# Lensrentals: Tamrom 15-30 VC f/2.8 vs. Canon 16-35 f/2.8 II vs Nikon 14-24 f/2.8



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2015)

Roger has posted his test and the results are pretty interesting - be sure to read down to the 23mm test portion:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/just-the-lenses-tamron-15-30mm-f2-8


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 24, 2015)

As always, its interesting to see the comparisons of the lenses in a way that no other reviewer can show us.

I will be interested in seeing the results from the new Canon ultra wide zoom. They probably will not be spectacular due to the extreme wide angle, but at the price, they should be no worse than these.

I gave up on buying ultra wide lenses, because I have no talent for using them, and no matter how good a lens is, the talent of the photographer is 10X more important.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 24, 2015)

It was good to see some data on the Tamron, after seeing the ISO crops on TDP. I'm surprised that the Tamron 15-30 can not categorically beat the much-maligned 16-35 f/2.8 II. The TDP results showed weak corners on the Tamron and LR confirms it. Would have loved to see the 16-35 f/4 IS in the same dataset though, even if it is not a f/2.8 lens...


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> As always, its interesting to see the comparisons of the lenses in a way that no other reviewer can show us.
> 
> I will be interested in seeing the results from the new Canon ultra wide zoom. They probably will not be spectacular due to the extreme wide angle, but at the price, they should be no worse than these.
> 
> I gave up on buying ultra wide lenses, because I have no talent for using them, and no matter how good a lens is, the talent of the photographer is 10X more important.


They definitely have some cool test gear and interesting reviews. I like that they test multiple copies, too.

Also, your comment about giving up on ultrawides cracks me up! I find them incredibly frustrating to use as well as the slightest tilt or the most invisible of objects (in the viewfinder at least!) always seems to ruin the shot. The reason I love photography is for the challenges it requires so these are right up my alley. Be prepared for some really lousy 11mm shots when I first get my 11-24 f/4, though ;D



Random Orbits said:


> It was good to see some data on the Tamron, after seeing the ISO crops on TDP. I'm surprised that the Tamron 15-30 can not categorically beat the much-maligned 16-35 f/2.8 II. The TDP results showed weak corners on the Tamron and LR confirms it. Would have loved to see the 16-35 f/4 IS in the same dataset though, even if it is not a f/2.8 lens...


I wish he'd included the 16-35 f/4 IS as well, but I think the 16-35 f/2.8 II results are in line with my copy. I really liked the low distortion and other than the horrible CA in the corners, I found it pretty good at 16 and 35mm. When I compared it at 24mm against the 24-70 f/2.8 II, it made me cry, however. It was soft mush in comparison. Now it makes more sense given the 23mm results they posted. It also lacked something, the very something the 16-35 f/4 IS has in spades, even if it's more distorted and has worse vignetting.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 24, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > It was good to see some data on the Tamron, after seeing the ISO crops on TDP. I'm surprised that the Tamron 15-30 can not categorically beat the much-maligned 16-35 f/2.8 II. The TDP results showed weak corners on the Tamron and LR confirms it. Would have loved to see the 16-35 f/4 IS in the same dataset though, even if it is not a f/2.8 lens...
> ...



Agreed, I never liked using the 16-35 f/2.8 II much either. I didn't mind as much that it's 24mm was weak, because I usually carried other options at that focal length... and as a walk-around lens, it's fine. I think the real competition will be the 16-35 f/4 IS. The 16-35 f/4 IS currently streets for a little less, has better optical performance, weighs significantly less, takes filters, has better AF. The Tamron has a one stop advantage, gains 1mm at the wide end but loses 5mm at the long end.


----------



## martti (Feb 24, 2015)

Once again, this is a lab test. 
There are curves going this way and that which is something that can be measured and quantitated.
Then you go out to take pictures and another story unfolds.
Maybe you like the extra reach up to 35 mm. Maybe you want to put a filter on to protect the front lens because there is dust in the air and a salty breeze from the waves breaking against the rocks. 
For me, where I live and what I do, I could only take either one of the Canon wide zooms.
I have to stop to clean my eyeglasses once an hour when the wind is up. 
It hurts seeing a bare lens surface covered with salt spots. I had the 17-40, my son took it.
The f/4 will be in my bag before June.

