This was the best comparison video I've seen. Most reviewers like to talk in front of the camera when we are most interested in the performance of the camera/lens. Excellent presentation.
Everyone can tell that the production value of this review is gigantically high. Thank you for the time you put into this organizing and executing this for us. You are amazing!
thank god you are back, bought the 24-70 2.8 tamron after i watched your vid, now im looking for a wide lens and im pretty sure this will be a massive help :)
Without any doubt, this has to be one of the very best lens reviews I have ever seen. Fabulous presentation style & some fantastic supporting photos. Im definitely subscribing & head on over to your website! Thank You!
By far the best lense comparison / review / field test on youtube. It helped me so much in deciding. The videos answer every single question i had about the sifferwnce in lenses. Thank you.
Have you taken any astrophotography images? That is where I think the Tamron would excel. I also have the D 810, so I'd be interested to see some of your images.
ValiRossi I know this is an old comments, but how do you find it? I'm interested in astrophotography so do you have any experience shooting this at night? Thanks if you reply
The Tamron is exceptional for shooting the milky way. I have the Nikon 14-24 and the Tamron, I like the Tamron better. The Nikon will go on sale soon. The two issues with the Tamron are : HEAVY. And you must buy a special filter holder.
Recently covered the same places you did! Nice to see your perspective. And nice that you took time to do the tests. I don't think I could have. Well done!
good review. i own the canon 16-35. joy of a lens. very sharp everywhere at all apertures and focal lengths with emphasis on performance on the wide end wide open. at 16mm at f4, the lens is designed to perform. i think this is where canon engineers spent all their focus. the long end is no slouch either though. at the longer end you'll wanna stop down to 5.6 for optimum sharpness. i think around 24mm or so is where you gain slightly by stopping down. i get nice results down to 1/15 as well and i've eeeked out nice results at 1/5 and decent at 1 full second
Thanks for the review! I'm in the market for one of these lenses and your review gave me more food for thought! I didn't even think of weight differences!!! Thanks again!
Thanks :-) I've started on the 35mm review. In fact, I've finished shooting for the next two videos. Today I'm flying to Portugal and on to Switzerland, but once I get some time to settle down and work (probably in Croatia in a few weeks), I'll start working on the actual videos.
First one of your videos I've seen, a very well constructed comparison. If I do buy one of the lenses in the new year I think it's only right that I will buy from your link, to that end I've saved your video in a new playlist all of its own.
Subscribed for the in-depth, well thought out comparison. I especially enjoyed the rotating of the cameras to show which flared more and when. Thank you very much for this, and don't listen to that canon fanboy quote, you seemed to have little to no bias.
I have been using his videos to do my research for what lenses I am buying. Had mostly canon L Glass, but I am finding that Tamron might be the way to go forward.
Hi sir. I really want to see you do a comparison between canon 16 35mm l f4 is USM and Tamron 15 30mm G2 f2.8. Because now they're really similar price on markets.
Matthew Gore Photography is my hobby. I'm using canon 6D mark ii. What want to my 70 200mm mark III and 16 35mm f4 . I think Tamron 15 30 G2 is good too. But I don't know which one is better.
@@sottheaphoeurng9044 Keep in mind that optically, the 15-30 original and the G2 both are virtually identical; the g2 has some improved coatings on the lenses and the autofocus and stabilization are better, but you won't see any practical difference in image quality. So, you can take the comparison in this video and pretty much assume that the same thing will be true of the G2, but it will have slightly improved autofocus (although, I don't remember having any problems with it with either of these lenses).
For me $200.00 Cheaper and 500 grams lighter it's no contest. The Canon is an easy choice. Also as a Landscape photographer the ability to use ND filters is a must.
The aperture alone .. in addition I've seen some odd auto focus issues with Cannon and this particular Tamron incredibly accurate and fast. It's quite interesting that you didn't take any low light pictures for comparison.
Have you started to test Canon 35 1.4 II? I'm recently trying out both this and Sigma 1.4 Art. I found they both have excellent image quality---when focus accurately. I say so because both of them have hard time to focus on people's eyes when the subject is about 2-3 feet close to the lens. Although Canon does focus faster and has a high success rate.
Thanks for the raws, the canons greens and blues are so much more natural looking. The tamron's would turn magic marker like the second you add a the slightest bit of vividness just like their 24-70 (yes that can be nice in some cases blablabla) I wish there was a company that made a program that does with colors what dxo optics pro tries to do with lens distortions.
In general, if I use a color checker and make a profile for a lens/camera, I don't have any color related problems with any lenses... they even out really well. If you haven't seen it, you might find the Video on the X-Rite color checker helpful... it's the last image on the Amazon product: amzn.to/2aMBm2Q This is one of the reasons that I rarely discuss color in my videos.
Slightly tough but exciting times ahead for Tamron. I love their lenses and considering that Nikon is in the mirrorless market (both Z series cameras have IBIS) wonder if they'll ditch the VC and create lighter and faster lenses.
