Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD. Thoughts?
- Thread starter Dawg Pics
- Start date
Fred Kingston
Senior Member
I shouldn't ask this... But, why is that lens $600 for a Canon mount and $1300 for a Nikon mount?
TwistedThrottle
Senior Member
I have the G1 and its stellar! Just make sure you use it on a full frame to get the best experience. The Tokina 11-16 is better for crop, its lighter and has a pinch cap plus its almost undistinguishably just as sharp. That's assuming there is no need for vibration reduction. If I may, a bit of a disgruntled grumble. The G1 will not autofocus on the Z system. It seems to work fine if your fine with manual focus, but my trust has been broken and don't really enjoy using it on the z even though most night shots are done without the aid of autofocus. It was made for a D800 or other big body full frame camera. Fair warning, its a beast of a lens! It sucks to carry around not only because of the weight, but also the lens cap. Its not like a pinch cap. It just slides over the lens petals and magic keeps it from falling off. Mine never has, but that's mostly because I'm super paranoid that it'll drop off unknowingly and damage the front element so I'm constantly checking to make sure its still on.
As for the price, no idea other than I've heard the Nikon is sharper. Curious though that the Canon version has a slot for itty bitty filters near the rear element, whereas the Nikon version has none and you need to invest in a 150mm square filter system, if that's your thing.
As for the price, no idea other than I've heard the Nikon is sharper. Curious though that the Canon version has a slot for itty bitty filters near the rear element, whereas the Nikon version has none and you need to invest in a 150mm square filter system, if that's your thing.
Dawg Pics
Senior Member
Dawg Pics
Senior Member
Thanks @TwistedThrottle
I have a D500. At some point, I may end-up with a full frame as well.
VR isn't important because I will probably be using a tripod for the nightscape images. Looking for a reasonably priced lens with decent contrast.
I have a D500. At some point, I may end-up with a full frame as well.
VR isn't important because I will probably be using a tripod for the nightscape images. Looking for a reasonably priced lens with decent contrast.
Last edited:
Don Kuykendall raved about his Tokina 11-16mm lens.
It looks like there was at least one previous version to this lens. Here's a link to the current one. Can you tell we all like to shop for someone else?!!
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1512055-REG/tokina_atx_i_af116cfn_atx_i_11_16mm_f_2_8_cf.html
But sorry - no clue about the Tamron lens which is what you're leaning towards.
It looks like there was at least one previous version to this lens. Here's a link to the current one. Can you tell we all like to shop for someone else?!!
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1512055-REG/tokina_atx_i_af116cfn_atx_i_11_16mm_f_2_8_cf.html
But sorry - no clue about the Tamron lens which is what you're leaning towards.
Peter7100
Senior Member
Don Kuykendall raved about his Tokina 11-16mm lens.
It looks like there was at least one previous version to this lens. Here's a link to the current one. Can you tell we all like to shop for someone else?!!
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1512055-REG/tokina_atx_i_af116cfn_atx_i_11_16mm_f_2_8_cf.html
But sorry - no clue about the Tamron lens which is what you're leaning towards.
I have the previous version and from what I could find out there doesn’t appear to be any noticeable difference in results between them. The older one does not have a built in focus motor should that be an issue for anyone.
Fred Kingston
Senior Member
I'd buy the Tokina looooong before I'd ever consider a Tamron.
TwistedThrottle
Senior Member
I think there are 3 versions that I am aware of. The first has silver accents, the second has gold accents and the third and current version changed the grips to horizontal lines instead of rectangles. I dont think they changed the optics in any of them. Screw drive for the first version, a built in motor for the second and better weather sealing and better lens coating on the front element for the third.
Another disgruntled grumble. The Tokina works great on my D800 in full frame mode at 16mm without vignette. I cant do that on the Z6. The camera forces the crop and I loose pixels by using that lens on that body.
I have both and I still cant decide if I need both. In fact, I also picked up the 14-30 for the Z as well and am no better off deciding what lens needs to stay. There are drawbacks of each that the others shines at. As long as I have a crop body though, the 11-16 stays.
Peter7100
Senior Member
I would second that, given my eperience with Tamron.
Me too only because of Tamron's issues with their 70-200mm f/2.8 and their 150-600mm variable aperture lens. Back when I purchased my first Nikon SLR, I couldn't afford Nikon glass so had a choice between Sigma and Tamron. Two friends had some type of Tamron 28-70mm zooms. Honestly I wasn't impressed with the performance which is why I opted to go with the Sigma. But compared with today's lenses, even that Sigma was subpar.
