Thanks for your review! I own this lens for Nikon, but was curious to see your take on it. I am honestly blown away by some of the images this lens has produced. It stays on my D750 more than any other one in my collection!
IMO - Kyle isn't as good as a speaker/entertainer as Chris, but the photos taken were really good. The field test (the primary focus of this particular video) is what really makes this review cool.
Unexpectedly detailed review. Great presentation with great photos. What a pleasure. Thanks, Kyle. Don't change a thing. Hope to see a lot more of you. And Jordan. wow, is so good.
Half way through I forgot I was looking at a review of the next lens I'm thinking of buying and got totally mesmerised by your amazing photos. You are hell of a gifted photographer.
I love shooting into the sun for the star burst effect but can this damage your lens? I don't have it on the sun for long. I take a shot and then review the image, then maybe a few more till i get the perfect one.
I don't think tamron is darker than canon, it has more contrast which brings more details in highlights if u look closer on the edges and not in the sky, there is no difference anyway nice review tamron is for sure great lens for all canon users and for those Nikon users who can't afford 14-24 or want the extra features of Tamron which are simply missing from Nikon
You are right but it still is very slightly darker but it should be with the extra glass and VC anyway the VC will allow you to gather 20 times more light than what is lost if your willing to lower the shutter speed anyway, its a no brainer in my opinion for canon nikon or sony.
First time I comment a review on this channel but here we go : outstanding review, really really nice one; the Tamron looks really superb and the pics you took really look amazing - good job indeed
If someone is worried about their Canon 5D3, I've used my old beat up body in moderate rain and sleet for hours at a time. Still works like a charm. It's a real work horse.
stupid question but if i want to shoot into the sun to get a sunstar effect is it safe if i'm looking at the sun in live view mode as apposed to the view finder?
Great review! I'm getting this lens in a few days to use on my D810. It'll mainly get used for wedding venue shots and real estate work. But I'm super excited to finally get wider than 24mm.
+Neverland Traders Right right right. I'm glad you know my equipment better than I do! My two D810s are imaginary. It's clear by the work on my website that I'm using beginner gear.
Great review and backed up with excellent in-field photos instead "snapshots". And comparison was nice touch as swapping between photos show the difference well. And personal opinions were well given....
being f/2.8 wouldn't this lens be better for low light situations ? like indoor or astro-photography ? I'm asking because at least for crop bodies the cheapest lens choices are not that fast (i have a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6) and it seems that the only (or biggest) reason to pay more for the f/2.8 versions is for just that, but that might not be the case for FF lenses
I really wish I could have had a few more hours and equipment with that lens and figure that out, I'm not so sure that this lets in as much light as other f2.8 ultra wides, either that or canon secretly tweaks the ISO when I put on canon lenses to make it seem brighter. Something that they have been caught doing before.
Acutely you need to compare it with Canon 16-35 F4 LIS USM, Because the old Canon 16-35 F2.8 LII USM has alot of issues and weaknesses such as soft in the edges of the Photo and distortion and vignetting
Anyone can answer thee question. But how do you get lightroom to not change the tone of the image during import. As you went to each picture i noticed that they did not change and most of them were RAW. When i import RAW they look totally different than the way i exposed them and the colors i had in the camera :/ Thanks.
This is my go to daily work horse lens for real estate photography...and it's terrific. I carry it around all day every day and although weighty it's not heavy. Better than Nikkor 14-24 IQ and much less money + stabilization for my wedding work. Great value.
+darknight92414 the lens is terrific in every way. AF accuracy isn't a concern but if you are using that wide an angle you are likely infinity focusing the vast majority of the time anyway.
Yeah but which 16-35 Canon ? I don't expect them to perform the same. How was the focus ? I used to have the 17-50 Tamron and it had iffy focus. I shoot events so I would use one of these lenses at f/2.8 in situations where there is little light and focus accuracy is paramout. Yes, even on a 14 mm lens, you can screw up the focus easily.
I found the focus to be great, when the sun set I managed to focus on Some stars (or planets) instantly, and during the darker overcast hours during the day it focused on everything I needed it to right away, nothing felt iffy about it.