I've just found this review :) Altough you seemed to be fair the weight-issue in fact not an issue. This is a f2.8 lens, so be weight you should compare with the Canon 16-35/2.8 III. But it has no IS, and about 2-3x more expensive :D So you really cant compare them, as you pointed out: they are not for the same usage. Anyway: I have the Canon and really like that it is real sharp in the edges, not like the 17-40/4L or the 16-35/2.8L I had earlier. According the images you made I wont say that Canon is sharper as the results were inconsistent. The flare is really an issue for the Tamron, but I'll get a Tamron soon to test it :D Thanks! :)
I'm going to start shooting with some of the new 35mms on Wednesday. :-) Not sure when the videos will be finished... getting the time to make these videos is always the hard part.
Thanks David! I'm starting to shoot with the 35mms on Thursday. I was going to shoot with 5 different ones, but have pared it down to 3 for now. I'll add the other two/three later, if I like how these turn out.
Congratulations on your video. However I have been wanting to see the comparative of both lenses indoors and in low light situations. Which of the two would you recommend for night entertainment photography?
Helpful field review and some nice images, too. Another useful comparison would be converting some images to black and white to show the tonal rendering qualities of the lenses.
That's an interesting idea, and along the same lines of testing the lenses for color rendering which I've thought about a good deal. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to come up with a fair way of doing it... there are just too many variables, since it depends on which RAW rendering engine you use, which camera/lens profile you use, and how good they are, not just the lens itself. If you use a color checker and create a custom profile (which I usually do), then they all end up about the same anyway. With B&W conversion, the tonal range is affected by the overall contrast of the lens, but also its color rendering (since different colors will be rendered as more or less contrasty). Ultimately, we might see a difference, but they're the types of differences that could be tweaked at any stage along the way to be very different... so I'm not sure how useful it would be. But I haven't actually gone through all of the steps to find out in a controlled way, so I guess the only way to find out is to try it :-)
In general, I'm not a big fan of large aperture wide angle prime lenses for general shooting... they can be useful if you have a particular purpose in mind (night sky, stage or concerts, etc) but generally, you won't get great bokeh from a wide angle lens unless you're shooting a subject just a few feet away, and you can get away with slower shutter speeds with wide angles for general shooting, so I tend to go with more compact lenses. That's just personal taste, though. All of these lenses are nice and sharp (including the Sigma), so it comes down to what you're using it for and your personal taste. The Sigma will give you 8 times more light than the Canon f/4 lens, so that's a big consideration if you're shooting motion in low light. I like the flexibility of a zoom.
@@MatthewGore Zoom has many advantages, agree with you but it is far from sharpness of primes. I examined hundreds of Raw samples of EF 16-35 F4, 16-35 2.8, tamron 15-30, RF 24-105 F4. I am only using prime lenses and i need a wide angle but i can not decide. There are very good solutions such as 16-35 Mark 3 but very expensive. I will need this wide angle for street and travel photos. Now i am using only Sigma 50 mm Art for these purposes and it is not enough wide for landscapes.
the reason why Tamron @2.8 and @4 almost the same sharpness because the 2.8 on the Tamron actually is 3.2 or 3.5. The front element is smaller than the 14-24 2.8
my camera doesn't have video and plus my camera is 14 years old it's a canon 400d 10.1 megapixel camera. i want to get an up to date camera that can do everything plus video. so what you think about the 10-18 wide angle lens. so you said this is a much better lens and it will make my pictures better i don't know i want to spend that kind of money on a camera lens but if it's going to make my pictures solid then i will have to invest in one. i love taking pictures especially wide angle ones but i want to buy 2 more cameras i want your opinion on the canon sl1 and sl2
This is interesting as the camera store did a review with bth of these lenses and they found the opposite to be true by a wide margin so maybe sample variation.
if you want to do a Nikon comparison, let me know. I have the tamron 24-70, 70-200, 45, & 85. just try and catch it between weddings. you do awesome work.
+Matthew Gore just think of your talent with landscapes with 4 more stops of dynamic range and better color reproduction. I don't know why you haven't came to the good side already.
:-) I actually shoot Nikon and Canon... Started with Canon back in the early 1990s with film, then moved to Nikon with digital, then bought Canon, too, because the Canon options were better at the time ( and the AF system and telephotos work better for me). I like both, though... I don't have any brand loyalty.
+Matthew Gore you have to teach me the ways of expanding. I feel like I'm grinding for every customer. need to transition to corporate work. I have loyalty to tamron I think. over time I think I will get all of their new stuff. 35, 15-30, hopefully a 135 soon. 90 macro for rings.
Thanks Johnny. I wish I could make them more regularly. From the start with these lens comparisons, I chose a method of making the videos that is very time consuming, although I like how they look. I'm working on ways to maintain the quality and speed up the process, though. Hopefully it starts making a difference :-)
I just find your great reviews and subbed. I got this tamron on sony alpha mount and I love it. Unfortunately we have not too many options on a-mount just this and the carl zeiss 16-35/2.8 which is nearly £2000 and older minolta and sigma lenses. This lens was on sale last december for £750 in uk. My biggest problem the special filter holder for this lens anyway great lens.
The weight of the Tamron wasn't a problem for me on a tripod, but of course, that will depend on what kind of a tripod you're using. A serious tripod will do just fine, but a cheap, flimsy one may fail you... but that's true for any lens. The weight of the Tamron lens was a consideration when I was hiking, though, definitely.