Amazing, though, the Tamron quality. They have the Sony money to back them up now.


----------



## nightscape123 (Feb 24, 2015)

Interesting results... I assume these were all done at f/2.8? I'd love to see the results at f/8 or f/11. I've heard from a couple people that the tamron improves over the canon significantly by f/11, even though it loses (slightly) at f/2.8.


----------



## RGF (Feb 24, 2015)

Too bad the Canon 16-34 F4 IS was not included. I know it is not F2.8, but it is a great lens.

Also I would like to see tests at F8, F11 and F16.

But tying up an expensive piece of equipment is hard to justify.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 24, 2015)

RGF said:


> Also I would like to see tests at F8, F11 and F16.



Me, too. I wouldn't hold your breath on getting data on the narrower apertures. Roger is a great resource, but he usually reports wide open data and one stop down to allow an f/2.8 lens to be compared to an f/4 lens.

There are sooooo many test-loving enthusiasts out there that if he went all Photozone / LensTip / DXO on lenses (obviously, with his rig, his metrics and his comments) -- he could charge a Consumer Reports-like few bucks a month and he'd pay off his rig in no time.

But, that's not Roger. He posts these things out of a fickle curiosity and personal interest, and whatever we get from him I'm glad to read.

- A


----------



## flashboy (Feb 24, 2015)

Why wasn't the new Canon 16-35 f4 tested instead of the older 16-35 f2.8 ?


----------



## Rick (Feb 24, 2015)

I probably would not have bothered with the 16-35/2.8 II. I would have tested the 16-35/4 IS in its place. I own the 14-24G and it was once the best UWA zoom on the planet, but times change, it needs an update to stay current.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 24, 2015)

flashboy said:


> Why wasn't the new Canon 16-35 f4 tested instead of the older 16-35 f2.8 ?



Because he's already done that test:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/canon-wide-angle-zoom-comparison

You can back out the 16-35 f/2.8L II vs. the 16-35 f/4L IS from the link above to compare it to the Tamron.

- A


----------



## Rick (Feb 24, 2015)

RGF said:


> Also I would like to see tests at F8, F11 and F16.



Tests at these apertures introduce diffraction. Bad for pixel peeping.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 24, 2015)

Rick said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Also I would like to see tests at F8, F11 and F16.
> ...



I'm pretty sure that was a landscaper question.  They don't always have the luxury to shoot at the sharpest aperture.

I'm assuming that not many people are cherry-picking the absolutely sharpest aperture and focus-stacking with their landscapes. Like HDR work, some folks lack the patience, tripod, or windless day to attempt compositing a multiple exposure landscape, so F/8 - F/11 are still very useful apertures for those folks.

- A


----------



## Rick (Feb 24, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



I am a landscape shooter too. What you say is true but it depends on the composition, of course, and the focal length, but many landscape compositions simulate flat wall test targets in the form of infinity across the frame. Many of my shots are like this, shooting from a ledge, at a Grand Vista. With a 24-70 II, I have found no need to stop down past f5.6 for these kinds of compositions and get plenty sharp corners and edges. Lots of landscape photogs can't even picture what I am describing because they always put a close foreground object in the composition that requires stopping down.  

I rented the the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/14 for the Thanksgiving holiday and I was shooting these Grand Vista compositions at f1.4 and there was no need to stop down in order to get sharp corners.


----------



## m8547 (Feb 24, 2015)

Rick said:


> I am a landscape shooter too. What you say is true but it depends on the composition, of course, and the focal length, but many landscape compositions simulate flat wall test targets in the form of infinity across the frame. Many of my shots are like this, shooting from a ledge, at a Grand Vista. With a 24-70 II, I have found no need to stop down past f5.6 for these kinds of compositions and get plenty sharp corners and edges. Lots of landscape photogs can't even picture what I am describing because they always put a close foreground object in the composition that requires stopping down.
> 
> I rented the the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/14 for the Thanksgiving holiday and I was shooting these Grand Vista compositions at f1.4 and there was no need to stop down in order to get sharp corners.