Nicolaie c Canon released a recommended list for the new 5Ds. Of the 16-35 family, only the new f/4 version is on there, so Kyle's statement seems to have some truth to it ;). Interestingly, there seem to be quite a few older and / or cheaper lenses on that list, so you don't necessarily need the newest most expensive lenses to complement your 5Ds :). As for your question: I don't know if he used I or II, I just assumed it was the newer one.
interesting video except the shots that were taken, wouldnt mind if they had a longer duration so i could take in the shot and the description. Your voice has always been gentle with perfect tones that keeps the audience such as myself engaged.
This is my fav wide angle over the Canon L series hands down !!! The ONLY drawback is this thing weighs a damn kilogram but she’s well worth it !! Try the HAIDA Rear Filter system for it buddy -- it’s a game changer and doesn’t change your set up at all. A bit pricey but worth it. Great video ….albeit ancient
Beautiful informative interesting review .. thank you, now i'm certain i can buy the 15-30 tamron for my D810 since it has 36.3 MP hi resolution camera. i think it will good fit.
***** More points doesn't necessarily mean more blades. An even number of blades gives the same amount of (visible) points on a star as the amount of blades as each points is actually two points in the same place. An odd number of blades gives twice as many points as blades, so 7 blades gives 14 points, 9 blades gives 18 points in the stars.
I appreciate your review. I am a Nikon D810 shooter and have been really looking at this lens as my next one to complete a Tamron/Nikon holy trinity, LOL. That is a Tamron 70-200, Nikon 24-70, Tamron 15-30. Although I was not looking for a sharpness comparison as your video is not in 4k and the 5d III is no sharpness winner over my camera, I do however love the contrast you showed which is a HIGHLY underrated aspect in a lens. The Tamron just blew away the Canon you were using, although you displayed final edits and not RAW conversions, but still even in your final's I am guessing that you were able to push the Tamron harder on contrast in Lr because your photos show a huge difference.
Crewchief 227 I was going to do a comparison of untouched raws, but the differences were much more noticeable in the edited images, so I just went with that lest I leave the hardly noticeable differences up to youtube horrible compression, 4k or not.
I own this Tamron lens for my Nikon D810 and I LOVE it :-) I did pick it over the Nikon 14-24 2.8 mainly because of price. At the time it was about Half the cost of the Nikon. Now I will saw I own the other Two of the Nikon trinity set, the Nikon 24-70 2.8 & the Nikon 70-200 2.8VR. I am totally happy with this lens as I shoot video of events & also my dog and that's where the VR comes in handy. Personally the only lens you can compare this Tamron to is the Nikon as I feel the Nikon 14-24 is a better & sharper lens than Canons offerings.
u mm what? 24-70 is technically wide, and the sharpest out there. 16-35 f2.8, and f4 are perfectly sharp, even the 17-40 is great. Not mentioning the new 11-24. You're clearly a fan boy. The Nikon 14-24 is great no doubt, but don't discount all Canon wide glass, it's literally the only reason people stick with Canon at this point.
Optical quality is a vague term. A lot of photographers will say a lens has high RESOLVING power which is directly related to "Effective Megapixels" when paired with a camera. Using the word "resolution" with a lens basically means the lens has the ability to resolve a sensor with X amount of megapixels. Hope that helps
What was written: "With Chris on vacation, we thought it would be a great time to take a look at one of the most interesting new lenses this year" What we all understood: "With Chris on vacation, lets do something important"
This lens is the sharpnest/contrast king no doubt and the composition of each image is on point. Though I have a hard time seeing any tridimentional depth in any images; objects in focus seem to not pop out of the frame. Any 2.8 versions of 16-35 were never a corner champions to begin with and I'm sure the 16-35/4L is a good contender to this one.
Yannick Khong It's not nearly as wide angle. :) 4mm in the wide angle is a world of difference. If I want my subjects to pop, I'm not using a superwide.
What about Canon's 11-24mm lens? That may be a better comparison. Still F4 but 2x the price and much wider. I'd expect the sharpness to be closer and maybe a better all-around landscape lens.
