Tamron 16-30mm F2.8 G2 Review | The Best Mid range Wide Zoom?

0:00
[Music]
0:10
Hi, I'm Dustin Abbott. I think we all expected that Tamron would bring out a G2 version of their 17 to 28 mm at some
0:18
point. Stands to reason they had done that already with the 28 to 75 millimeter and then the 70 to 180 mm.
0:26
But what I didn't expect was that they would not only bring out a G2 version
0:31
with improved autofocus and features, but in this case actually extend the
0:37
zoom range on both ends of the spectrum. One of the main areas of advantage when Sigma brought out their own 16 to 28 mm
0:45
was that it went just that little bit wider than what the Tamron did. That came at a cost. It was very heavy barrel
0:51
distortion. However, it was able to go wider and that was a factor. Tamron has
0:56
really obliterated that advantage by not only going to the 16 mm on the wide end, but also extending out the telephoto
1:03
end, that extra couple of millime to 30 mm that might be just a little bit more useful. Now, not quite as useful as say
1:11
the 16 to35 millimeter of Sony's own G Master lens, but the Tamron is coming to
1:16
market at $929, which is about $30 cheaper than what Sigma's lens is. And when you're
1:24
comparing it to the G Master lens, it is well over $1,300 less. So, that is going
1:30
to obviously play to Tamron's advantage. But, is this a lens that you should consider buying? I'm filming on it at
1:37
the moment and I'll film a few few of these segments on it. If you don't see the lens on screen, I'm filming with it.
1:43
And so, we're going to dive in today and explore whether or not this is the major upgrade that we were hoping for and
1:49
whether or not it is the wide-angle zoom on either Sony E-mount or Nikon Zmount
1:54
that you should consider purchasing. We'll dive right into that right after a word from our sponsor. Today's episode
2:00
is sponsored by the all-new Phantom Tracker 2.0. Phantom has not only seriously upgraded the visual look of
2:06
the card, but now we have a superior build quality. Made with tempered glass and metal alloys, this credit card size
2:13
tracker can be locally tracked via a 90 decel beeping noise, but also on a global level via Apple's Find My Network
2:19
and its map. The addition of NFC means that you can also use the card to trigger an automation. Just tap it. The
2:26
tracker fits perfectly in any wallet or bag and assures you won't lose your valuables. It has a built-in
2:32
rechargeable battery that can be easily charged via any wireless charger, and a single charge can last up to 6 months.
2:38
The Phantom Tracker 2.0 makes for a seriously cool gift. So, visit store.fanomwallet.com
2:44
and use code dustin20 at checkout for 20% off. That's store.fanomwallet.com
2:50
and use code dustin20 for 20% off. So, in disclosure, this lens was loan to me
2:56
from Tamron USA. However, they have had no input on my review process. They will
3:01
not see this review before you do. This is a completely independent review. So, let's dive into it. I think the
3:07
highlight thing that we need to discuss is the fact that we do have a definite improvement to the zoom range. So, going
3:13
to 16 mm, we now go as wide as 170° 2 feet and then we go all the way into 71
3:21
degrees 35 feet in terms of the overall uh framing here. So you can see that
3:27
does make a fairly significant difference and gives you just more flexibility both on the wide end and on the telephoto end. And that certainly
3:34
gives it some advantage. You know, it's still not as flexible a range as the 16 to35G Master for example. However,
3:41
definitely an improvement over the 17 to 28 and Sigma's own 16 to 28 millimeter.
3:46
The price of $929 is cheaper than the Sigma uh 16 to 28
3:52
millimeters by $30, but it's $1360 cheaper than the 16 to35G Master Mi.