Any examples for us? I'd love to see grand vistas with the Otus.

I think typical composition "rules" say to have something in the foreground for landscapes. When I searched for that, I found a long list of composition rules for paintings (that's somewhat applicable for photography, too). http://photoinf.com/General/Johannes_Vloothuis/landscape_composition_rules.html I don't think it makes sense to do art or photography by a set of rules, but it's an interesting read because for me it's a different way to think about paintings/photos.


----------



## ewg963 (Feb 25, 2015)

m8547 said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > I am a landscape shooter too. What you say is true but it depends on the composition, of course, and the focal length, but many landscape compositions simulate flat wall test targets in the form of infinity across the frame. Many of my shots are like this, shooting from a ledge, at a Grand Vista. With a 24-70 II, I have found no need to stop down past f5.6 for these kinds of compositions and get plenty sharp corners and edges. Lots of landscape photogs can't even picture what I am describing because they always put a close foreground object in the composition that requires stopping down.
> ...


Thank you for the painting composition rules I thought it was a very interesting read...


----------



## andrewflo (Feb 25, 2015)

Holy moly... I take it this is the most exhaustive test of the new Tamron we'll probably ever see. Obviously it's not a "real world" test but it sure is scientific to say the least.

I think the Canon 16-35mm f/4L is looking like it's taken the lead over the Tamron SP 15-30mm in my GAS cravings.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 25, 2015)

Rick said:


> I am a landscape shooter too. What you say is true but it depends on the composition, of course, and the focal length, but many landscape compositions simulate flat wall test targets in the form of infinity across the frame. Many of my shots are like this, shooting from a ledge, at a Grand Vista. With a 24-70 II, I have found no need to stop down past f5.6 for these kinds of compositions and get plenty sharp corners and edges. Lots of landscape photogs can't even picture what I am describing because they always put a close foreground object in the composition that requires stopping down.



Of course -- if there's nothing in the background and you are tackling a far off vista, you choose the sharpest aperture. I'm trying to get out of tourist / vista shooting (which can be marvelous, I certainly won't knock it) as it often mutes the sense of scale. Rules are silly, but foreground elements _can_ greatly strengthen landscape compositions. _Those_ shots need a large working DOF or focus stacking to pull off. 

And as I'm often not on a tripod when I come across these moments, I'm stuck stopping down _past_ f/11 and trial-of-erroring to get everything basically in focus with the DOF preview button. For those kind of shots, being slightly soft due to diffraction is far preferable to being blurred out of the working DOF, but others may think differently.

- A


----------



## e_honda (Feb 25, 2015)

Just from my own experience:

I had 2 copies of the 16-35 2.8 II. Did tests on a tripod looking at the same thing and one was clearly sharper than the other, so I naturally sold off the lesser of the two.

I picked up a Tokina 16-28 a few months later because the price dropped. I tested it at all focal lengths vs. the Canon at all apertures up thru F8 and on a tripod and it really was no contest: the Tokina was better in every case. I was happy with it and took some of my best pictures with it, but grew tired of the flare and ghosting problems that plagued it.

I should add: the 16mm on the Canon was clearly wider than 16mm on the Tokina. It wasn't by a huge margin, but it was quite obvious.

Saw a good deal on a used 16-35 F4. Jumped on and it and sold the Tokina. It is slightly sharper than the Tokina, has IS and doesn't have the same flare problems. The 16mm on the Canon f4 was also a bit wider than the Tokina. I also rarely used the Tokina at f2.8 so I don't miss that aspect. It takes filters, is lighter and easier to carry around and (at least with a filter) is weather sealed. I'm a happy camper.