P.s. preordered the new 35mm and 45mm f/1.8 primes with VC just based off the quality of this wide angle (SP) lens. Definitely review those if you get your hands on them
The Tamron seems really better than the Canon. However for a better comparision I should have picked the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 which is also used by Canon shooters because of the outstanding quality, In addition I would be interested why you need a VR system on an extreme wide lens?
quick observation about something you said in the review.... which is wrong, its about the star burst. the canon 8 blade vs the 9 blade tamron. The reason the tamron looks to have so many more spikes in the starburst is because it has an odd number of blades and therefore does not produce a symmetrical starburst. even a 7 blade diaphram would produce more than the canon 8 blade design.
Some people aren't liking this review as much. I enjoyed Kyle's style for a change. Instead of shooting brick walls or resolution charts, actually going out for a real world shoot to me is much more helpful. Great work.
Look at other comments - people dig them shits. Might as well Photoshop a seal (or whatever it is), the end result will be the same, if not better, 'cause I'd adjust the damn levels to make it natural.
If you are referring to the photos at the time marker you quoted, all of those are from Antarctica and taken with a single shot only and involves no HDR, no multiple exposures, no compositing and no tone mapping. They dynamic range you are seeing with the seal is created by using external off camera flash to light the subject in shadow, careful exposure and hand dodging and burning at most. I did take a photo of a fire hydrant and hdr the crap out of that for this shoot though as I've been putting Lightroom cc through its paces ;)
If you were shooting portraits or events, I'd understand the comparison against the ubiquitous football huddle lens the 16-35 f/2.8L II is. But given these were largely landscape shots, the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS should have been the lens to compare against. And no commentary about the lack of a front filter on the Tamron is a big miss. That extra mm on the wide end forced a more bulbous front element, and it cost them the landscapers in the process. Consider: no front filtering = painful aftermarket outriggers in a more expensive filter ecosystem. Any 16-35 would give you standard front filters and standard 4x6 filters, which is vital for landscapes. (And the sunstars are because Tamron went not only with more blades, but an ODD number of blades, which doubles your sunstar points.)
I really like that most of the 3rd party lens manufacturers have lifted the bar high,in some instances very high. I bet there are a few sweaty palmed Canon and Nikon lens designers out there at the moment. Nice job on the review,you mentioned a Chris,who's Chris? lol.
Phil G I hope Tamron makes lenses for Sony FE mount. I'm selling my Canon gear as I'm tired of waiting for a worthy upgrade to my Canon bodies. I really hope Canon gets knocked out by Sony with their A7R II.
I think you're probably only teasing Chris by saying you're an actual photographer, but it still bugged me. Chris takes great pics. Also, why are you shooting at such small apertures? Was your point to get the sun rays to look like that?
Really? I believe that when that cloud shifted to the left, the sunlight was able to shine brigther... Only with two cameras you can get an almost-100% sample to say: "Alright, this one is darker bla bla bla" ;) @ 6:34
Great shots from this reviewer but I prefer Chris Nichol's review by far. I like his confidence and personality. Also I kind of got annoyed at this reviewer's repeated mentioning of "Tamron was thinking about the future with this lens" etc etc. That's pretty obvious and only needs mentioning once, if at all. Every major lens manufacturer since 2010-2011 has been creating "high resolution" lenses. That's been a common trait if you've been paying attention and not just exclusive to Tamron as this review tends to imply. Canon was the first to do this in 2010 forward with the 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II. BRING CHRIS BACK!
Thanks for a review that really speaks from the photographers viewpoint first and foremost. Putting it into perspective is good. Nowadays, if you read or watch "reviews", it speaks about a lot apart from the thing you really want to know: how does it hold up in practice. A little devil in me wants to comment that this cannot be a real review since you shoot on an "inferior" Canon camera with "limited" dynamic range", so it will produce "mediocre" images. In the comments about the shots in Antarctica you cleared that up nicely ;) That's how photography is done kids, it is all about light, not your sensor.
