Tamron 15-30 VC, post your shots

[NVSteve]

I had a few minutes today, so I went down to the "river" to test out the Tamron 15-30 against the Nikon 16-35. I also brought along the 150-600 since I haven't had any time to test that out either. Anyway, when I first got the 15-30, I pulled it out and took a few interior shots with it and the Nikon 16-35. I used VC/VR for those and guess what, I didn't realize until after I packed away my tripod today that they were both still set to VC/VR ON. So, no comparison shots today. I did take a few on the way back to the car, so I'll post those. All are at f8, super boring shots, processed a little bit but without any distortion correction. I'll try to take some comparison shots again tomorrow.

 

[rocketman122]

distortion correction doesnt matter to me. my interest of the tamron is at 2.8/4/5.6. every lens will perform like a champ at f8. if youre next to a brick wall and u have the effort to shoot at 15mm/24mm/30mm at 2.8 and 4, I would extremely appreciate it. from it seems this lens is the leader with anything in this range. how does it compare vs nikon? tamrons stabilization has gotten only praise.

 

[grandpaw]

This lens is on my wish list!!!

 

[NVSteve]

my interest of the tamron is at 2.8/4/5.6. every lens will perform like a champ at f8.

My interest is with 2.8 and 4 as well. Not every lens performs well even at f8, which is why I bought this to hopefully replace the 16-35.

if youre next to a brick wall and u have the effort to shoot at 15mm/24mm/30mm at 2.8 and 4, I would extremely appreciate it.

No time today. Hopefully next weekend, or maybe I'll take it to work and shoot some ugly office buildings. I really need to see how it compares to the 16-35 before my return window closes. From the few shots I have taken, the sides and corners are a massive improvement over the Nikon.

 

[Rick M]

Looks very sharp, and good in the corners too! Congrats, I look forward to your experiences. If you get decent corners at 15mm, it's a winner!

 

[rocketman122]

My interest is with 2.8 and 4 as well. Not every lens performs well even at f8, which is why I bought this to hopefully replace the 16-35.



No time today. Hopefully next weekend, or maybe I'll take it to work and shoot some ugly office buildings. I really need to see how it compares to the 16-35 before my return window closes. From the few shots I have taken, the sides and corners are a massive improvement over the Nikon.

btw, you wouldnt even have to use a tripod if youre outdoors as the shutter speed will probably be above 1/250 with apertures of 2.8/4/5.6- you could even go to iso 800 for high shutter speeds with no affect on grain if u needed to keep the shutter high.


a wall would be best for corner sharpness assessment because the flat field for its focus would be best-thank you. if you happen to have the time. cheers!

 

[Rick M]

Something to keep in mind when evaluating wall shots with an ultra-wide is the distance to the wall from the center focus point. The extreme corners can be twice the distance from the focus point if it is placed in the center of the frame, causing "false softness" (luckily there are pills available to correct this). Make sure you find a concave wall matching the curvature of the lens .

 

[NVSteve]

btw, you wouldnt even have to use a tripod if youre outdoors as the shutter speed will probably be above 1/250 with apertures of 2.8/4/5.6- you could even go to iso 800 for high shutter speeds with no affect on grain if u needed to keep the shutter high.

The only reason I was using the tripod was to have nearly identical framing for each shot & each lens. I'll just handhold everything at my office & try to get the same spot in the crosshairs for each shot.

a wall would be best for corner sharpness assessment because the flat field for its focus would be best-thank you. if you happen to have the time. cheers!

I'll see what I can do.

 

[rocketman122]

Something to keep in mind when evaluating wall shots with an ultra-wide is the distance to the wall from the center focus point. The extreme corners can be twice the distance from the focus point if it is placed in the center of the frame, causing "false softness" (luckily there are pills available to correct this). Make sure you find a concave wall matching the curvature of the lens .

I understand what youre saying. problem is, looking at a field is not optimal to judge. theres so much happening there with grass everywhere and depth varying. doesnt show the field of focus properly.

 

[NVSteve]

Something to keep in mind when evaluating wall shots with an ultra-wide is the distance to the wall from the center focus point. The extreme corners can be twice the distance from the focus point if it is placed in the center of the frame, causing "false softness" (luckily there are pills available to correct this). Make sure you find a concave wall matching the curvature of the lens .