It's a brilliantly fantastic lens but it's only for crop sensors.. not full frame.. these are full frame lenses so 15/16mm on full frame is pretty wide
Great video. Very well done. I have question. I have Nikon D610 FX. I been using the Tamron 28-75 which has no VC, I been think of upgrading to Nikon 24-70 but its very expensive and at this moment I cannot afford it. Do you think the Tamron 24-70 will be better than the Tamron 28-75? Thank you for your time
Hi John, Yes, the 24-70 is sharper, at least at the wide end. It's significantly sharper in the center of the frame, but only a bit sharper away from the center, when they're stopped down to f/5.6 or so, they end up being about the same. They're actually pretty comparable overall. - Matt
Hi Matthew, First I would like to thank you for all your inspiring videos and all your tutorials. I wonder if you can help me with this. I want to open my own website to display my work online. I need to know how and what is the right size for my images. What is the right size can the image be to look good on Squarespace and not to look good when printed if it is stolen from my website ? I will really appreciate any help. Thank you again Maher
Ahh, that's tricky. First, I don't use Squarespace, so I can't give you any specifics there, but the same thing should be true for responsive wordpress sites like mine. First, most people are still using monitors/displays that are no larger than 1080p, although 4K and retina displays are also out there. Still, I generally optimize for 1080p, since they'll also look OK on higher pixel screens. So, you can definitely set 1920 pixels wide as your upper limit. 1080p is 1920 x 1080, which is just over 2 megapixels, though a 35mm frame will be 1920 x 1280. For a high quality print, 300 pixels per inch is ideal, but even 100ppi will usually be passable if you don't look too close... and at 100ppi, a 1080p image could be printed at almost 30 x 50 cm. It wouldn't look great, especially to a photographer, but it would probably be fine at an A4 / 8x10" size. So, it depends on what kind of pictures you're trying to sell. If you're a landscape photographer, I wouldn't worry much about people trying to make small prints of your work... that's not going to eat into your profits much (unless you sell small prints)... I'd be more concerned about your images looking good online. But you still might set an upper limit of around 1000 pixels on the long end. If you're an event photographer / wedding photographer and expect to sell many small photos to your clients for their albums, then even 1000 pixel images will print reasonably well as small prints (4x6" or smaller). So, if theft is a concern, then either watermark them or keep them very small online. I don't shoot many weddings anymore, but to get around this worry, I priced my photography so include a certain number of small prints so that people wouldn't feel inclined to steal the images for small prints. Good luck!
The Tamron isn't available in Sony FE mount, so it would have to be adapted, which always makes the tests a little sketchy, but I think it might be worth trying anyway. I'll add it to my list, but my list is a little long at the moment :-)
no problem, But i was talking about testing them both on a A frame, not E frame because they are both A mount lenses....However the Sony is an E frame lens which you could test on a E frame and compare these lens against each system......Sorry you did not understand me.....
Ahh, of course. Yes, I always forget about A-mount, these days, now that E-mount has gotten so popular. Thanks. Getting an A-mount camera would make that test a little more tricky for me... since I only have access to Canon, Nikon and Sony E at the moment. I'll give it some thought.
I enjoyed your video very much. Valid information indeed. However, I cannot decide which to buy. The weight factor of the Tamron could be a major factor & that added cost of a $100 for a filter... I thought you could have given us more info on low light shooting. Your opinion on whether the Canon lens would be ideal for low light shoots would be good. Obviously, the Tamron is brighter, nevertheless a comparison would be interesting... Thank you for an interesting comparison.
I would like to see Tokina at f/5.6 or f/8! (edge comparison to the Canon and Tamron) Who shoots landscapes at f/2.8? Why even bother to mention Tokina?
I have several in different sizes that I use depending on the application. I have a pair of old SLIK u212s that were great but I never use them anymore. I have a small carbon fiber tripod made by Oben (B&H house brand that they gave to me. It's pretty nice, but not perfect). I also have a larger, more sturdy Vanguard. My favorite is a set of Manfrotto carbon fiber legs, which have flip locks instead of twist locks. I prefer flip locks, although that's just a matter of personal preference... there are advantages to each.
I know I'm commenting a lot, but do you have a generic Amazon link? one I can use for memory cards, that tripod I'm thinking about, and just general shopping.
Any of the Amazon links (either here or in the text of my website) will work as generic Amazon links; anything purchased after clicking through them will help me... even if it's not related to the product that I'm linking to. Thanks! ( but here's one anyway: amzn.to/2aoZasX )
beautiful informative interesting video, thank you for the sharing .. i was torn between the lenses which one to buy to use it with my D810, you helped me out ... and one more thing, what I liked about your video is , its not commercial, like many other professional photographers whom turned to be lousy cheap salesmen underestimating viewers minds. thank you again sir. hope to see more videos like this.
Ahh... that would be interesting, wouldn't it? I'll see if I can work that. There are already enough 35mms to look at to fill out about a dozen different videos :-)
I haven't stopped entirely, just been busy. I don't make any money from these videos, and they're a bit tedious to make, so they're not my top priority. But more are coming, soon.