Matt Vargo thats what I thought when I heard him say that. No need to buy all new lenses with a newer camera... in fact no need to buy new camera either. A DXO site testing, look at all these new cameras coming out for the last few years, all perform very close to each other.
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. The optics on a lot of older lenses weren't designed or meant to be on cameras with such high Megapixels. Medium Format doesn't have that issue because they have been in the high megapixels for a while now. If you don't use a sharp lens on a 5DSR for example it will be noticable if you have any sort of eye. You can't use a lens designed back when cameras maxed out at 16MP on a 50MP sensor without there being significant softness and imperfections in the shot. You can certainly edit a lot of that stuff but to say there is no impact is just denial. Even on my D800E there is a huge difference between me using an AIS lens vs a far more modern lens created after the MP increases.
![[GETLENS] Обзор TAMRON 15-30mm F/2.8 G2. Лучший сверхширик в соотношении цена/качество! G1 vs G2!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vX467ts-9lM/mqdefault.jpg)
![[GETLENS] Обзор TAMRON 15-30mm F/2.8 G2. Лучший сверхширик в соотношении цена/качество! G1 vs G2!](/img/tr.png)
Thanks for your review! I own this lens for Nikon, but was curious to see your take on it. I am honestly blown away by some of the images this lens has produced. It stays on my D750 more than any other one in my collection!
IMO - Kyle isn't as good as a speaker/entertainer as Chris, but the photos taken were really good. The field test (the primary focus of this particular video) is what really makes this review cool.
I actually really enjoyed listening to Kyle. Learned a lot.
Unexpectedly detailed review. Great presentation with great photos. What a pleasure. Thanks, Kyle. Don't change a thing. Hope to see a lot more of you. And Jordan. wow, is so good.
Nice review, Kyle. And great photos!
Half way through I forgot I was looking at a review of the next lens I'm thinking of buying and got totally mesmerised by your amazing photos. You are hell of a gifted photographer.
This is the kind of reviews i like more. Very specific in the field an photographer needs.
I love shooting into the sun for the star burst effect but can this damage your lens? I don't have it on the sun for long. I take a shot and then review the image, then maybe a few more till i get the perfect one.
Watching this video shows the value of Chris, he's irreplaceable and the heart of TheCameraStoreTV.
Kyle - great review and very informative. I hope to see you on this channel again sometime soon.
a very good review, more insightful than other reviews I have seen.
I don't think tamron is darker than canon, it has more contrast which brings more details in highlights
if u look closer on the edges and not in the sky, there is no difference
anyway nice review
tamron is for sure great lens for all canon users and for those Nikon users who can't afford 14-24 or want the extra features of Tamron which are simply missing from Nikon
You are right but it still is very slightly darker but it should be with the extra glass and VC anyway the VC will allow you to gather 20 times more light than what is lost if your willing to lower the shutter speed anyway, its a no brainer in my opinion for canon nikon or sony.
First time I comment a review on this channel but here we go : outstanding review, really really nice one; the Tamron looks really superb and the pics you took really look amazing - good job indeed
I like the review. Thank you, guys. And thank you, Kyle.
dennytenny People can't appreciate shit. They keep complaining about every single thing they see on the internet. That's sad. I agree with you, Denny.
Very good review Kyle. Well done :)
A very good review and great images picked up for checking out various characteristics of the lens..
Great review + amazing photos = very good job.
If someone is worried about their Canon 5D3, I've used my old beat up body in moderate rain and sleet for hours at a time. Still works like a charm. It's a real work horse.
Fabulous review, thank you, with some awesome inspiring photographs.Great work.
0:22 "Chris is away on vacation, so I'm here to do this, 'cause I'm a real photographer". Damn, shots fired!
stupid question but if i want to shoot into the sun to get a sunstar effect is it safe if i'm looking at the sun in live view mode as apposed to the view finder?
You have quite noticeable flare in your images shooting in the sun?
0:20 - Shots fired
+TimmyTechTV totally made me lol too
What make and model of neckstrap were you sporting in this vid, Kyle? It looks really neat.
Is the international version for this Tamron good or bad?
sir im a canon user. they said if you use third party lense its ok for years after that the qality og image downgrade. your thoughts?