Another thing that made the Tokina unwieldy: Its lens cap is thick and can't easily be shoved into your pocket. I suspect you'll encounter a similar problem with the Tamron, though its cap doesn't look as thick. Not a deal breaker, but a minor annoyance and something those who have never used a bulbous lens should take into account.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 25, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > As always, its interesting to see the comparisons of the lenses in a way that no other reviewer can show us.
> ...



I think my ultra wide shots are in a class by themselves, and probably would make your worst ones look wonderful by comparison. I just do not have the ability to capture a beautiful panoramic scene that I see as a beautiful photo. I think its a matter of practice and experimentation, but I've never found the time. I intended to purchase a Nikon 14-24mm lens to go with my D800, but was turned off by some of the negative issues that pertained to my use so I never reached that point.


----------



## candyman (Feb 25, 2015)

m8547 said:


> ...... http://photoinf.com/General/Johannes_Vloothuis/landscape_composition_rules.html *I don't think it makes sense to do art or photography by a set of rules*, but it's an interesting read because for me it's a different way to think about paintings/photos.


Agree. It is very subjective. If everbody in the past would stick to 'rules', there would not have been a development in art.


----------



## aerofan (Feb 25, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> It was good to see some data on the Tamron, after seeing the ISO crops on TDP. I'm surprised that the Tamron 15-30 can not categorically beat the much-maligned 16-35 f/2.8 II. The TDP results showed weak corners on the Tamron and LR confirms it. Would have loved to see the 16-35 f/4 IS in the same dataset though, even if it is not a f/2.8 lens...



I don't believe in TDP results. Look at my sample pictures:

Canon 16-35 2.8 II at 2.8:
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/can16.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/brzeg_canon.jpg (focus on the top of the frame)
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/corner_canon.jpg (focus on Tamron box)

Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC at 2.8:
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/tam15.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/brzeg_tamron.jpg
http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/corner_tamron.jpg

And a lot of my sample pictures from Tamron 15-30 (full size):
http://www.canon-board.info/testy-sprzetu-25/recenzja-tamron-15-30-2-8-vc-usd-99121/


----------



## DominoDude (Feb 25, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> ... Be prepared for some really lousy 11mm shots when I first get my 11-24 f/4, though ;D



I bet that your "lousy", is what many of us strive for. So: Bring it!


----------



## AJ (Feb 25, 2015)

Looks like the Tamon is in good company.

I wonder how the Tokina 16-28 stacks up.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 25, 2015)

DominoDude said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > ... Be prepared for some really lousy 11mm shots when I first get my 11-24 f/4, though ;D
> ...


Thanks for the vote of confidence, but my initial work with the Sigma 12-24 was pretty humbling. Lots of good subjects, but everything is so small in the frame and it's really hard to keep track of the angles, your shadow, flare, and get close enough to a foreground that actually works at that focal length. Hopefully those experiences will help with the new lens


----------



## LOALTD (Feb 25, 2015)

aerofan said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > It was good to see some data on the Tamron, after seeing the ISO crops on TDP. I'm surprised that the Tamron 15-30 can not categorically beat the much-maligned 16-35 f/2.8 II. The TDP results showed weak corners on the Tamron and LR confirms it. Would have loved to see the 16-35 f/4 IS in the same dataset though, even if it is not a f/2.8 lens...
> ...




WOW, not even close! Thanks so much for posting. Classic smudgey Canon 16-35 f/2.8 corners.


----------



## andrewflo (Feb 25, 2015)

aerofan said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > It was good to see some data on the Tamron, after seeing the ISO crops on TDP. I'm surprised that the Tamron 15-30 can not categorically beat the much-maligned 16-35 f/2.8 II. The TDP results showed weak corners on the Tamron and LR confirms it. Would have loved to see the 16-35 f/4 IS in the same dataset though, even if it is not a f/2.8 lens...
> ...



Your test shots are great thank you! I'm very surprised though. Both your tests and Dustin Abbott's tests show very very impressive performance from this lens.