3:59
They have managed to increase the zoom range, increase the build quality, add some features while really not
4:06
increasing the size very much. Uh compared to the 17 to 28 mm, this lens
4:11
is 74.8 mm in diameter. That's 1.8 mm wider. So, just a tiny bit. It is 101.8
4:19
mm long. So, that's 2.8 mm longer. So, just a hair longer. And it weighs in at
4:26
440 g, which is only 20 g heavier than the 17 to 28 mm. So, that makes it still
4:33
slightly lighter than the Sigma 16 to 28 millimeter. And obviously, it is lighter
4:38
as well from the G Master lens. Tamon has really been made it a priority to
4:43
maintain a 67mm front filter thread on the vast majority of their mirrorless lenses. That remains the case here,
4:50
which means you can share filters with a great variety of lenses and obviously that's going to be incredibly use
4:56
useful. The design language is consistent with their G2 uh overall
5:01
design and it is a more sculpted, a little bit more elegantl looking lens
5:07
and and I appreciate the fact that it's not just like a a flat barrel going out, but now we have sculpted sections. We
5:13
have a little bit more standing out when it comes to the rings. It just feels like a little bit more premium design.
5:19
The build quality is definitely improved as well. It feels a little bit more premium. And I will say this about these
5:25
Tamron lenses. I've used a number of them for quite a number of years at this point and I've had zero issues with
5:31
them. They've actually held up really well. They don't feel like the most premium lenses in the class. Uh now in
5:38
this case comparing to the Sigma, the Sigma comes from their contemporary series. So it's not as nice as their Art
5:43
series lenses. So I actually think this is the nicer build. But in some cases, Tamron lenses don't necessarily feel the
5:49
best, but they do seem to be robust and they're holding up well. And I haven't heard anecdotal feedback of people that
5:55
are complaining to me uh about any of these Tamron zoom lenses. I also find
6:01
now that there is a consistent design language between the trinity of lenses, the now 16 to 30 millimeter, the 28 to
6:08
75 millimeter, and the 70 to 180 mm. You can see there's a consistent look across
6:13
them. Now, this still isn't like a G Master level of features here. We don't
6:18
have a dedicated aperture ring or anything like that. We do have a function or custom button here on the
6:24
side and then also there is a weather sealed USBC port on the side. Now that
6:29
USBC port is important because when it comes to Tamron, not only is that going to allow you to do firmware updates, but
6:35
it really allows you to customize the lens in some ways that are pretty unique to Tamron. For one thing, instead of
6:41
just relying on the function that you set to this uh button that applies to
6:46
all lenses from within the camera, you can set a dedicated function in their lens utility software. And so in this
6:52
case, it doesn't have an AFMF switch. So for me, the thing that I like the best is being able to click that and just
6:58
switch between AFMF, you know, on the fly. That's an option you can do. But there's quite a list of different things
7:03
that you can set it up to do. Some of which are not ordinary functions that you can program through that function
7:09
button. Also, you have the ability to tweak the behavior of the U manual focus
7:14
ring. And so, how far the the focus is going to be, whether it's linear or nonlinear, you actually get some ability
7:21
to customize that. And so, the lens works the way that you want. Again, I really appreciate that degree of
7:27
customization. And of course, then the ability to do quick firmware updates. always great. This lens is thoroughly
7:33
weather sealed, not just at that USBC port, but there are eight different seal points throughout the lens, starting
7:39
with the gasket at the lens mount and then throughout the different seal points. There is a flooring coating on
7:44
the front element, and so that obviously is going to help with fingerprints. It's going to help with moisture resistance
7:50
there. I will also note that this is an internally focusing and zooming lens,
7:55
and so the overall length never changes. The balance doesn't really change for putting it onto something like a gimbal.