Absolutely understand. I was trying to do video in my woodworking shop. 8 hours for 10 min video. NO income. So now I have gone back to photography as a NEW Professional justbartee.com WOW very hard to break into the market in Atlanta GA !! I am a very big Sigma fanboy. 70-200 Older model 85mm and 105 macro. I have Canon 24-105 red line and the Canon 50mm 1.4 I have found that buying the older lens is pretty good for me. I am looking at this Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD I need a very wide lens. I also really like the Sigma 35mm ART Thanks for responding... I subbed ...
Yeah... and the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2, which should be announced any time now. I hope. I'd like to do these videos, but I'll have more information about them soon.
Probably, but it wouldn't be ideal. I didn't try it with that lens... the smallest aperture I've used is f/2.8. Of course, you'll get more noise than you would with an f/1.4 or f/2 or f/2.8, but you should be able to keep the shutter speeds short enough to keep the stars from trailing.
Mathew sir Just amazing stuff Your comparison of the two is excellent But it would have been great if we would have included cannon 16-35 f2. 8 generation two I owe that beauty and seriously it's fantastic Your reviews sound very neutral also Thx
I'm expecting the 16-35 f/2.8 III to be announced any day now. Maybe next month for Photokina. Both of the lenses in this video are sharper than the f/2.8 II, though it's not a bad lens.
I could imagine how hard it is bjt I want you to know that your work is really one of the best among others. Your Review of the tamron70-200 led me to decide buying it. We need more videos of this quality
In this case, I can't tell you which one is best because each lens is better at something. The Canon is a touch sharper. The Tamron will give you more light... etc. So, there is no "best", only a "best for...".
Most lenses these days would have a different T-stop number. And there's also processing that goes on around the edges of a full-frame sensor, since light often can't penetrate properly into the receptor tubes because of the angle. I didn't notice anything egregious with this one, though 🙂
This was the best comparison video I've seen. Most reviewers like to talk in front of the camera when we are most interested in the performance of the camera/lens. Excellent presentation.
Everyone can tell that the production value of this review is gigantically high. Thank you for the time you put into this organizing and executing this for us. You are amazing!
Nice production value and great to see some real photos (and very good ones, too!) Not all reviewers are also good photographers!
Thanks Dustin!
thank god you are back, bought the 24-70 2.8 tamron after i watched your vid, now im looking for a wide lens and im pretty sure this will be a massive help :)
Without any doubt, this has to be one of the very best lens reviews I have ever seen. Fabulous presentation style & some fantastic supporting photos. Im definitely subscribing & head on over to your website! Thank You!
Thanks!
I Agree, great review. The DigitalRev Tv review of the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS was garbage!
This is by far one of the best videos I have watched. Excellent comparison, thank you very much.
By far the best lense comparison / review / field test on youtube. It helped me so much in deciding. The videos answer every single question i had about the sifferwnce in lenses. Thank you.
Glad I could help :-)
I use the Tamron 15-30 on my D810. Very nice.
Have you taken any astrophotography images? That is where I think the Tamron would excel.
I also have the D 810, so I'd be interested to see some of your images.
ValiRossi I know this is an old comments, but how do you find it? I'm interested in astrophotography so do you have any experience shooting this at night? Thanks if you reply
The Tamron is exceptional for shooting the milky way. I have the Nikon 14-24 and the Tamron, I like the Tamron better. The Nikon will go on sale soon. The two issues with the Tamron are : HEAVY. And you must buy a special filter holder.
Excellent review. Thank you! I chose the Tamron, personally.
That´s one of the best comparisons I´ve ever watched. Thank you for this detailed overview. You helped me a lot!
Recently covered the same places you did! Nice to see your perspective. And nice that you took time to do the tests. I don't think I could have. Well done!
Excellent video comparison and review of these two lenses. Decided to buy the Canon 16-35 f/4. I look forward to more of your work. Thank u.
good review. i own the canon 16-35. joy of a lens. very sharp everywhere at all apertures and focal lengths with emphasis on performance on the wide end wide open. at 16mm at f4, the lens is designed to perform. i think this is where canon engineers spent all their focus. the long end is no slouch either though. at the longer end you'll wanna stop down to 5.6 for optimum sharpness. i think around 24mm or so is where you gain slightly by stopping down.
i get nice results down to 1/15 as well and i've eeeked out nice results at 1/5 and decent at 1 full second
Agreed. It's a great lens. Really, they both are.
Thanks for the review! I'm in the market for one of these lenses and your review gave me more food for thought! I didn't even think of weight differences!!! Thanks again!
Matthew, awesome review as usual. Thanks for taking the time to produce these. I'd like to vote on the 35mm review as your next project.
Thanks :-) I've started on the 35mm review. In fact, I've finished shooting for the next two videos. Today I'm flying to Portugal and on to Switzerland, but once I get some time to settle down and work (probably in Croatia in a few weeks), I'll start working on the actual videos.
First one of your videos I've seen, a very well constructed comparison. If I do buy one of the lenses in the new year I think it's only right that I will buy from your link, to that end I've saved your video in a new playlist all of its own.
Mark Harris
Best lens review comparison on YT. Thank you, sir!
Why not pit the canon 2.8 against the tamron? Also would've loved to see the Tokina in the match up too -- thanks
Well, I figured that these two were about the same price, so it made sense. I think I did include the Tokina?
@@MatthewGore you did throughout, I just meant in the summary. BTW thanks for the comparison videos.