But TDP and Lens Rentals lab tests show the lens' performance to be mediocre. Obviously real world images are far more important, but is my interpretation of the lab tests as "mediocre" simply a misunderstanding on my part?


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 26, 2015)

aerofan said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > It was good to see some data on the Tamron, after seeing the ISO crops on TDP. I'm surprised that the Tamron 15-30 can not categorically beat the much-maligned 16-35 f/2.8 II. The TDP results showed weak corners on the Tamron and LR confirms it. Would have loved to see the 16-35 f/4 IS in the same dataset though, even if it is not a f/2.8 lens...
> ...



Then you also don't trust LensRentals either and they test multiple copies (and the point of this thread). I only checked the first two of your links for each and the focus quality are not the same for the comparison shots. The Canon has motion blur everywhere for the trees and it's AF point for the walkway is significantly closer than the Tamron's. You might have a bad copy of the 16-35. Personally, I trust TDP and LR much more than your examples.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 26, 2015)

interesting read. looks like i'll hang onto my 16-35 for a while yet
since my most used focla lengths are 16mm, 20mm and 35mm with not much in between
so results at 23mm mean little to me.

still right now my most used UWA is the little 11-22 on the EOS-M 

i also really like the way the 7 blade aperture on the 16-35 renders lights at very narrow appertures its much more pleasing than 9 blades the 11-22 is also 7 blade i think


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 26, 2015)

I've had my 16-35 2.8 for a year or so, and I'm very happy with it.
I use it mainly for architecture shots for a magazine, and if the corners are soft, I'd certainly hear about it from the art director!

I love my 16-35. It's very sharp and it's light and great fun to use indoors and outdoors.
It's always in my bag.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 26, 2015)

Like others here I am really awaiting Roger Cicala's first review of the new 16-35/4 IS. I personally never really understood why someone needs such a fast f/2.8 ultra wide angle lens, besides some event photographers shooting in dark environments using ambient light. Typical UWA applications are landscapes and cityscapes, am I right? f/2.8 would produce a much too short depth of field for such a purpose (maybe there are a few exceptions) - so mostly the big block of optical glass is not really used. I have e.g. a Zeiss 18/3.5 - and I never go below f/5.6 with that lens. Btw I use this Zeiss sometimes for street photography, because it can produce funny results, but again never completely wide open. 

You can see in Roger's review that those big lenses needed for making such UWA zooms create a lot of optical problems, and no lensmaker so far can control this completely. For landscape and cityscape you need a lens that is really tack sharp right from the middle to the edges at medium and far distances. That's crucial, as many of you here in this forum certainly know. So I think it is quite logical that a less fast UWA zoom with a modern optical design should deliver overall superior results, because it is simpler to make it.


----------



## aerofan (Feb 26, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> aerofan said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



I checked yesterday another copy of 16-35/2.8 II and 16-35 f/4 IS. Results are pretty the same:

http://www.kubacichocki.pl/test/tamron1530/crops.jpg

Look at other shots from 16-35:

http://pl.pixelpeeper.com/lenses/?lens=27&perpage=25&is_fullframe=3&focal_min=16&focal_max=16&aperture_min=2.8&aperture_max=4&res=3

I don't think I have bad copy. Everyone has


----------



## KimH (Feb 26, 2015)

justaCanonuser said:


> Like others here I am really awaiting Roger Cicala's first review of the new 16-35/4 IS. I personally never really understood why someone needs such a fast f/2.8 ultra wide angle lens, besides some event photographers shooting in dark environments using ambient light. Typical UWA applications are landscapes and cityscapes, am I right? f/2.8 would produce a much too short depth of field for such a purpose (maybe there are a few exceptions) - so mostly the big block of optical glass is not really used. I have e.g. a Zeiss 18/3.5 - and I never go below f/5.6 with that lens. Btw I use this Zeiss sometimes for street photography, because it can produce funny results, but again never completely wide open.
> 
> You can see in Roger's review that those big lenses needed for making such UWA zooms create a lot of optical problems, and no lensmaker so far can control this completely. For landscape and cityscape you need a lens that is really tack sharp right from the middle to the edges at medium and far distances. That's crucial, as many of you here in this forum certainly know. So I think it is quite logical that a less fast UWA zoom with a modern optical design should deliver overall superior results, because it is simpler to make it.