8:02
The manual focus feel is is good. Again, you have the ability to tweak that behavior. The damping is good. It's not
8:09
quite as heavy as what I would like. I would like a little bit heavier, but it is very smooth. It's very responsive,
8:15
and so it does feel like a genuine manual focus simulation or experience. So, I appreciate that. Inside, we have
8:22
nine rounded aperture blades. I've recently done a review of the LAA 12mm f/2.8. That lens only has five aperture
8:30
blades and they are straight blades. Actually kind of like that appro approach on a wide angle lens because
8:35
frankly you're not going to have a lot of opportunities to create round specular highlights particularly if you stop the lens down. The ability to to
8:42
create really nice sun stars I think is advantageous. In this case it's an 18bladed sunst star. It doesn't look
8:48
bad. Don't get me wrong. It's not as pretty in my eye as what that fivebladed
8:53
aperture produces. So, it all depends on your taste when it comes to that. Like many modern Tamron zooms, you have two
9:00
different options when it comes to minimum focus distance. At 16 mm, you can focus as closely as 19 cm. At 30
9:07
millimeters, you can focus as closely as 30 cm. Your higher level of magnification is actually on the wide
9:13
end there. You can get up to a zero or 0.19 times level of magnification.
9:19
Slightly better than the Sigma. Not as good as what the G Master is. And I wouldn't say that it's as good up close
9:25
as what the G Master is either. Probably not all that surprised by that. All told, however, this is a really nice
9:32
little package. Comes with this lens hood, which bayonets on nicely. I do find, by the way, reversing it for
9:38
storing seems to work better than it used to be with uh Tamron. on Tamrons used to be really frustrating for some
9:44
reason in reversing their hoods. That's not the case now. So, steps in the right direction. This is a nice package and
9:50
good value for money. So, let's talk autofocus. Tamron has equipped this G2 version of the 16 to 30 mm with their
9:57
VXD, which stands for voice coil extreme torque drive lens. It is essentially
10:04
their higherend, higher powered focus motor. And in this case, focus is pretty
10:10
much instantaneous whether I was shooting indoors or outdoors. It's a lot of thrust that's in this particular
10:16
focus motor. And so it had no problem and pretty much instantly arriving at whatever I pointed the lens at. And so
10:22
you won't have any issues with speed. You also won't have any issues with sound. It is essentially silent in
10:28
operation. You might be able to hear the faintest were if you put your l ear right on the lens barrel, but frankly,
10:35
who's doing that? Certainly not enough sound to ever be picked up by an onboard microphone. So certainly uh it is close
10:42
enough to silent for actual real world purpose. I also found that I had no problem in nailing in lower lighting
10:50
situations. This shot, for example, I shot uh at night. It's back lit. It's
10:55
not an easy situation, but focus locks right on. And when I zoomed in to 100%, it is accurately focused. And so it's
11:02
doing a great job in a variety of lighting conditions. So when it comes to the autofocus speed and autofocus
11:09
accuracy, any of those things, I have zero concerns. This is a great autofocus system for stills. So how about for
11:16
video work? Well, a lot of the same truths for stills are also true here.
11:21
You can see when it comes to doing my focus pull test back and forth that it
11:26
does that smoothly. There's nice damping to it. It isn't just abruptly going back and forth, but there is a nice degree of
11:32
damping there. Focus breathing, even at 30 mm seems to be pretty well controlled, and so I didn't see any a
11:39
significant issue with that. Likewise, when I did my hand test, it did just fine in making that transition from my
11:45
eye to my hand and back and forth. And so, no issues there. I also found in
11:50
real world shooting kind of real world transitions that those transitions were nicely damped and it didn't like
11:56
abruptly jump from one to the other. And so again, for this kind of work, it's
12:01
going to be a great lens. And I will note that it is going to be a very good lens to use on a gimbal, for example.
12:07
It's pretty lightweight. It is internally zooming. And so regardless of what focal length you select, your
12:13
balance point is going to be roughly the same with very little variation. And of course, the ability to have good
12:18
autofocus that is not abrupt, low focus breathing is going to make it an asset
12:24
for using on a gimbal. So, a lot of great applications for video with the Tamron 16 to30 G2. So, how about the
12:31
image quality? We have got a new optical design relative to the 17 to 28 mm. As you probably would expect, this is a
12:38
little bit more complex. It's 16 elements in 12 groups. That includes one extra low dispersion element, two low
12:44
dispersion elements, and three molded aspherical glass elements as a part of it. The optical design produces an MTF
12:52
that looks good overall, though definitely with some variance between the center and the corners of the frame.