Hey, great review, what is the strap that you use?
Nice bag! What's the name of it?
Great review! I'm getting this lens in a few days to use on my D810. It'll mainly get used for wedding venue shots and real estate work. But I'm super excited to finally get wider than 24mm.
+Neverland Traders Right right right. I'm glad you know my equipment better than I do! My two D810s are imaginary. It's clear by the work on my website that I'm using beginner gear.
Is this Tamron better than the Canon16-35f/4L IS for video? Even thought you can't put filters (such as a variable ND) on the Tamron?
Great review and backed up with excellent in-field photos instead "snapshots". And comparison was nice touch as swapping between photos show the difference well. And personal opinions were well given....
How does this lens work for video? Would you recommend it for my Canon 70D? Nice review by the way!
being f/2.8 wouldn't this lens be better for low light situations ? like indoor or astro-photography ? I'm asking because at least for crop bodies the cheapest lens choices are not that fast (i have a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6) and it seems that the only (or biggest) reason to pay more for the f/2.8 versions is for just that, but that might not be the case for FF lenses
I really wish I could have had a few more hours and equipment with that lens and figure that out, I'm not so sure that this lets in as much light as other f2.8 ultra wides, either that or canon secretly tweaks the ISO when I put on canon lenses to make it seem brighter. Something that they have been caught doing before.
***** still better than a f/4-5.6, right ?
Yes indeed Joe G.P. .
is this lens for FULL frame or for Crop cameras?
+imperatorMher Full frame, which is why Kyle tested it on a 5D Mark III.
Jordan @ TCSTV
+TheCameraStoreTV Thanks very much!
+TheCameraStoreTV How much of a difference is it (image quality wise) if you use a 5D Mark i instead of iii?
Great images Kyle, and I enjoyed the less hyper review!
I also enjoy Chris' reviews, but a change is nice.
Thanks Kyle excellent video/review more interesting than some of the other videos
Acutely you need to compare it with Canon 16-35 F4 LIS USM, Because the old Canon 16-35 F2.8 LII USM has alot of issues and weaknesses such as soft in the edges of the Photo and distortion and vignetting
Very nice review. Well done.
Great work. Totally prefer this review style in comparison to Chris's style.
Anyone can answer thee question. But how do you get lightroom to not change the tone of the image during import. As you went to each picture i noticed that they did not change and most of them were RAW. When i import RAW they look totally different than the way i exposed them and the colors i had in the camera :/ Thanks.
Awesome review sir. What type of camera strap are you using on your 5D III?
Incredible pictures!
Too often UWA zoom lens 'reviews' show dreary and boring photos... but these photos are excellent!
Well done Kyle.
Very nice picture Kyle!!!
This is my go to daily work horse lens for real estate photography...and it's terrific. I carry it around all day every day and although weighty it's not heavy. Better than Nikkor 14-24 IQ and much less money + stabilization for my wedding work. Great value.
with weddings how does the lens perform in terms of AF accuracy? did you notice many out of focus (when you know it should be in focus) shots??
+darknight92414 the lens is terrific in every way. AF accuracy isn't a concern but if you are using that wide an angle you are likely infinity focusing the vast majority of the time anyway.
Yeah but which 16-35 Canon ? I don't expect them to perform the same.
How was the focus ? I used to have the 17-50 Tamron and it had iffy focus. I shoot events so I would use one of these lenses at f/2.8 in situations where there is little light and focus accuracy is paramout. Yes, even on a 14 mm lens, you can screw up the focus easily.
I found the focus to be great, when the sun set I managed to focus on Some stars (or planets) instantly, and during the darker overcast hours during the day it focused on everything I needed it to right away, nothing felt iffy about it.
***** How about the focus speed, Kyle ? I know the canon lenses focus really fast and silent, is the Tamron similar in this respect ? Thanks.
Nicolaie c Canon released a recommended list for the new 5Ds. Of the 16-35 family, only the new f/4 version is on there, so Kyle's statement seems to have some truth to it ;). Interestingly, there seem to be quite a few older and / or cheaper lenses on that list, so you don't necessarily need the newest most expensive lenses to complement your 5Ds :).
