Had this lens for over a month now and for the money, it is a steal, it completely blew away my much loved Nikon 16-35 VR f4. At 5.6 up to f13, it is amazingly sharp on my Nikon D810.
I recently purchased this lens and did so prior to seeing your review. I bought it to replace a 20-year-old Tokina 19-35 f3.5-4.5 that developed mechanical issues. I like the lens so far and agree with many of your comments. I very much enjoyed the thoroughness and professionalism of your review and I look forward to seeing more of your work. Well done!
Thanks for this review! This lens also has filter threads for regular filters, right? I think that's a huge advantage over the Tamron 15-35 or Nikon 14-24 since filter systems for those lenses cost about as much as a new lens itself.
Yes, should be 77mm threads. Putting a filter on a 15-30 is a series undertaking, though the folks at Nisi do have you covered should you go that route.
So how does it compare to the 15-30 G2 for landscape? Does the difference justifies the weight difference? The price difference? (Because in the end the line, going from 459g to 1100g isn't nothing when you're going to carry it for your landscape photography.)
It can be frustrating, completely true, but it's also worth reflecting that since the FE mount is only about four years old this is, to my knowledge, the fastest that a lens system has ever been developed. I'm sure the Tamron lens system will grow and I'm really excited to see how that happens.
SwitchRich Why is it frustrating? The Sony/Zeiss 16-35mm f/4 is universally regarded as a great lens and can be found on sale for close to $1,000. The Sony 16-35mm GM is the best f/2.8 wide angle zoom that exists for any FF camera. And if you’re on a budget, Canon’s 16-35mm f/4 adapts quite well, and I’d be shocked if this Tamron didn’t adapt even better. As far as wide primes go the options are endless. Try pining for native mount lenses on Nikon’s 3-lens Z cameras, or Canon’s 4-lens “Revolution” mount (neither of which can adapt lenses either).
It would seem that any of the faults such as curvature, CA and the like, could all be easily corrected in Adobe Camera Raw with a single button click. I think people are placing too much attention on silly things like these instead of spending their energy on creating interesting images.
Agreed. In the end, achieving impactful visual art is not about pristine optical quality. The old quote from Fancis Bacon is perfect when discussing the lenses that we ACTUALLY use, "There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion."
You know, that's exactly what I expected to say. But I was wrong. It's not great for $600, but just great. I'm so glad I put the hypothesis to the test.
It's not. Apertures, especially with modern lenses, are made to be silent for video work. Now, are you sure it's the aperture and not a noisy stabilizer? That's not good either, but can be solved by turning the stabilizer off.
Tom, thanks for the question. In fact, there are no markings on the focusing ring on this lens. Definitely a downside in design for me, but not a major one.
@@CameraLessonsOnline thanks for that hope you dont mind im only new to the Nikon system do you have a tutorial on how to use this lens for astro work set up ??
Tom, thanks for the question. I don't have a video on that subject yet. I'm finishing up two videos right now and I'll try to tackle astro set up in a future video soon. I'll move it to the head of my list. I'll respond again when it's up so you know.
Tom, I've made a video on settings for astro work, hopefully you'll find it helpful. As for the lens portion, you'll want to focus to infinity with the lens and then slightly pull it back from the end of the barrel (in manual focus, naturally). I've found this to work for my night sky work. With some lenses, this included, focusing to the end of the barrel isn't as good as pulling it just slightly back. The video will tackle the exposure aspect to the shoot. Good luck.
I don't think this is the right lens for that camera, as its built to be a wide angle for full frame and you have an APS-C camera. I'd use the 10-24mm instead.
This review is far too long, really most people are more interested in the image quality, so you need to be more concise otherwise spend more time of illustrating the image quality.
You make a reasonable point. I believe that understanding the experience of using a lens is as important as the technical specifications. With that said, I'd like to put something on the screen rather than my face, so I'll endeavor to put more example images up as I go.