Subscribed for the in-depth, well thought out comparison. I especially enjoyed the rotating of the cameras to show which flared more and when. Thank you very much for this, and don't listen to that canon fanboy quote, you seemed to have little to no bias.
great comparison Matthew!
Thanks Rosa :-)
I have been using his videos to do my research for what lenses I am buying. Had mostly canon L Glass, but I am finding that Tamron might be the way to go forward.
Hi sir. I really want to see you do a comparison between canon 16 35mm l f4 is USM and Tamron 15 30mm G2 f2.8. Because now they're really similar price on markets.
I'll do what I can :-) I'm currently working on the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 and Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 for Sony E-mount. Amazing lenses.
Matthew Gore Photography is my hobby. I'm using canon 6D mark ii. What want to my 70 200mm mark III and 16 35mm f4 . I think Tamron 15 30 G2 is good too. But I don't know which one is better.
@@sottheaphoeurng9044 Keep in mind that optically, the 15-30 original and the G2 both are virtually identical; the g2 has some improved coatings on the lenses and the autofocus and stabilization are better, but you won't see any practical difference in image quality. So, you can take the comparison in this video and pretty much assume that the same thing will be true of the G2, but it will have slightly improved autofocus (although, I don't remember having any problems with it with either of these lenses).
Matthew Gore oh thank you so much sir.
Best lens review I've seen, and Iv'e seen a thousand of them. Perfect pace and visual aids.
Great video comparison it just made my decison easier which lens to buy! It will be the Canon for my EOS RP
For me $200.00 Cheaper and 500 grams lighter it's no contest. The Canon is an easy choice. Also as a Landscape photographer the ability to use ND filters is a must.
The aperture alone .. in addition I've seen some odd auto focus issues with Cannon and this particular Tamron incredibly accurate and fast. It's quite interesting that you didn't take any low light pictures for comparison.
Extremely helpful review. I am deciding between these two and this video confirms my intuition that Canon is better for me.
Have you started to test Canon 35 1.4 II? I'm recently trying out both this and Sigma 1.4 Art. I found they both have excellent image quality---when focus accurately. I say so because both of them have hard time to focus on people's eyes when the subject is about 2-3 feet close to the lens. Although Canon does focus faster and has a high success rate.
Great review! Got my canon 16-35 this week. I hope I will get some nice shots😁
From your video the canon looks a tad bit warmer and has more natural colours, trough youtube and my monitor that is. looking forward to the raws
Finally got home to my own computer tonight. With any luck, I'll get a set of RAW files up for you to look at tomorrow.
Thanks for the raws, the canons greens and blues are so much more natural looking. The tamron's would turn magic marker like the second you add a the slightest bit of vividness just like their 24-70 (yes that can be nice in some cases blablabla)
I wish there was a company that made a program that does with colors what dxo optics pro tries to do with lens distortions.
In general, if I use a color checker and make a profile for a lens/camera, I don't have any color related problems with any lenses... they even out really well. If you haven't seen it, you might find the Video on the X-Rite color checker helpful... it's the last image on the Amazon product: amzn.to/2aMBm2Q This is one of the reasons that I rarely discuss color in my videos.
Will do thanks
Slightly tough but exciting times ahead for Tamron. I love their lenses and considering that Nikon is in the mirrorless market (both Z series cameras have IBIS) wonder if they'll ditch the VC and create lighter and faster lenses.
The Tamron 28-70 f/2.8 for Sony E (see my most recent review) certainly makes it look that way :-)
I've just found this review :)
Altough you seemed to be fair the weight-issue in fact not an issue. This is a f2.8 lens, so be weight you should compare with the Canon 16-35/2.8 III. But it has no IS, and about 2-3x more expensive :D So you really cant compare them, as you pointed out: they are not for the same usage.
Anyway: I have the Canon and really like that it is real sharp in the edges, not like the 17-40/4L or the 16-35/2.8L I had earlier.
According the images you made I wont say that Canon is sharper as the results were inconsistent.
The flare is really an issue for the Tamron, but I'll get a Tamron soon to test it :D
Thanks! :)
Well done! Solid review. Looking forward to your other reviews!
Best reviews and editing. Would love if you added the new 35mm primes.
I'm going to start shooting with some of the new 35mms on Wednesday. :-) Not sure when the videos will be finished... getting the time to make these videos is always the hard part.
Thanks for the video! All the best with your 35mm reviews!
Thanks David! I'm starting to shoot with the 35mms on Thursday. I was going to shoot with 5 different ones, but have pared it down to 3 for now. I'll add the other two/three later, if I like how these turn out.
Thanks Matthew for your time and effort. Keep up the good work!
I didn't use this video to purchase my 16-35 F4L recently but it would of help in a big way! :D Awesome video :) I am glad I chose what I chose !
great review, I subscribed! I have seen all the lens comparisons, very well explained! and I am now convince to get all tamron line up!
I can see the cable on the crane on the tamron side. You need to look very carefully for it
Very thorrow. Excellent production. And some wise up cracks :D Thank you, Matthew!
Thanks! Glad you appreciated it :-)
Congratulations on your video. However I have been wanting to see the comparative of both lenses indoors and in low light situations. Which of the two would you recommend for night entertainment photography?
Helpful field review and some nice images, too. Another useful comparison would be converting some images to black and white to show the tonal rendering qualities of the lenses.