As for your question: I don't know if he used I or II, I just assumed it was the newer one.
Nicola, it was so fast and silent I could hardly tell it was happening, very surprising. Sjekster it is the II.
Kyle totally blew me away with his photos. Very interesting spin on the usual reviews here at TCSTV. Great job TheCameraStoreTV and *****.
interesting video except the shots that were taken, wouldnt mind if they had a longer duration so i could take in the shot and the description.
Your voice has always been gentle with perfect tones that keeps the audience such as myself engaged.
This is my fav wide angle over the Canon L series hands down !!! The ONLY drawback is this thing weighs a damn kilogram but she’s well worth it !! Try the HAIDA Rear Filter system for it buddy -- it’s a game changer and doesn’t change your set up at all. A bit pricey but worth it. Great video ….albeit ancient
Beautiful informative interesting review .. thank you, now i'm certain i can buy the 15-30 tamron for my D810 since it has 36.3 MP hi resolution camera. i think it will good fit.
What's this like on crop sensor?
***** More points doesn't necessarily mean more blades. An even number of blades gives the same amount of (visible) points on a star as the amount of blades as each points is actually two points in the same place. An odd number of blades gives twice as many points as blades, so 7 blades gives 14 points, 9 blades gives 18 points in the stars.
Excellent review - thank you.
I appreciate your review. I am a Nikon D810 shooter and have been really looking at this lens as my next one to complete a Tamron/Nikon holy trinity, LOL. That is a Tamron 70-200, Nikon 24-70, Tamron 15-30. Although I was not looking for a sharpness comparison as your video is not in 4k and the 5d III is no sharpness winner over my camera, I do however love the contrast you showed which is a HIGHLY underrated aspect in a lens. The Tamron just blew away the Canon you were using, although you displayed final edits and not RAW conversions, but still even in your final's I am guessing that you were able to push the Tamron harder on contrast in Lr because your photos show a huge difference.
Crewchief 227 I was going to do a comparison of untouched raws, but the differences were much more noticeable in the edited images, so I just went with that lest I leave the hardly noticeable differences up to youtube horrible compression, 4k or not.
I'm currently using the Tamron 15-30 on my D810 and so far I'm very impressive even my friends are jealous because of the D810 sharpness...
I own this Tamron lens for my Nikon D810 and I LOVE it :-) I did pick it over the Nikon 14-24 2.8 mainly because of price. At the time it was about Half the cost of the Nikon. Now I will saw I own the other Two of the Nikon trinity set, the Nikon 24-70 2.8 & the Nikon 70-200 2.8VR. I am totally happy with this lens as I shoot video of events & also my dog and that's where the VR comes in handy. Personally the only lens you can compare this Tamron to is the Nikon as I feel the Nikon 14-24 is a better & sharper lens than Canons offerings.
I love mines too. D810 + Tarmon 15-30 is the best combination so far.
I want to see a comparison to nikon 14 24 2.8 with nikon d810 as well.
Great review
LOL I actually used that lens on a short film we made this year, it was quite good, loved the stabilising.
"Quite heavy and huge" Oh My!
Thanks for the review.
should've thrown in the 16-35 f4 for comparison too
u mm what? 24-70 is technically wide, and the sharpest out there. 16-35 f2.8, and f4 are perfectly sharp, even the 17-40 is great. Not mentioning the new 11-24. You're clearly a fan boy. The Nikon 14-24 is great no doubt, but don't discount all Canon wide glass, it's literally the only reason people stick with Canon at this point.
Excuse me. What is a high resolution lens? The resolution is in the sensor, not in the glass. Did you mean a lens with better optical quality?
Optical quality is a vague term. A lot of photographers will say a lens has high RESOLVING power which is directly related to "Effective Megapixels" when paired with a camera. Using the word "resolution" with a lens basically means the lens has the ability to resolve a sensor with X amount of megapixels.
Hope that helps
actually... resolution is in the lens. computer graphics actually uses the term incorrectly to mean pixel count
will this fit D7200?
