Tamron 15-30/2.8 released

I do agree with you that Tamron's latest lenses are pushing the price envelope a little too much. I was considering the 24-70 VC as an alternative walk around lens to the 24-120 or 24-85. I guess it should be compared to the Nikon 24-70, against which the Tamron looks relatively affordable. However, $1200 for a third party mid zoom is simply too rich for my blood.

brianric said:

chipmaster said:

What if.. they do match for IQ, QC and then have additional features like VC that while not necessarily a must but nice and cheaper too?

Click to expand...

I shoot events, mainly for the American Cancer Society. When it comes to the Luminaria Cermony at a Relay for Life event VC at f/2.8 is a must, unless you like lugging a tripod with you.

Click to expand...

I've been thinking of selling my venerable Nikon 24-70. Sure it focus fast, has the gold label, likely can sell it on a day for 1250... But it is could/should be better on the D810 wide open.

For less I can get a similar IQ, 5 year warranty and VC for less... hmmm... I am the kind of guy Tamron is teasing

VC will let me shoot say 1/15 or less at 2.8 and drop my ISO a couple stops, not a bad thing even with the D810.

thelenspainter said:

I do agree with you that Tamron's latest lenses are pushing the price envelope a little too much. I was considering the 24-70 VC as an alternative walk around lens to the 24-120 or 24-85. I guess it should be compared to the Nikon 24-70, against which the Tamron looks relatively affordable. However, $1200 for a third party mid zoom is simply too rich for my blood.

Click to expand...

Only too rich if it doesn't perform. If it matches 99% of IQ and similar focus etc. etc. how much of a loss is it that you can't get back more than 70% of the retail when you resale it if you need to?

Windancer said:

GlobalGuyUSA said:

You can question all you like, its fair play (we learn from each others techniques that are shared, after all ). But yes, especially on a D810 you would worry about diffraction at f/16 -- but it doesn't mean that you wouldn't shoot there under some circumstances. Keep in mind, you can't get rid of diffraction, but you can optically control it so that its least physically possible.

Click to expand...

Thanks......I tend to shoot my macro work at F8 or F11 and maybe F16. I would never use anything smaller. I have a Nikon 105, 60 and a 55 lenses.

Terry

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that its not just f/16 i'm talking about -- its also f/8 and f/11. The Sigma version is SHARPER at these apertures with far less diffraction. The Nikon simply isn't up to snuff by comparison (this is rhetoric, obviously its a good lens).

The weird thing about the Nikon 105 VR G is that it almost seems optimized as a portrait lens, which I'm kind of thinking was Nikon's double-purpose (at the time), because (back then) it was considered "unnecessary" for a Macro lens to have VR. So I think Nikon sorta sold it as a dual-purpose lens (quite rightfully, too).

But now VR / OS / VC is on every new macro lens above 85mm, so the VR itself (for handholding portraits) is not special. Really, we look at the levels of corrected diffraction. In case of the Sigma, it has better diffraction control.

What that means -- for you -- is that you can use f/16 without worry, whereas on the Nikon, you might worry.

sgtsalamander said:

I realize this lens has VC and a very nice range, but reviews suggest that if you're not buying the Nikon 14-24, the Tokina 16-28 is a very good alternative. I bought the Tokina and think it lives up to its reputation. Additionally, its cost is nowhere near the Tamrons cost. In Canada, the 16-28 cost me just over $800. I don't think it's worth the extra $400 for the 1 mm on the bottom end, nor the 2 mm on the top end of the Tamron, but that's just me. Frankly I was a little shocked at the price when I saw it. I figured I was going to be disappointed by not waiting for the Tamron to come out. Now I'm happy I didn't. If I hadn't bought the Tokina, I'd save my pennies for the Nikon, since it can often be found on sale for "only" 400-500 more than the Tamron. I think Tamron may be riding high on the demand from the other good lenses they are producing and pushing the price envelope a little too much. Like I said, my opinion only.

Click to expand...

I am positive about Tokina 16-28 as well. I have seen quite a few samples of that lens over here in this forum as well. Looks like a decent lens with an excellent value. I am open to all options. I ordered Nikon 16-35/4 about six months back but returned it in a few days. It is a nice sharp lens with 77 mm filter thread, but I did not like it much. The huge distortion at the wider side was one of the reasons. 16 mm is not really 16 mm after correction in that lens.