That's an interesting idea, and along the same lines of testing the lenses for color rendering which I've thought about a good deal. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to come up with a fair way of doing it... there are just too many variables, since it depends on which RAW rendering engine you use, which camera/lens profile you use, and how good they are, not just the lens itself. If you use a color checker and create a custom profile (which I usually do), then they all end up about the same anyway. With B&W conversion, the tonal range is affected by the overall contrast of the lens, but also its color rendering (since different colors will be rendered as more or less contrasty). Ultimately, we might see a difference, but they're the types of differences that could be tweaked at any stage along the way to be very different... so I'm not sure how useful it would be. But I haven't actually gone through all of the steps to find out in a controlled way, so I guess the only way to find out is to try it :-)
Best review on internet so far. Between 16-35 mm and Sigma 20 mm F1.4. What is your thoughts about this versus?
In general, I'm not a big fan of large aperture wide angle prime lenses for general shooting... they can be useful if you have a particular purpose in mind (night sky, stage or concerts, etc) but generally, you won't get great bokeh from a wide angle lens unless you're shooting a subject just a few feet away, and you can get away with slower shutter speeds with wide angles for general shooting, so I tend to go with more compact lenses. That's just personal taste, though. All of these lenses are nice and sharp (including the Sigma), so it comes down to what you're using it for and your personal taste. The Sigma will give you 8 times more light than the Canon f/4 lens, so that's a big consideration if you're shooting motion in low light. I like the flexibility of a zoom.
@@MatthewGore Zoom has many advantages, agree with you but it is far from sharpness of primes. I examined hundreds of Raw samples of EF 16-35 F4, 16-35 2.8, tamron 15-30, RF 24-105 F4. I am only using prime lenses and i need a wide angle but i can not decide. There are very good solutions such as 16-35 Mark 3 but very expensive. I will need this wide angle for street and travel photos. Now i am using only Sigma 50 mm Art for these purposes and it is not enough wide for landscapes.
I was using the 15-30 Tamron with my c300 mark II and the AF does not work.... This was very unfortunate.
the reason why Tamron @2.8 and @4 almost the same sharpness because the 2.8 on the Tamron actually is 3.2 or 3.5. The front element is smaller than the 14-24 2.8
Evidence? Front element =/= aperture
Yes it's smaller ...the 14mm is wider than 15mm so the optic is more important
my camera doesn't have video and plus my camera is 14 years old it's a canon 400d 10.1 megapixel camera. i want to get an up to date camera that can do everything plus video. so what you think about the 10-18 wide angle lens. so you said this is a much better lens and it will make my pictures better i don't know i want to spend that kind of money on a camera lens but if it's going to make my pictures solid then i will have to invest in one. i love taking pictures especially wide angle ones but i want to buy 2 more cameras i want your opinion on the canon sl1 and sl2
This is interesting as the camera store did a review with bth of these lenses and they found the opposite to be true by a wide margin so maybe sample variation.
if you want to do a Nikon comparison, let me know. I have the tamron 24-70, 70-200, 45, & 85. just try and catch it between weddings. you do awesome work.
Thanks Joedy, that's a great offer... I'll keep it in mind when I get to the Nikon side of things.
+Matthew Gore just think of your talent with landscapes with 4 more stops of dynamic range and better color reproduction. I don't know why you haven't came to the good side already.
:-) I actually shoot Nikon and Canon... Started with Canon back in the early 1990s with film, then moved to Nikon with digital, then bought Canon, too, because the Canon options were better at the time ( and the AF system and telephotos work better for me). I like both, though... I don't have any brand loyalty.
+Matthew Gore you have to teach me the ways of expanding. I feel like I'm grinding for every customer. need to transition to corporate work.
I have loyalty to tamron I think. over time I think I will get all of their new stuff. 35, 15-30, hopefully a 135 soon. 90 macro for rings.
Can you compare Tamron 15-30 F/2.8 and Canon 16-35 F/2.8?
Awesome i have been looking forward to your next review! Amazing as always thanks heaps :)
Thanks Johnny. I wish I could make them more regularly. From the start with these lens comparisons, I chose a method of making the videos that is very time consuming, although I like how they look. I'm working on ways to maintain the quality and speed up the process, though. Hopefully it starts making a difference :-)
I just find your great reviews and subbed. I got this tamron on sony alpha mount and I love it. Unfortunately we have not too many options on a-mount just this and the carl zeiss 16-35/2.8 which is nearly £2000 and older minolta and sigma lenses. This lens was on sale last december for £750 in uk. My biggest problem the special filter holder for this lens anyway great lens.
i wonder if the weight is a problem especially using it on a tripod portrait mode
The weight of the Tamron wasn't a problem for me on a tripod, but of course, that will depend on what kind of a tripod you're using. A serious tripod will do just fine, but a cheap, flimsy one may fail you... but that's true for any lens. The weight of the Tamron lens was a consideration when I was hiking, though, definitely.
how about doing long exposures at night getting them car trials? do you think this lens well do great for night shots with tripods?
P-sharp The Tamron will be better than the canon for stars, since it gives you an extra stop of light. For light trails, they're both fine.
wow, such quality of your review!
much props!