What was written: "With Chris on vacation, we thought it would be a great time to take a look at one of the most interesting new lenses this year"
What we all understood: "With Chris on vacation, lets do something important"
This lens is the sharpnest/contrast king no doubt and the composition of each image is on point. Though I have a hard time seeing any tridimentional depth in any images; objects in focus seem to not pop out of the frame.
Any 2.8 versions of 16-35 were never a corner champions to begin with and I'm sure the 16-35/4L is a good contender to this one.
Yannick Khong Object in focus aren't popping out because everything is in focus, duh. It's a superwide.
Galf506 try using a nikkor 18-35G. Objects will super pop
Yannick Khong It's not nearly as wide angle. :) 4mm in the wide angle is a world of difference.
If I want my subjects to pop, I'm not using a superwide.
I agree 14 is huge Vs 18, but this lens is measured a 15.8. 2mm doesn't nearly drive people insane, mostly the speed and the need for corner detail.
great images + enjoyable video quality :)
"...because I'm a *real* photographer." Chris got burned! Lol!
Kyle took some beautiful shots!
Kyle, please do more reviews: Concise, To the point, and seem to get many perspectives covered. Liked the video!
It would be way more interesting to see a comparison with the new and both excellent Canon 16-35 f/4 IS and Canon 11-24 f/4.
What about Canon's 11-24mm lens? That may be a better comparison. Still F4 but 2x the price and much wider. I'd expect the sharpness to be closer and maybe a better all-around landscape lens.
P.s. preordered the new 35mm and 45mm f/1.8 primes with VC just based off the quality of this wide angle (SP) lens. Definitely review those if you get your hands on them
fotodiox do an adaptor for a circular 145mm screw on filter
Kyle should do more reviews.
The Tamron seems really better than the Canon. However for a better comparision I should have picked the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 which is also used by Canon shooters because of the outstanding quality, In addition I would be interested why you need a VR system on an extreme wide lens?
quick observation about something you said in the review.... which is wrong, its about the star burst. the canon 8 blade vs the 9 blade tamron. The reason the tamron looks to have so many more spikes in the starburst is because it has an odd number of blades and therefore does not produce a symmetrical starburst. even a 7 blade diaphram would produce more than the canon 8 blade design.
But Kyle you forgot to say, 'That being said...'. Joking! Great review!
Please do a RX100 mark IV review
Some people aren't liking this review as much. I enjoyed Kyle's style for a change. Instead of shooting brick walls or resolution charts, actually going out for a real world shoot to me is much more helpful. Great work.
3:43 holy HDR
Look at other comments - people dig them shits. Might as well Photoshop a seal (or whatever it is), the end result will be the same, if not better, 'cause I'd adjust the damn levels to make it natural.
leiya107 Agreed. At first I thought it was a poorly executed composite but....
and yea people love extreme HDR, Flickr is full of them.
If you are referring to the photos at the time marker you quoted, all of those are from Antarctica and taken with a single shot only and involves no HDR, no multiple exposures, no compositing and no tone mapping. They dynamic range you are seeing with the seal is created by using external off camera flash to light the subject in shadow, careful exposure and hand dodging and burning at most.
I did take a photo of a fire hydrant and hdr the crap out of that for this shoot though as I've been putting Lightroom cc through its paces ;)
Simi Tometi Doesn't even look like HDR, man are you a noob. That's just some amazing lighting.
***** Great job man, that's what I thought right away when the seal popped up. Great lighting.
Where is Struppi?
You don't need ND filters, can do it in post by using multiple shots combined.
Liked the episode. But the color seems a little bit over saturated. Especially the orange und blue tones
If you were shooting portraits or events, I'd understand the comparison against the ubiquitous football huddle lens the 16-35 f/2.8L II is. But given these were largely landscape shots, the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS should have been the lens to compare against.
And no commentary about the lack of a front filter on the Tamron is a big miss. That extra mm on the wide end forced a more bulbous front element, and it cost them the landscapers in the process. Consider: no front filtering = painful aftermarket outriggers in a more expensive filter ecosystem. Any 16-35 would give you standard front filters and standard 4x6 filters, which is vital for landscapes.