12:58
The center looks really sharp. Mid-frame looks good. Then there is a pretty steep drop off to the corners. You see at 30
13:06
mm it's more of a linear drop again doing the same thing. However, it's getting sharper in the center and much
13:13
softer in the corners. I was curious to line up the uh MTF from the 17 to 28 mm.
13:20
And I found that while the overall optical signature is roughly similar, according to the MTF charts, the 17 to
13:26
28 millimeter is probably 1 to 2% sharper. Maybe not surprising in that it
13:32
is a more constrained zoom range and every time you go wider that does come with some optical challenges. And so
13:39
this is not a lens that you're going to buy because it's optically improved over its predecessor. Going to buy it more
13:45
because of the extra versatility that the zoom range and the functionality adds to it. Now, when it comes to uh
13:53
vignette and distortion, I was a little afraid that going wider would really play havoc with the distortion because I
14:00
knew with the Sigma, the Sigma has tons of barrel distortion. Fortunately, they've been able to mitigate that
14:05
fairly well. And I'll give you some perspective on that in just a moment. There is some barrel distortion. It's
14:10
about a plus seven to correct, and it is it's not very linear. It leaves a bit of a mustache pattern uh when you just try
14:18
to manually correct it. However, the Sigma, I went back and looked at results from the Sigma and the G Master Mark II
14:24
from my test. The Sigma required instead of a plus seven, a plus 21 to correct, and it still had mustache pattern. And
14:30
the G Master was even worse, requiring a plus 24 to correct and still having some
14:36
of that mustache pattern distortion. So, while it's not perfect, it's definitely better than the competition when it
14:42
comes to that metric. I also found the vignette wasn't bad. A plus 55 to correct at the 16 mm end. That's no big
14:49
deal at all. About two stops. If you go to the 30 millimeter end, that distortion pattern has switched to a pin
14:55
cushion style distortion. It's significant. I needed a minus 10 to correct for it. That's comparable to the
15:01
other lenses, at least the Sigma. The G Master has a little bit less. The distortion pattern is more linear and
15:07
corrects more easily. However, there's only a little bit of vignette at 30 mm.
15:14
It required a plus 32 to correct, just a hair over a stop. And that is just very slightly more than what the G Master.
15:20
And by the way, it's less vignette on both ends of the spectrum than what the Sigma lens had. Now, I'm testing on the
15:26
the Sony E-mount version. If you're uh using the Nikon Zmount version, expect to see more of the vignette. I'm
15:34
assuming that because it's been the case for every third party lens that I've tested on both Sony and Nikon, they
15:39
always have more vignette on uh Zmount. And I think that's because of the wider diameter of the actual Zmount itself.
15:48
Now the there is Tamron does get good profile support on both of those brands and so I found that it was no problem to
15:55
correct the distortion when I plugged in the standard profile. And so at the end of the day distortion is not going to be
16:01
a big deal I don't think for the average person. When I tested for chromatic aberrations I found that there was very
16:08
little to see in terms of longitudinal style chromatic aberration. a tiny bit of green fringing after the plane of
16:14
focus. No big deal there. And almost no lateral style chromatic aberrations near the edge of the frame. That's kind of
16:20
more the big deal to me when it comes to a wide angle lens because it just means you're going to get much cleaner
16:26
performance near the edges of the frame. So that those metrics, it performed well. When I did my real world results
16:33
using an A7R Mark II and 61 megapixels and looking at the results at 200%
16:38
magnification, that's a torture test for any lens. I was actually really surprised by how well it did. Even wide
16:45
open at f2.8. I expected the center to look good and it does. The mid-frame looks good as well. Not as sharp as the
16:52
center but not but not far behind. But I was surprised that the corners still looked really quite good to me. And then
16:58
what I found when I stopped down to just f4, contrast improved across the frame and now the corners are at really pretty
17:05
excellent levels. And so that means at typical landscape apertures, real world shots look really crisp all across the
17:11
frame. 16 millm performance I would consider to be actually very strong. Now obviously as you hit f11 and then f16,
17:19
you're going to see some softening due to the effects of defraction. That's physics and you really can't beat it.
