Nice UWA FF lens - Tamron 15-30mm/2.8

[astroNikon]

more information here --> Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD full frame zoom lens announced | Photo Rumors

Model	A012
Focal Length	15-30mm
Maximum Aperture	F/2.8
Angle of View (diagonal)	110° 32'–71°35' (for full frame format)
85°51'–49°53' (for APS-C format)
Lens Construction	18 elements in 13 groups
Minimum Focus Distance	11in. (0.28m)
Maximum Magnification Ratio	1:5
Filter Size	n/a
Maximum Diameter	98.4mm
Length	For Canon 5.7in. (145mm) / For Nikon 5.6in. (143mm)
Weight	38.8 oz. (1,100g)
Diaphragm Blades	9 (circular diaphragm)
Minimum Aperture	F22

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Read more on PhotoRumors.com: Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD full frame zoom lens announced | Photo Rumors

 

[480sparky]

I'll keep my 12-24 Siggy, TYVM.

 

[sscarmack]

I was going to say. I would like a nice 10mm or something along those lines. Sometimes the 24-70 doesn't cut it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hamlet]

Not being able to use filters is a real letdown.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, 15-30mm sounds like a superb collection of focal lengths. At the wide end, every different focal length at every millimeter is like an entirely different lens...15,16,17,18,20,21, 24mm,25mm,28mm have been offered as prime lengths, with 17mm,18mm, and 20mm, and longer ago, the 21mm, having been at least somewhat popular. And the six millimeters difference in length between 24 and 30mm, also brings with it "different tools". This sounds like for many people, the ideal all-in-one wide-angle lens for full-frame zoom. Fast aperture, good range, probably reasonably priced.

I was reading the Photozone test of the 18-35mm f/1.8 Sigma last week, and they mentioned that it is a better performer than many prime lenses in the 18-35mm range, so...maybe this thing is also a superb optical performer too? The third-party lens makers seem to really be stepping up their offerings. This lens is BIG, and HEAVY, and has a lot of elements. All three of those things make me think that this lens was designed more for quality than for compactness and light weight. We are on the cusp of a new era in cameras, so it makes sense that the lens makers start looking toward 36 and 54 megapixel-capable lens designs for the upcoming new cameras.

 

[hamlet]

Yeah, camera makers cant get away with subpar lenses anymore. But a lot of folks who cant afford two wide angles, will not buy this lens because it cant support their filters. Wide angle lenses and filters go hand in glove.

 

[480sparky]

Yeah, camera makers cant get away with subpar lenses anymore. But a lot of folks who cant afford two wide angles, will not buy this lens because it cant support their filters. Wide angle lenses and filters go hand in glove.

When was the last time you put a CPL on your UWA?

 

[PaulWog]

When was the last time you put a CPL on your UWA?

A few months ago

 

[hamlet]

When was the last time you put a CPL on your UWA?

All the time.

 

[480sparky]

And the results?

(And by UWA, I mean wider than 20mm equiv. FOV....)

 

[hamlet]

And the results?

(And by UWA, I mean wider than 20mm equiv. FOV....)

You are creatively limited: quality wise and effects wise without filters. There are things you just cant do without them.

 

[PaulWog]

You are creatively limited: quality wise and effects wise without filters. There are things you just cant do without them.

I think what Sparky is getting at though is that circular polarizers provide an uneven polarization effect across the frame when getting into ultrawide (ie. 15/16mm full frame equivalent field of view). I still use mine occasionally though, even at those wide angles.

The other thing is that with a lens like the 14-24 f2.8, people tend to use things like Kokin filters. They don't screw circular filters overtop of their ultrawides since ultrawides aren't really a "walk-around" lens... or if you ever do a walk-around with an ultrawide (ie. street photography, in a club, etc), you won't want a filter anyways.

 

[jsecordphoto]

I use a CPL on my tokina 16-28 often, mostly for waterfalls where I only need the polarization on wet rocks in certain parts of the frame.

 

[hamlet]

I think what Sparky is getting at though is that circular polarizers provide an uneven polarization effect across the frame when getting into ultrawide (ie. 15/16mm full frame equivalent field of view). I still use mine occasionally though, even at those wide angles.

The other thing is that with a lens like the 14-24 f2.8, people tend to use things like Kokin filters. They don't screw circular filters overtop of their ultrawides since ultrawides aren't really a "walk-around" lens... or if you ever do a walk-around with an ultrawide (ie. street photography, in a club, etc), you won't want a filter anyways.

But what will you do if you need to use nd filters?

 

[480sparky]

You are creatively limited: quality wise and effects wise without filters. There are things you just cant do without them.

Would you please answer the question instead of assuming you know me.