# Review: Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 19, 2015)

```
LensTip.com has completed their review of the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD lens. They compared it directly to the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 and the Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L II and came away extremely impressed by the Tamron.</p>
<p>In case you’re wondering, early comparisons between the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC and Canon EF 11-24 f/4L have been pretty close optically, although there is a big difference at the wide end in focal length as well distortion control in the Canon’s favour. However, for $1199, it looks like Tamron has a winner on their hands and they’ll probably sell a ton of them.</p>
<blockquote><p>When it comes to the duel with the Canon EF 16–35 mm f/2.8L USM II the Tamron wins hands down. The Canon was able to compete successfully only in the frame centre, on the edge of the frame it was definitely worse. Still it is possible to use filters with it, a quite important asset in this class of parameters.</p>
<p>To sum up the boasting of Tamron about the superior quality of their new lens proved to be true. The company managed to present a device which compares favourably with its rivals, is cheaper, has optical stabilization and a 5-year warranty period – it would be difficult not to recommend it. Independent producers have been proving for some time that they are no longer specializing in cheap equivalents of brand name lenses. The Tamron 15-30 mm is an excellent example of that strategy.</p></blockquote>
<p class="fs16 OpenSans-600-normal upper product-highlights-header">TAMRON 15-30MM F/2.8 DI VC HIGHLIGHTS</p>
<ul class="top-section-list" data-selenium="highlightList">
<li class="top-section-list-item">Aperture Range: f/2.8 to 22</li>
<li class="top-section-list-item">XGM and LD Glass Elements</li>
<li class="top-section-list-item">Vibration Compensation</li>
<li class="top-section-list-item">eBAND and BBAR Coatings</li>
<li class="top-section-list-item">Fluorine Coating on Front Element</li>
<li class="top-section-list-item">Ultrasonic Silent Drive AF System</li>
<li class="top-section-list-item">Built-In Lens Hood</li>
<li class="top-section-list-item">Rounded 9-Blade Diaphragm</li>
</ul>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=432">Read the full review</a> | Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC $1199: <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/results/Tamron1530LensRelease" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Cameras/N/0/Ntt/TA153028*/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 19, 2015)

ephotozine has posted their review of Canon 11-24 lens. and this tamron 15-30 lens 2 days back. it seems both lenses have similar issues with wavy distortion.


----------



## loloi (Mar 19, 2015)

Birds of a feather flock together..

I am glad Tamron has made a lens to compare with the awasome Nikkor14-24mm!
I am looking forward to see more opinion of someone who has test it 

Best shots!!


----------



## Finn M (Mar 19, 2015)

The Tamron should have been compared against the new Canon EF 16-35/4L IS and not the old EF 16-35/2,8L II.
This new lens has stabilizer and is much sharper than the f2,8 version which is very soft wide open.

The Canon EF 16-35/4L IS also have the big advantage of can being used with 77mm filters. I use LEE's filter system a lot and this was the reason why I switched from Nikon and the 14-24/2,8 zoom to Canon.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Mar 19, 2015)

Finn M said:


> The Tamron should have been compared against the new Canon EF 16-35/4L IS and not the old EF 16-35/2,8L II.
> This new lens has stabilizer and is much sharper than the f2,8 version which is very soft wide open.
> 
> The Canon EF 16-35/4L IS also have the big advantage of can being used with 77mm filters. I use LEE's filter system a lot and this was the reason why I switched from Nikon and the 14-24/2,8 zoom to Canon.



+1. I've had all the previous versions of the Canon 16-35 f2.8L I & II, the 17-40 and now the most recent 16-35 f4L IS and am amazed at how it renders color and sharpness. That said, I sold my Zeiss 21mm in favor of the Canon 16-35 F4L for landscapes. I couldn't be happier with the new 16-35. The zoom range fits my palette quite well and I've still got a Rokinon 14mm f2.8 in my quiver for an even wider perspective if needed. However, the Rokinon will not accept filters.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 19, 2015)

A few thoughts:

1) CR folks - get on it! LensTip's review is 11 days old and was already threaded here for some time. 

2) As the results will show, folks hoping for a great astro lens will probably be let down. The coma is not great.

3) I still still still believe that this is an event lens and not a landscape lens for the lack of front filters, but that's just my opinion. 

4) As for those asking for a 16-35 F/4L IS comparison, here's the resolution comparison at least. Please forgive the colors -- I originally tried to superimpose the plots but they run on top of each other in places. Had to do some stretching as LensTip is not consistent with their plots, but they line up now. Resolution is not everything in a lens, but it seems to be the thing we talk about the most. Enjoy.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 19, 2015)

As you can see, the lenses are very, very close from a resolution perspective, which is a high compliment for the Tamron. In certain spots (long-end in the center for sure), the Tamron outperforms the Canon. But both are formidable options compared to any other UWA zoom data I've seen.

That said, I do landscape work far far far more than events, so my money is on the front-filterable option. As an added plus, the 16-35 F/4L IS is weather-sealed, 21% shorter in length and 40% lighter (for the packing/carrying-conscious).

But this Tamron may be awesome for your needs. Congrats if this is the one you've been looking for -- other than coma, this lens looks impressive.

- A


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Mar 19, 2015)

nice to see Tamron is cleaning up there design, making there lenses look more professional. One thing I know is that Tamron quality is on par with canon. As for sigma no disrespect, I have used your lenses as well, but they are not for me, sigma does have better saturation color compare to canon I would say, for my taste sigma is in my color class.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 19, 2015)

I just saw that Adobe has added a lens profile for this lens in ACR 8.8.


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> As you can see, the lenses are very, very close from a resolution perspective, which is a high compliment for the Tamron. ......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would have to say that from the lens tip test, coma looked pretty good to me.


----------



## nightscape123 (Mar 19, 2015)

The coma performance looks really good to me. Not sure why people are saying it is bad. Certainly haven't noticed it as a problem in any of the nightscape shots i've seen. 

The points do look smeared a tad, but more importantly they are still round instead of streaky.


----------



## lintoni (Mar 20, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > As you can see, the lenses are very, very close from a resolution perspective, which is a high compliment for the Tamron. ......
> ...


Agreed. I'm wondering if ahsanford has confused the recent Lenstip review of the Sigma 24 Art, which does have disappointing coma, with the review of the Tamron zoom? :


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 20, 2015)

lintoni said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Myyyyy bad. I absolutely did mix up the Tamron and the Sigma 24. Apologies!

(The resolution data I reported was correct, however.)

- A


----------