17:24
Moving on to the middle of the zoom range, I found that it was very very slightly less sharp within 1 or 2% in
17:32
the middle of the range. As before though, I found that there is a significant amount of contrast boost
17:37
even in that little stop down from f2.8 to f4. By f4 results really looking
17:43
quite excellent. And at landscape apertures, I was really pleased with the results I got. At 30 mm, the lens is a
17:50
bit softer still and just a little bit less contrast and the corners look
17:55
softer. Now, I did find that that stopping down to f4 again improved
18:00
contrast. Contrast improves in the corners, but even if I stop further down to f5.6 or f8, they never get as sharp
18:07
as what I saw earlier in the zoom range. However, taking a look at some real world results, uh you can see here a
18:14
comparison between f2.8 and f5.6. Pretty near the edge of the frame. And frankly, it looks really quite good at f5.6. So
18:21
again, I think for most people, it's going to be just fine. You don't buy a lens like this for the
18:26
bokeh quality, but the bokeh quality isn't bad. you're not going to get strongly blurred out backgrounds, but
18:32
the quality of the blur is quite decent. No major issue with that. And I found that that was true with a variety of
18:38
different backgrounds. And so, in general, I I wasn't I was neither thrilled nor disappointed. It's in that
18:45
middle ground, but in a healthy part of the middle ground. More impressive, however, is the BBR Mark II coatings
18:52
that are on this lens. Did a great job in resisting flare. I think an improvement there, I would say, over the
18:58
17 to 28 mm to where I really just didn't see any issue with either ghosting or with loss of contrast. It
19:05
really did quite good when I was pointing it into the sun, which you're going to do far more often with a wide-angle lens. I wasn't able to get
19:12
the kind of weather conditions where I could test coma in a traditional sense shooting stars. However, I did shoot
19:17
fireworks this year for Canada Day and I found that near the edge of the frame, I didn't see any kind of weird things
19:24
happening in terms of growing wings or becoming strongly distorted. And so, if I look back again historically at the 17
19:30
to 28 millimeter, I would expect the results to be roughly similar. I did test for coma there and I found only a
19:36
minimal amount in the corners. I think the same's going to be true here. This should be a pretty decent astro lens because vignette is well controlled and
19:43
so it's not going you're not going to be dealing with extra noise from trying to boost the the uh exposure in the edges
19:50
of the frame due to that heavy amount of vignette that's just not present here. So overall it's there's not really any
19:57
kind of major flaw in the optical performance. It doesn't wow me necessarily, but it's really solid in
20:04
all categories. So kudos to Tamron for increasing the zoom range here, getting a little bit more risky, and we really
20:11
don't have to pay much of a price for it. So in conclusion, I would say that the Tamron 16 to 30mm f2.8 DI3 VXD G2 is
20:22
certainly an intriguing option. I can't say that it necessarily wowed me in any particular way, but it also proved to be
20:29
competent in all the areas that I tested. And when I look compared to the competition, I certainly would easily
20:35
choose this lens over the Sigma 16 to 28 mm. And I'm just not sure that it's
20:41
worth the extra money to spend going all the way to the 2300 G Master lens. It's
20:47
your money, of course, and there are areas where the G Master is still, I would say, the top-notch lens in this
20:54
class. However, on the Sony side of things, I think that this lens probably makes a lot of sense for a lot of
21:00
people. On the Nikon side of things, it may make even more sense because the real competing lens is actually Nicor's
21:08
17 to 28mm f/2.8. And if you haven't figured that out, that's just really a
21:13
rebranded version of the original Tamron 17 to 28mm lens. So, this is a lens that
21:18
actually has a lot of advantages over that one. And while that lens retails for about $1,300, this one is retailing
21:25
for the $929. So, it definitely has a price advantage
21:30
there as well. I think that Tamron has done what it needs to do to not only update and improve this lens, but to
21:36
make it a really compelling option that I think probably makes the most sense on either one of these platforms if you're
21:43
looking for a wide-angle zoom that is higherforming, but isn't going to break the bank. Now, if you want more
21:49
information to back up that conclusion, you can take a look either at my text review that's linked in the description down below. There also is some buying
21:56
links there if you'd like to purchase one for yourself or you can stay tuned with me right now and we're going to jump into a deep dive of the optical
22:02
performance. Let's jump into it together. So, first of all, take a quick look here at the overall focal length.