Dawg Pics, no matter what you choose, I hope you will look at images taken with it. You should be able to find images on Flickr and possibly 500px. And Amazon and B&H for sure.
Bikerbrent
Senior Member
I will third that :cheerful:
Bikerbrent
Senior Member
I whole agree with hark on the Tamron issues. I owned two Tamron lenses in the past. The first one was a 28-70mm lens, which failed during a vacation trip shortly after purchase. Yes, Tamron fixed it under warranty, but it did put a dent in my vacation and it was never that sharp. The only other Tamron lens I had was a 200-400mm lens, and it was never that sharp, particularly with some of my newer Nikon DLSR cameras. I have since gotten rid of both lenses. I also have a Sigma 150-600mm C lens and I am very happy with it. At this time, I have some faith in the newer Sigma lenses, but no faith in Tamron lenses. All of the other lenses I own are either Nikon or Tokina, all of which I am very happy with.
bluzman
Senior Member
I too own and am very happy with my Sigma lenses. They're used on my D7500.
I also own these Tamron lenses. I acquired them (along with the Tap-In console) to replace the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 kit lens that came with my D750. I've had no issues with either and am quite happy with their performance.
- SIGMA 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Contemporary
- SIGMA 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Contemporary
- SIGMA 100-400mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary
I also own these Tamron lenses. I acquired them (along with the Tap-In console) to replace the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 kit lens that came with my D750. I've had no issues with either and am quite happy with their performance.
- Tamron AF 17-35mm F/2.8-4 Di OSD
- Tamron AF 35-150mm F/2.8-4 Di VC OSD
Dawg Pics
Senior Member
Hey all,
Thanks for the feedback.
I do have a question for those who understand optics or just experienced users of lenses. Sharpness and contrast of a lens go hand in hand? So can you have a sharp lens that has less than desirable contrast? In low light, a low contrast scene, having a lens that already has poor contrast would be an issue, no? OR does it matter at all since the scene is already low contrast? Sounds like logic, but I am often wrong.
@hark I have looked at many images on Flickr.
I have a Tamron, that I loved on my D300. I don't know that I have used it that much on the D500, but it has been a great lens for me. It has been my favorite of the few lenses I own. I am no pro, so take that for what it is.
The only issues that I have seen mentioned is CA and flare, but I that hasn't been a consensus among users. I have an expensive Sigma 50-150 that has lots of CA, so I don't use it much. I can process it out, but it just bugs me that there is that much CA to deal with in post.
Thanks again, everybody.
Thanks for the feedback.
I do have a question for those who understand optics or just experienced users of lenses. Sharpness and contrast of a lens go hand in hand? So can you have a sharp lens that has less than desirable contrast? In low light, a low contrast scene, having a lens that already has poor contrast would be an issue, no? OR does it matter at all since the scene is already low contrast? Sounds like logic, but I am often wrong.
@hark I have looked at many images on Flickr.
I have a Tamron, that I loved on my D300. I don't know that I have used it that much on the D500, but it has been a great lens for me. It has been my favorite of the few lenses I own. I am no pro, so take that for what it is.
The only issues that I have seen mentioned is CA and flare, but I that hasn't been a consensus among users. I have an expensive Sigma 50-150 that has lots of CA, so I don't use it much. I can process it out, but it just bugs me that there is that much CA to deal with in post.
Thanks again, everybody.
Last edited:
Peter7100
Senior Member
I would think that will come down to each individual’s perspective. In general the lens with the best microcontrast are likely to be the more expensive ones. I have viewed some stunning examples from a Carl Zeiss.
However I recall watching some videos on YouTube where ‘The Angry Photographer’ was reviewing lenses and talking about the microcontrast qualities of a particular lens and stating that sharpness wasn’t everything.
If you search for him along with ‘microcontrast’ there are many videos on the subject.
I have only one Tamron lens. Isold my Nikkor 14-24 2.8 to get a 15-30 2.8 G2.. The handling, solid build, excellent VR, and optics really impressed me. Maybe they got their act together since the problematic lenses mentioned were built.Ihave tried the 70-200 2.8 G2 and almost bought one just before the lockdowns started, temporarily negating the need for one.
The convenient Tap-In" console makes updating firmware and setting many calibration points instead of the one available in Nikon.
The convenient Tap-In" console makes updating firmware and setting many calibration points instead of the one available in Nikon.