I had a few minutes yesterday evening to take a few shots of a corner wall off our deck. At about 4' away, the Nikon 16-35 was clearly sharper than the Tamron. And that's from the exact focus point out to the edges, same camera settings for both. Because of that, I'll shoot some at my office of a wall from both close and as far back as I can get while still keeping the whole wall in the shot. I'm hoping to try tomorrow if it isn't raining.

 

[vindex1963]

Ordered mine this morning.

 

[NVSteve]

Ordered mine this morning.

Excellent! That means you'll be able to post some real shots in this thread.

 

[NVSteve]

Here are a few I took today at work, both the Nikon 16-35 and the Tamron 15-30 (scroll down-look for walls and parking lots): https://www.flickr.com/photos/nvsteve/sets/72157635357890980/

I'm only going to post 2 of them here. No processing was done on these whatsoever aside from conversion to jpg. All I did was stand in one spot, aim at one spot on the wall and fire away while changing apertures.

Nikon 16-35 at 16mm/f4:

Tamron 15-30 at 15mm/f2.8:

 

[vindex1963]

Excellent! That means you'll be able to post some real shots in this thread.

You too!! Look what you do with the other lenses you sir make them shine.

 

[Marcel]

What I find strange with NVSteve's last post (16-35 vs 15-35) is that the shot done with the 16-35 shows a wider field of view than the 15-35... Could it be that the 15-35 is not what it says it is?

 

[NVSteve]

What I find strange with NVSteve's last post (16-35 vs 15-35) is that the shot done with the 16-35 shows a wider field of view than the 15-35... Could it be that the 15-35 is not what it says it is?

That's exactly why I prefer doing these types of things with a tripod. I took shots with the 16-35, then walked over to my car & changed lenses to the Tamron. I doubt that I was standing in the exact same spot for each round, thus the visual difference. The shots of the wall were from about 6' away. I posted the 2 samples above because I was so impressed with how much better the Tamron did at 15/f2.8 compared to the Nikon at 16/f4. I'm not going to be able to post any other samples until June, but I expect Vindex will be posting some great Arizona shots soon.

 

[vindex1963]

That's exactly why I prefer doing these types of things with a tripod. I took shots with the 16-35, then walked over to my car & changed lenses to the Tamron. I doubt that I was standing in the exact same spot for each round, thus the visual difference. The shots of the wall were from about 6' away. I posted the 2 samples above because I was so impressed with how much better the Tamron did at 15/f2.8 compared to the Nikon at 16/f4. I'm not going to be able to post any other samples until June, but I expect Vindex will be posting some great Arizona shots soon.

I sure hope so.

 

[NVSteve]

It's fine that Tamron doesn't include a lens case with any of their new lenses, but they should at least suggest a make and model of one that will work. I'd almost prefer going to the dentist over trying to find a lens case. With both caps on, the 15-30 measure 4" wide and 6.5" tall. The Pearstone Onyx 50 case I have, which fits both the 24-120 and 16-35, has interior measurements of about 4.2" x 5" which is fine in the width, yet too short. The closest case I've found is the Pearstone Onyx 100, which is about 4.125" x 6". Don't know if I'll get around to ordering one soon or not, but I'll certainly post my findings.

 

[vindex1963]

It's fine that Tamron doesn't include a lens case with any of their new lenses, but they should at least suggest a make and model of one that will work. I'd almost prefer going to the dentist over trying to find a lens case. With both caps on, the 15-30 measure 4" wide and 6.5" tall. The Pearstone Onyx 50 case I have, which fits both the 24-120 and 16-35, has interior measurements of about 4.2" x 5" which is fine in the width, yet too short. The closest case I've found is the Pearstone Onyx 100, which is about 4.125" x 6". Don't know if I'll get around to ordering one soon or not, but I'll certainly post my findings.

I use Lowepro camera bags and lens cases exclusively because of air travel and how very well made they are.

Lowepro | Search

 

[vindex1963]

I should have linked this.

Lowepro | Find the best camera bag with Lowepro Bagfinder