[mst]

Just uploaded sample images to SmugMug:

https://photozone.smugmug.com/Reviews/Ta...530-vc-fx/

-- Markus

[JJ_SO]

Innsbruck and Geneva... you could have met THXBB12    Appears to be worth the price, that lens. Very nice rendering, and not remotely as sensitive to frontlight as Nikon's 14-24/2.8. About sidelight is nothing to say, if I didn't miss the sidelight sample. Anyway it's a massive piece of lens.

 

Could anybody please make a shootout of the current ultra-WWs?  ^_^

[davidmanze]

Yes, a great competitively priced lens which renders well....except the onion bokeh!

 

 It will be interesting to see if it manifests itself in the Zone's set scene test!

[southerncross]

Great photos. The first one was interesting for me, you really can get some depth queues at f/2.8. Pixel peeping was way more satisfying with this Tamron compared to APC sized ultrawides. 

 

The out of focus quality seems good to me for an ultrawide, it is quite smooth. I am not an expert on these things but at least is not questionable, sometimes bad bokeh really ruins photos. 

 

I am very impressed with Tamron lately, at least Pentax will get great rebranded zoom lenses for K-1. The era of cheap lenses has ended years ago. Somehow I feel a little sad seeing the whole phtography industry becoming a niche again. 

[Rover]

Moar!

[BasilG]

Markus, would it be possible to get a flare resistance comparison between the Nikon 14-24/2.8, this Tarmon (15-30/2.8), the Laowa 12/2.8 (with a sample that they think performs normally) and the Irix 15/2.4? And maybe the Samyang 14/2.8? That would be awesome.

[Klaus]

Aaarggh, don't tell him to do that. He's easily distracted ... ;-)

[BasilG]

Aaarggh, don't tell him to do that. He's easily distracted ... ;-)

 

Well, you know... This is one of the characteristics I care most about in an ultrawide. I don't really mind a bit of distortion or somewhat lower corner sharpness. But if I get an ugly flare blob every time I shoot into the sun, the lens is useless for my use.

[mst]

Short answer: no

Longer answer: I'd probably struggle to find a fair way of testing flare with different lenses. Most lenses do flare, but the amount and shape of flare depends on the angle of light. So, given a certain light setup, lens A might flare, but B does not, while at a slightly different light angle things might be vice versa.

I prefer to just go out and shoot, and whenever possible I do of course shoot in backlight conditions, too, and then play around with the lens, looking for flare in the viewfinder while trying different angles... that usually gives a first impression if there is an issue or not.

Flare is usually only mentioned in the reviews if the lens is either very prone to flare (like the Nikkor 14-24) or exceptionally flare resistant.

To be honest, I'd prefer to stick to this approach.

Also for practical reasons: a shoot-out would require to have all the mentioned lenses at the same time. That's usually not the case here.

But since this is the Tamron thread, let me already tell: the 15-30 VC does flare (as most lenses do), but a LOT less than the Nikkor 14-24 (ok, must admit, that's an easy target).

-- Markus

[JJ_SO]

Well, you know... This is one of the characteristics I care most about in an ultrawide. I don't really mind a bit of distortion or somewhat lower corner sharpness. But if I get an ugly flare blob every time I shoot into the sun, the lens is useless for my use.

 

I agree with that, flares are really hard to come by. However I tried once to follow a tutorial of Affinity Photo to get rid of flares, I'm sure there's also some for Photoshop users, and at least parts of the worst effects went into less attention. So, good thing to save a shot, pain in the ass to save all frontlight shots as it really needs time and individual care.

 

As for sharpness or also contrast: Due to different sensors, I use a Sigma dp 0 with 14 mm lens if I want maximum sharpness - but I leave it in the bag as soon as front light is involved as the sensor can't handle this kind of contrast.

 

 

I also would appreciate if the new Sigma 12-24 would be part of this test, but it's not available, I'm afraid. On second thought: On the timeline Marcus is doing tests, it just might become available in time