[Rover]

Oops... I missed that. Thanks. I forgot that DPR evaluated it... must've gotten used to the fact that DPR doesn't do lens reviews anymore.

[Brightcolours]

It is just a very good lens... Beats the Nikkor in certain areas. The Canon 11-24mm is a very good lens too. At 11mm it measures a bet less, but if you actually correct the CA (not "hide" it) you regain sharpness at 11mm too.

 

Basically 3 great lenses, the Canon the best with handling light, and possibly the sharpest, the Tamron the most affordable. And dropping any of them is not a great idea.

[Rover]

With this kind of front element, one should be careful. Though my 16-35 has in past suffered a fall that left it unscathed on the outside but caused strong decentering inside. Go figure.

[Studor13]

I only saw Matt Granger's review but I have to say that there are some areas where the Tamron is definitely better.

 

For example, I can vouch that lens flare is a big problem on the Nikon.

 

However, there are two things (three actually) that will make the Nikon a keeper for me.

 

1. 14mm is wider than 15mm

There is a big difference between 14mm and 16mm. I have the 16-35mm f4 which I use quite a bit because it can take filters. Sure, I can get an adapter for the 14-24 but the costs are ridiculous. 15mm may not be a big difference to 14mm for a lot of people but that extra 1mm is what you are paying for.

 

2. The 14-24mm Nikon has worked flawlessly for me in some pretty hard conditions. I have used it in mid winter where it was left for 2 hour+ time-lapse stuff. Would the Tamron work over a number of cold winters? Maybe, maybe not.

 

3. I buy most my stuff second hand. I paid 1200€ for the 14-24mm, so that is about the same cost of a new Tamron.

 

If I didn't already have the Nikon I would seriously think about getting the Tamron, though.

 

 

[Brightcolours]

Both nice photos, Studor13.

[JJ_SO]

Studor13, in the DPreview comparison the Tamron looked worse in terms of flare.



 

In this particular situation I was surprised to see the Nikon as winner. That wouldn't have been my guess.

 

I think it's hard to beat a Zeiss 15/2.8 in terms of flare resistance. In this discipline the Zeiss' shine. Did you remove the flare in your second picture?

 

Great view of Bohinj, by the way, like it very much. Do you have already snow? I saw the first bits on the ridge this morning.

[borisbg]

If Matt Granger and DPReview don't count as "major".... Hmmm.

How about lenstip then?
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.lenstip.com/432.11-Lens_review-Tamron_15-30_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Summary.html">http://www.lenstip.com/432.11-Lens_review-Tamron_15-30_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Summary.html</a>

"If I had to choose a winner of that duel I would point at the Tamron but I have to say it was only slightly better."



Or Cameralabs?
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Tamron_SP_15-30mm_f2-8_Di_VC_USD/verdict.shtml">http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Tamron_SP_15-30mm_f2-8_Di_VC_USD/verdict.shtml</a>

"This Nikkor earned a Highly Recommended rating in my review but even its very good image quality is surpassed by the Tamron in almost every comparison."


Another "individual" photographer:
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://improvephotography.com/33254/tamron-15-30mm-f2-8-review-my-new-favorite-landscape-lens/">http://improvephotography.com/33254/tamron-15-30mm-f2-8-review-my-new-favorite-landscape-lens/</a>

"If that wasn’t clear enough, I’ll put it this way. I used to own a Nikon 14-24mm and a Nikon 16-35mm. I still own a Tamron 15-30."

BC, you've taken LensTip comment a litle out of context. Their recomendation based on price/performance/waranty ratio. It is not based on pure performance. Here is what they say for built quality for example: "Unfortunately some other parts of the inner tube are revealed in the process, including plates with electronic components. Seeing them you cannot even start talking about the lens being air-tight or sealed properly…"

Don't get me wrong, If I am on the market now I would probly take the Tamron, or follow Studor13 steps.

BTW it is too early to write off the Nikon, it's a great lens for whoever can afford it.

[Studor13]

Studor13, in the DPreview comparison the Tamron looked worse in terms of flare.

 

In this particular situation I was surprised to see the Nikon as winner. That wouldn't have been my guess.

 

I think it's hard to beat a Zeiss 15/2.8 in terms of flare resistance. In this discipline the Zeiss' shine. Did you remove the flare in your second picture?

 

Great view of Bohinj, by the way, like it very much. Do you have already snow? I saw the first bits on the ridge this morning.

 

Hey Jo,

 

I didn't find the Dpreview but I am just going on what Matt G found and also from my experience.

 

The Nikon 14-24mm wil flare even when the sun is not even in the frame. Of course, this may also be the case with the Tamron.

 

The problem I get is often like the example below. I had to mess around a fair bit to get rid of most of the flare.

 

As for your questions:

1. I didn't remove the flare in the second image of the original post. Actually, the Nikon seems to be moon-flare resistance. Well, you know, the light of the moon setting in mid winter is not that strong.

 

2. No snow as yet. Just a lot of rain.

[JJ_SO]

Stupid me! Didn't recognize the moon. Nonetheless, great picture. Also, good job in retouching the flares. It's really not so easy to get an ultra wide with well damped flare, and the Zeiss 21 or 15 are the closest to my desire how it should look like. And far away from my budget  :unsure:

 

If I see Tamron's flares, I don't think to have a reason for changing my wide-angle boat.