I would be interested in seeing how the canon 16-35 2.8 does up against the tamron 15-30 f2.8
Many thanks for this review !
Glad you liked it!
Your videos are amazing and you have a great voice too!
Have a great day!
Thank you :-)
How would you rank the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 for $700.00 to the two in the video
It's a really excellent lens, optically. I haven't done a thorough test, so I can't speak to all of the details, but I'm very impressed with it.
I got it for my pentax k3 last year and so far its unbelievable even at F1.8 . Are you going to review it ?
It's a brilliantly fantastic lens but it's only for crop sensors.. not full frame.. these are full frame lenses so 15/16mm on full frame is pretty wide
Excellent detailed review!
How is the performance of the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 after so many years of use?
After 4 years of sand ,wind ,rain ,snow and many drops ,mine still work perfectly well.
They just announced a much improved 2nd generation version. Ships in Nikon first then 3 weeks later in Canon.
Great video. Very well done. I have question. I have Nikon D610 FX. I been using the Tamron 28-75 which has no VC, I been think of upgrading to Nikon 24-70 but its very expensive and at this moment I cannot afford it. Do you think the Tamron 24-70 will be better than the Tamron 28-75? Thank you for your time
Hi John,
Yes, the 24-70 is sharper, at least at the wide end. It's significantly sharper in the center of the frame, but only a bit sharper away from the center, when they're stopped down to f/5.6 or so, they end up being about the same. They're actually pretty comparable overall.
- Matt
Matt. Thank you
Thank you
Thank you for this video! I will go for the canon lens :)
great work as ever Mat
Thanks Ben! Glad you came back to watch it :-)
Great comparison review.
Hi Matthew,
First I would like to thank you for all your inspiring videos and all your tutorials.
I wonder if you can help me with this.
I want to open my own website to display my work online. I need to know how and what is the right size for my images.
What is the right size can the image be to look good on Squarespace and not to look good when printed if it is stolen from my website ?
I will really appreciate any help.
Thank you again
Maher
Ahh, that's tricky. First, I don't use Squarespace, so I can't give you any specifics there, but the same thing should be true for responsive wordpress sites like mine.
First, most people are still using monitors/displays that are no larger than 1080p, although 4K and retina displays are also out there. Still, I generally optimize for 1080p, since they'll also look OK on higher pixel screens. So, you can definitely set 1920 pixels wide as your upper limit.
1080p is 1920 x 1080, which is just over 2 megapixels, though a 35mm frame will be 1920 x 1280. For a high quality print, 300 pixels per inch is ideal, but even 100ppi will usually be passable if you don't look too close... and at 100ppi, a 1080p image could be printed at almost 30 x 50 cm. It wouldn't look great, especially to a photographer, but it would probably be fine at an A4 / 8x10" size.
So, it depends on what kind of pictures you're trying to sell. If you're a landscape photographer, I wouldn't worry much about people trying to make small prints of your work... that's not going to eat into your profits much (unless you sell small prints)... I'd be more concerned about your images looking good online. But you still might set an upper limit of around 1000 pixels on the long end.
If you're an event photographer / wedding photographer and expect to sell many small photos to your clients for their albums, then even 1000 pixel images will print reasonably well as small prints (4x6" or smaller). So, if theft is a concern, then either watermark them or keep them very small online. I don't shoot many weddings anymore, but to get around this worry, I priced my photography so include a certain number of small prints so that people wouldn't feel inclined to steal the images for small prints.
Good luck!
i would like to see the zeiss (sony) 24-70mm f2.8 ssmll vs Tamron and sony....thanks
The Tamron isn't available in Sony FE mount, so it would have to be adapted, which always makes the tests a little sketchy, but I think it might be worth trying anyway. I'll add it to my list, but my list is a little long at the moment :-)
no problem, But i was talking about testing them both on a A frame, not E frame because they are both A mount lenses....However the Sony is an E frame lens which you could test on a E frame and compare these lens against each system......Sorry you did not understand me.....
Ahh, of course. Yes, I always forget about A-mount, these days, now that E-mount has gotten so popular. Thanks. Getting an A-mount camera would make that test a little more tricky for me... since I only have access to Canon, Nikon and Sony E at the moment. I'll give it some thought.
thanks
really liked you sir.. very valuable your judgements are.. thank you
Great review, Matthew! Thanks
I enjoyed your video very much. Valid information indeed. However, I cannot decide which to buy. The weight factor of the Tamron could be a major factor & that added cost of a $100 for a filter...
I thought you could have given us more info on low light shooting.
Your opinion on whether the Canon lens would be ideal for low light shoots would be good.
Obviously, the Tamron is brighter, nevertheless a comparison would be interesting...
Thank you for an interesting comparison.
Would u plz compare canon 200mm f2 with two 2x teleconverters stacked = 800mm f8 ,vs canon 400mm DO f4 Mark I with 2x teleconverter =800mm , thank u.
A very nice and clear comparison!
Thanks! I probably didn't have to go on quite so long with the resolution comparisons, but I felt like I needed it with these two lenses.
I would like to see Tokina at f/5.6 or f/8! (edge comparison to the Canon and Tamron)
Who shoots landscapes at f/2.8? Why even bother to mention Tokina?