He actually already reviewed the 16-35 f4 - it about 6 months ago


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 27, 2015)

KimH said:


> justaCanonuser said:
> 
> 
> > Like others here I am really awaiting Roger Cicala's first review of the new 16-35/4 IS. I personally never really understood why someone needs such a fast f/2.8 ultra wide angle lens, besides some event photographers shooting in dark environments using ambient light. Typical UWA applications are landscapes and cityscapes, am I right? f/2.8 would produce a much too short depth of field for such a purpose (maybe there are a few exceptions) - so mostly the big block of optical glass is not really used. I have e.g. a Zeiss 18/3.5 - and I never go below f/5.6 with that lens. Btw I use this Zeiss sometimes for street photography, because it can produce funny results, but again never completely wide open.
> ...



One more time on the 16-35 f/4L IS: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/canon-wide-angle-zoom-comparison

- A


----------



## Rick (Feb 27, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Of course -- if there's nothing in the background and you are tackling a far off vista, you choose the sharpest aperture. I'm trying to get out of tourist / vista shooting (which can be marvelous, I certainly won't knock it) as it often mutes the sense of scale.



This is about as ignorant as it gets.


----------



## Rick (Feb 27, 2015)

m8547 said:


> I rented the the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/14 for the Thanksgiving holiday and I was shooting these Grand Vista compositions at f1.4 and there was no need to stop down in order to get sharp corners.



Any examples for us? I'd love to see grand vistas with the Otus.

[/quote]

Your comment may be tongue in cheek but I'll forge ahead in a serious manner. 

I haven't processed that trip yet. I am still working on my October Zion NP trip. 

However, in the meantime, there are many, many Grand Vista-type examples on the web including many from review sites who reviewed the Otus 55mm as 'across the frame' sharpness @ f1.4 is one of the lens' most notable features. I am surprised anyone is surprised about this. It was pretty big news.

I most likely will not buy the lens for reasons including the fact that 55mm is sort of awkward for me and the lens wasn't focus-friendly for me.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 27, 2015)

He actually already reviewed the 16-35 f4 - it about 6 months ago
[/quote]

Ah, thanks. I was working like hell past months and had no time to check his blog...


----------



## andrewflo (Feb 27, 2015)

*I think there was a mistake in LensRentals' test...*

I was looking for LensRentals' older test of the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS to pit it against the new Tamron tests and I noticed their new MTF charts show the 16-35mm f/2.8L II @ f/2.8 nearly identical in performance to the older MTF charts of the 16-35mm f/4L IS @ f/4 (both at 16mm).

Matter of fact, in the f/4L vs f/2.8L II comparison, the f/2.8L II @ f/4 has significantly lower results than what's said in the new Tamron article of the f/2.8L II @ f/2.8.

I think we all know without a shadow of a doubt that the f/2.8L II's corner performance wide open is put to shame by the f/4L IS's wide open... *Is it possible they tested the Tamron 15-30mm vs. Canon 16-35 f/4L IS and either made a mistake or typo by labeling those new charts as the f/2.8L II* or am I going crazy? Someone please correct me if I've got this all wrong! ???

Attached is the charts compared in a quick Photoshop combo to save you some time.


Articles:
*f/4L vs f/2.8L II article (7/30/14)*: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/canon-wide-angle-zoom-comparison
*Tamron vs f/2.8L II article (2/24/15)*: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/just-the-lenses-tamron-15-30mm-f2-8


----------



## martti (Feb 28, 2015)

Yes, looks like it. Did you notify Roger?


----------



## nightscape123 (Mar 1, 2015)

Roger is looking into it, seems like it is a mistake.

It looks like the Tamron may turn out to be significantly sharper than the canon 2.8 and on par to the canon f/4 instead.


----------

