Tamron SP AFA012C700 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Wide-Angle Lens for Canon EF Cameras

My review title might seem like a knock on this lens. On the contrary, it's more a testament to how good competitive lenses are. I have owned the Nikon 14-24, Nikon 18-35G, and Tokina 16-28mm. The 14-24 is tremendous and unequaled from 14-20mm, but someone offered me a good price, and I foolishly decided to give it up. I still have the 18-35 and the Tokina. Both lenses are amazing in their own ways but have flaws. The "cheap" Nikon has amazingly consistent across-the-frame IQ but doesn't go wide enough, whereas the Tokina is wide enough, but has weak corners. Both lenses are superb by f/8. In short, the Tamron is better than both...just.Ergonomically, this lens is a beast. It is heavy and huge--bigger in fact than both the Nikon 14-24 and Tokina. Not long ago, I would have rejected it due to its size alone. However, it balances nicely at the end of my D800E, and both the zoom and focus rings, though somewhat stiff, move smoothly and precisely. The lens has markings for 15, 18, 20, 24, and 30mm, so it's easy to dial in your desired focal length. Impressively, the EXIF data is consistent with the external markings, so there's no need to hunt (unlike with the 18-35 or the Sigma 24-105) for a specific FL. Interestingly, the fields of view (FOV) for given focal lengths were very close between the three tested lenses. None of the lenses were extra wide or extra long for a given focal length. I found this reassuring. I did not test the vibration control (VC). All shutter speeds were kept high enough not to make a difference. All shots taken were handheld.As stated before, the IQ is very close between the lenses. I really had to pixel peep to see differences, but there were indeed differences. The Tamron did dominate in the area of chromatic aberration. It was much better controlled than either of the other two lenses. The Tamron also seems to handle distortion better (some barrel distortion at 15mm), although my distortion test was hardly rigorous. For IQ, the Tamron is much better than the Tokina at f/2.8. The Tamron has very good sharpness and contrast wide open and gets better stopped down. The Tokina is weak wide open but gets real sharp and contrasty stopped down. Arguably, the Tokina is sharper in the center at f/4 and f/5.6 under 24mm, but there's hardly a sheet of paper between the two lenses. However, the Tokina's advantage/similarity dissipates rapidly away from the center where the Tamron is much better. The Tokina is just soft near the edges, and the Tamron is better here. By f/8, the Tokina has acceptable edges, but the Tamron is still better. This pattern is true throughout the FL range. However, the Tokina's center IQ falls off noticeably at 24 and above. It's not bad, but again the Tamron is better.The Nikon 18-35 is much more competitive on the IQ front, but has the 3mm disadvantage at the wide end (hugely significant), and the variable max apertures are non-starters for many (this deficiency does not bother me much). The Nikon has strong edges and corners and wide open is better in the corners than the Tamron. However, the Tamron catches up in the corners when stopped down to f/4 (at FLs of 18-24mm) and is marginally sharper in the center. Note, that due to field curvature and other optical anomalies, the Nikon was sharper in some parts of the image and especially in (some) of the far corners. The Nikon is just that good. But the Tamron over all was sharper especially at and near the center. At 30mm the Tamron is at its weakest. Wide open, the Nikon is much better. However, the Nikon is f/4.5 wide open at 30mm to the Tamron's f/2.8. Stopping the Tamron down to f/4.5 pulls it even with the Nikon. I frankly could not tell the difference in the center, and other parts of the image were mixed.All-in-all the Tamron won the competition, but it did break a sweat. It's a keeper because I shoot in low light, and it will be great having a usable f/2.8 (I do not consider that aperture usable on the Tokina for anything other than emergencies), and its better CA handling is welcome. The improvement in edge/corner performance relative to the Tokina is also welcome. However, if you are on a budget, and don't really need a strong f/2.8, 15mm and/or VC, the Nikon 18-35mm is a very compelling alternative. You really don't give up much at all in IQ. If you need at least 16mm and/or f/2.8 and can't afford the Tamron, then the Tokina won't disappoint you. However, if you want the best sub-$1500 UWA lens, even if you'll rarely see the difference, then by all means get the Tamron.

Perfect lens for the price. I have used it for real estate photography and the wide angle gives me just the range and clarity I need.

For a long time, Sony alpha mount has struggled with the lack of great lens options at ultra-wide-angle. There is no newer ultra-wide-angle prime underneath the excellent 24 mm f2.0 Zeiss, and all of the shorter focal length primes are legacy primes from Minolta, With no indications that Sony is going to rectify this deficit. Adding insult to injury, Sigma is not making any of their superb ultra-wide-angle Art primes available in Sony Alpha mount. They are also not releasing their two excellent ultra-wide-angle zooms in A mount, so until this Tamron option came along, you could either ante up serious money and get the Zeiss 16-35 2.8, and if you didn't like that lens, couldn't afford it, or you wanted primes and not a zoom, you were just plain SOL.Although this lens does not solve the prime deficit under 24 mm, it does give you an alternative to the Zeiss 16-35, and actually one that is optically better and sharper than that rather expensive lens ($2250). For half that price, you actually get a better lens, losing only hybrid autofocus options on the Sony Alpha 99 II – and perhaps some cachet value in giving up that snazzy blue badge.PROS:1) Very sharp, especially from 15-24 mm. Quite sharp even wide-open, with great sharpness over the entire frame by the time you get to F5.6. A little bit softer at the long end like almost all zooms, but with excellent central sharpness and very good behavior at the borders and even in the corners through a broad range of focal lengths.2) A great value for the money – it replaces potentially three expensive native mount primes (15 mm, 20 mm and 24 mm – two of which don't even exist!). Way cheaper than the Zeiss 16-35 – which is its only competition on alpha mount.3) Good control over vignetting, particularly again relative to the Zeiss.4) Becomes pretty optically neutral in the middle of its range from about 20 to 24 mm with little barrel or pincushion distortion.5) Minimal chromatic aberrations, again notably less than the Zeiss particularly at its wide end.CONS:1) big and heavy.2) bulbous front element means you will need supersized filter if you want to put filters on this.3) No hybrid autofocus on Sony alpha 99 II.4) significant barrel distortion at 15 mm – but easily removed by most postprocessing programs, but since it is not a native Sony lens you do not get automatic JPEG correction of this issue – a little bit more work in other words.Take-home message – if you shoot nature scenes and landscapes, architecture or interiors, this is your best option if you have a Sony alpha mount camera.

So far this is not looking good. The first copy was clearly an open box and upon examination was soft on the right half of the frame (tested on 2 different bodies). The second copy was far worse- completely beyond soft to downright blurry on the left side. I've read that Tamron uses it's clients for QC and I'm now wondering if this might be true. I've also considered that their lenses might not be durable enough to survive normal shipping or that these might be part of a bad batch. Number three will either be a charm or I'm back to Canon or Sigma. I'll revise this review if #3 works as well as dpreview made it out to be.