I have Nikon 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR II. These two lenses are really great in my D800E. No complain (except a little bit CA in 24-70). 24 mm is wide enough for me except in a few important cases. Yes, the very nice range and VC are appealing in this Tamron. But ultimately, its the image quality - I am waiting for. If IQ goes close to 14-24, I am for it. If not, then other options. I am hearing positive comments on 18-35 variable aperture, Nikon 20 mm/1.8 G (holding because I may need wider than 20 mm,) and the Tokina you are suggesting. I am not in rush. Waiting to see how this Tamron actually fares out in in IQ. If nothing else, I will save save a little more and swallow the 14-24 heavy pill, may be next year for excellent image quality.

This 15-30mm is interesting, but too bad it's longer and heavier than the 14-24mm and also lacks filter thread.

Denis

PSCL1 said:

Can't understand why anyone is spending 4 figures on third-party glass. IMO one should be in the Nikon system for its lenses. Buy a 16-35 f4 instead, if you can't afford the 14-24 2.8. Then we won't be reading threads on how disappointed the Tammy purchasers will be.

Click to expand...

Thats the Nikon 16-35 that loses a full stop to the Tamron throughout the range and has very poor distortion at the wide end for a lens in its class?

RightLight said:

PSCL1 said:

Can't understand why anyone is spending 4 figures on third-party glass. IMO one should be in the Nikon system for its lenses. Buy a 16-35 f4 instead, if you can't afford the 14-24 2.8. Then we won't be reading threads on how disappointed the Tammy purchasers will be.

Click to expand...

Haven't you heard anything about how Sigma and Tamron changing the playing field with quality recently? Actually, I don't understand why one should stick with Nikon (or Canon) if third party offer quality, and in most cases for lower price. It may not be perfect but paradigm is shifting.

We have yet to see the reviews of the lens in question here. It is just curiosity for the quality in that price. I have Nikon 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR II. As I am not a pro, I am finding it hard to justify $2000 for Nikon brand for the wider part, which I may use only occasionally. If nothing else, I might get one - but I am open to getting a third party lens if it produces quality images.

Click to expand...

+1

RightLight said:

PSCL1 said:

Can't understand why anyone is spending 4 figures on third-party glass. IMO one should be in the Nikon system for its lenses. Buy a 16-35 f4 instead, if you can't afford the 14-24 2.8. Then we won't be reading threads on how disappointed the Tammy purchasers will be.

Click to expand...

Haven't you heard anything about how Sigma and Tamron changing the playing field with quality recently? Actually, I don't understand why one should stick with Nikon (or Canon) if third party offer quality, and in most cases for lower price. It may not be perfect but paradigm is shifting.

Click to expand...

Quite obviously some people still living in stone age thinking 3rd party = garbage. LOL. I personally own bunch of 3rd party "junks" like Zeiss, Sanyang and Sigma Art lesnes, as well as the 16-35 F4 VR and 14-24, and the one I am disappoint the most was actually the Nikon 16-35.

I'm sick an tired of people perpetuating the sentiment that if something hasn't got a Nikon label on it, it's not worth a 4-figure price tag... These are the people who are fueling Nikon's conceit, these are the people who are justifying those inordinate prices and they're giving Nikon no reason to adjust their prices to remain competitive, these are the people who are supporting Nikon's approach towards updating lenses that 7-8 years old.. You guys may just be Nikon fanboys, and I am too, but if you're a professional like me, you'll understand that every time a good lens comes out, I'll have to first sell all my current lenses that the new one replaces, get new insurances, and I will have to get a few instead of just one. Please stop promoting the idea that as long as a lens or body has the Nikon label, it's justified to slap a 4-figure price tag on it... You guys are killing yourself. Wanna know why the seriously outdated Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 is almost $2000 and it doesn't even have the most recent technologies? You guys have to take the bloody blame. Think about the community before expressing such naive sentiments... Nikon is watching, and with every comment you give them one less reason to either update or lower the prices of their lenses... You know it's true..