up going with the 16-35mm VR for my D800 rather than the 14-24mm due to the stabilisation, range and easier filter systems with the former. If this Tamron really does perform well it would certainly be tempting although the filter issue would still be there, a bit less range but the 16-35mm isn't great above 30mm anyway and for me its the 28mmish range that's more important.


----------



## quiquae (Sep 24, 2014)

Am I the only person who was not impressed by the foreground bokeh on that page of text image? The back bokeh looked better.


----------



## moreorless (Sep 25, 2014)

quiquae said:


> Am I the only person who was not impressed by the foreground bokeh on that page of text image? The back bokeh looked better.



Probably not a big issue on many shots for a lens like this though as the subject will need to be pretty close to push parts of the image out of focus.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 8, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> This is a cool lens 8) However it also continues the trend of bigger (and heavier) ='better' ? ???


It appears to be an optically well-corrected, f/2.8, Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom with IS. Could we realistically expect anything other than heavy?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Oct 8, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > One of the best things that I saw in this video was the microcontrast on that page of text. If you have watched his video on the Zeiss Otus 85, you will find that this text compares very nicely to the what the Otus did in similar situations, where he contrasted it with the 85L II. That microcontrast could mean some serious pop in shots taken for, say, wedding photography (that, to me, is one of the potentially most exciting applications for this lens).
> ...



In that sense I've found the native 'moustache' distortion of the Samyang 14mm to be very beneficial when there are people at the edge of the frame. Doing a lens correction on that one quite significantly stretches the edges (and makes it less 'wide' too). Natively it's relatively forgiving for people at the edges of the frame so for stuff that doesn't necessarily have to be too rectilinear I leave the lens correction off.


----------