Broj 1 I bought the tamron because I shoot a lot 2.8, northern light and nightscape, milky way..
canon 11-24 vs sigma 12-24 please!
that might be interesting. I'll keep it in mind.
matthew we want more lens comparison.
Are planning on reviewing the new Tamron 24-70?
john barreto Yep. Should be getting my copy soon :-)
was this the g2 you were testing? ,tamron
This was the original version.
what tripod do you use? I'm in the market for one and completely lost.
I have several in different sizes that I use depending on the application. I have a pair of old SLIK u212s that were great but I never use them anymore. I have a small carbon fiber tripod made by Oben (B&H house brand that they gave to me. It's pretty nice, but not perfect). I also have a larger, more sturdy Vanguard. My favorite is a set of Manfrotto carbon fiber legs, which have flip locks instead of twist locks. I prefer flip locks, although that's just a matter of personal preference... there are advantages to each.
I know I'm commenting a lot, but do you have a generic Amazon link? one I can use for memory cards, that tripod I'm thinking about, and just general shopping.
Any of the Amazon links (either here or in the text of my website) will work as generic Amazon links; anything purchased after clicking through them will help me... even if it's not related to the product that I'm linking to. Thanks! ( but here's one anyway: amzn.to/2aoZasX )
Thank you so much. It's very useful. I still think the weight is more important I'm going to get canon 😊
beautiful informative interesting video, thank you for the sharing .. i was torn between the lenses which one to buy to use it with my D810, you helped me out ... and one more thing, what I liked about your video is , its not commercial, like many other professional photographers whom turned to be lousy cheap salesmen underestimating viewers minds. thank you again sir. hope to see more videos like this.
Very nice review and comparison
Best comparing video i ever seen on youtube, please try to make one for sigma 14mm f1.8
can u include ef 24-70mm f/2.8 II at 35mm range in the next video?
Ahh... that would be interesting, wouldn't it? I'll see if I can work that. There are already enough 35mms to look at to fill out about a dozen different videos :-)
Why did you stop posting videos ? Your 50mm review was excellent
I haven't stopped entirely, just been busy. I don't make any money from these videos, and they're a bit tedious to make, so they're not my top priority. But more are coming, soon.
Absolutely understand. I was trying to do video in my woodworking shop. 8 hours for 10 min video. NO income. So now I have gone back to photography as a NEW Professional justbartee.com WOW very hard to break into the market in Atlanta GA !!
I am a very big Sigma fanboy. 70-200 Older model 85mm and 105 macro. I have Canon 24-105 red line and the Canon 50mm 1.4
I have found that buying the older lens is pretty good for me. I am looking at this Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD I need a very wide lens. I also really like the Sigma 35mm ART
Thanks for responding... I subbed ...
Canon 24-70mm 2.8 vs Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 DG HSM OS Art. Please!!
Yeah... and the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2, which should be announced any time now. I hope. I'd like to do these videos, but I'll have more information about them soon.
The canon is version 1 or 2?
The Canon is the f/4... I believe there's only one version, while there are multiple versions of the f2.8
I wish I could find a similar video with the Nikon 14-24mm
can canon b used for star pictures?
Probably, but it wouldn't be ideal. I didn't try it with that lens... the smallest aperture I've used is f/2.8. Of course, you'll get more noise than you would with an f/1.4 or f/2 or f/2.8, but you should be able to keep the shutter speeds short enough to keep the stars from trailing.
Best comparison ever!
Will choose canon 16-35 2.8 ii because weight matters for hiker)
Thanks! Glad you found it useful :-)
credo che tu abbia invertito i prezzi del tamron con quello canon
Mathew sir
Just amazing stuff
Your comparison of the two is excellent
But it would have been great if we would have included cannon 16-35 f2. 8 generation two
I owe that beauty and seriously it's fantastic
Your reviews sound very neutral also
Thx
I'm expecting the 16-35 f/2.8 III to be announced any day now. Maybe next month for Photokina. Both of the lenses in this video are sharper than the f/2.8 II, though it's not a bad lens.
Please make more reviews. :) You're the best one around.
Thanks Peter, I'm working one two right now. :-)
great in depth review... thanks!
Great Videos! So very informative!
Amazing review😍😍
Thanks! This one was much harder than it looks to make. I should stick to comparing prime lenses!
I could imagine how hard it is bjt I want you to know that your work is really one of the best among others. Your Review of the tamron70-200 led me to decide buying it. We need more videos of this quality
Awesome review! Thank you!!! 👏👏👏👍🏼
Very nice tutorial. Thank you.
Wow stunning review, have subscribed :)
Always after comparison WHY people said : i can't tell you what is the best ? but we are here just to know who is the best?
Thank you
In this case, I can't tell you which one is best because each lens is better at something. The Canon is a touch sharper. The Tamron will give you more light... etc. So, there is no "best", only a "best for...".
Great review! Liked and subscribed.
Canon seems to be a very good lens. Great value for money, opticaly much better than Nikkor 16-35VR.
This lens maybe not as fast as f2.8. Read in an article a few years back that it's actually f3.5.
Most lenses these days would have a different T-stop number. And there's also processing that goes on around the edges of a full-frame sensor, since light often can't penetrate properly into the receptor tubes because of the angle. I didn't notice anything egregious with this one, though 🙂