(And the sunstars are because Tamron went not only with more blades, but an ODD number of blades, which doubles your sunstar points.)
Finally, review by real photographer ;)
Well done *****
Hey we have the same backpack! Right on..
"Bokeh was about the same"
Even with youtube's shitty compression it is incredibly easy to see that the image on the right had much smoother bokeh.
I really like that most of the 3rd party lens manufacturers have lifted the bar high,in some instances very high. I bet there are a few sweaty palmed Canon and Nikon lens designers out there at the moment.
Nice job on the review,you mentioned a Chris,who's Chris? lol.
Phil G I hope Tamron makes lenses for Sony FE mount. I'm selling my Canon gear as I'm tired of waiting for a worthy upgrade to my Canon bodies. I really hope Canon gets knocked out by Sony with their A7R II.
Phil G Yep very high for half the price. I was considering saving up for the 14-24 but the Tamron is far to cheap and just as good to ignore.
Kyle I'll buy one of your older used Canon 2.8 wide angles ;)
I think you're probably only teasing Chris by saying you're an actual photographer, but it still bugged me. Chris takes great pics. Also, why are you shooting at such small apertures? Was your point to get the sun rays to look like that?
I has one and it's pretty ridiculously huge and heavy, but man is the IQ terrific.
SchneiderMan At f16 it should be ;)
Dorf Schmidt At f/16 you've hit the diffraction limit already, so it's going to look worse, actually. :)
I think we can get used to you. You sure are a good photographer, and i did enjoy this video. Good luck to you.
great review!.... Bruce Willis is that you?
Really? I believe that when that cloud shifted to the left, the sunlight was able to shine brigther... Only with two cameras you can get an almost-100% sample to say: "Alright, this one is darker bla bla bla" ;)
@ 6:34
His name isn't Keel.
Great shots from this reviewer but I prefer Chris Nichol's review by far. I like his confidence and personality. Also I kind of got annoyed at this reviewer's repeated mentioning of "Tamron was thinking about the future with this lens" etc etc. That's pretty obvious and only needs mentioning once, if at all. Every major lens manufacturer since 2010-2011 has been creating "high resolution" lenses. That's been a common trait if you've been paying attention and not just exclusive to Tamron as this review tends to imply. Canon was the first to do this in 2010 forward with the 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II.
BRING CHRIS BACK!
Thanks for a review that really speaks from the photographers viewpoint first and foremost. Putting it into perspective is good. Nowadays, if you read or watch "reviews", it speaks about a lot apart from the thing you really want to know: how does it hold up in practice.
A little devil in me wants to comment that this cannot be a real review since you shoot on an "inferior" Canon camera with "limited" dynamic range", so it will produce "mediocre" images. In the comments about the shots in Antarctica you cleared that up nicely ;) That's how photography is done kids, it is all about light, not your sensor.
Come on, Santa Claus! I need one of these! Now! Thanks for the great review! Tamron and the rest of us owe you!
Old lenses are not becoming obsolete.
Matt Vargo thats what I thought when I heard him say that. No need to buy all new lenses with a newer camera... in fact no need to buy new camera either. A DXO site testing, look at all these new cameras coming out for the last few years, all perform very close to each other.
Matt Vargo of course not just have to manually focus instead of AF. People get lazy
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. The optics on a lot of older lenses weren't designed or meant to be on cameras with such high Megapixels. Medium Format doesn't have that issue because they have been in the high megapixels for a while now. If you don't use a sharp lens on a 5DSR for example it will be noticable if you have any sort of eye. You can't use a lens designed back when cameras maxed out at 16MP on a 50MP sensor without there being significant softness and imperfections in the shot. You can certainly edit a lot of that stuff but to say there is no impact is just denial. Even on my D800E there is a huge difference between me using an AIS lens vs a far more modern lens created after the MP increases.
Good job, Kyle - AND - terriffic pictures too! Chris can stay away a while longer...
;o)
Holy HDR!
Wait for the pentax version and the FF pentax to come out, and you don't have to worry about killing anything anymore. :D