22:07
You can see that there's a pretty radical difference in the framing. Even at close distances from 16 mm to 30 mm.
22:14
As I zoom here in and out on the uh bridge, you can see what that difference looks like. Now, moving on to vignette
22:20
and distortion. You can see that the quantity of distortion is fairly mild here. You can see a bulge in the center
22:26
of the frame. Uh some of the lines, you know, out here are looking okay. Problem is is that after correction, it does
22:33
leave a mustache pattern behind and so you can get the interior lines looking better, but not consistently good.
22:39
Fortunately, the profile correction does better. To give you some perspective on that quantity of distortion though, here
22:45
is the Sigma 16 to 28 mm. You can see just how much heavier the vignette is.
22:50
A, but then also just how much more uh distortion there is compared to the
22:55
Tamron. Likewise here with the G Master lens, you can see also it has definitely
23:01
more of that uh barrel distortion showing up there. And you can see here it's got a very strong mustache pattern
23:07
as well. So while the Tamron in a vacuum doesn't look great, when you compare it
23:12
to the competition at 16 mm, uh, looks pretty great. Now on the other end of the spectrum you get a pronounced pin
23:19
cushion distortion. This is similar to the Sigma. The G Master is a little bit less at 35 mm. You can also see here
23:26
looking at the right side with even with a manual correction. This is much more linear, much easier to correct. H no big
23:32
deal. Now when it comes to longitudinal style chromatic aberration before and after the plane of focus, you can see a
23:38
little bit of green fringing after the plane of focus. However, because there are so few real world situations where
23:44
you're going to get uh anything that's quite like this, I didn't notice it to be any kind of issue in real world work.
23:50
Likewise, here there is the tiniest bit of fringing that you can see right here
23:56
on this most dominant black line, but that's about it. And this is at nearly 200% magnification. You will never see
24:02
any kind of lateral style chromatic aberrations out in real world shots. So, that's great. So, how about resolution
24:08
and contrast? So, this is a 61 megapixel A7R Mark II. We're zooming in all the
24:14
way to 200% magnification. Center of the frame looks pretty close to flawless here. Great contrast, great detail,
24:21
holding up really well. If we go up here towards the mid-frame, mid is also looking very good. Slightly less
24:26
contrast and detail, but still really at quite excellent levels. Now, if we work down this way and we go all the way
24:32
towards the corner, I was actually the corner looks better than what I expected from the MTR MTF chart. It feels like
24:39
that I would be looking at that and saying that's a good strong corner under normal circumstances. Uh the opposite
24:46
side looks good there. If I look down here looking consistently good. I look up here also looks consistently good. So
24:53
overall I feel like this is a really good wide openen performance here at 16 mm. Now for a little bit of context
25:00
let's take a look back to the Sigma 16mm f2.8 in the center of the frame. The two
25:06
lenses look roughly similar. The Sigma may actually have a very very slight
25:11
edge when it comes to contrast there in the center of the frame. If we look here in the mid-frame zone, it's looks very
25:19
very similar. The signal looks a little bit different because it's darker and so that does impact things. We move down
25:25
towards the corner, we can see that the two results are somewhat similar, but
25:31
the Tamron is has a little bit more contrast and detail showing up here. And we can also see as we move towards edge
25:37
of the frame, we compare here and here that the Tamron holds onto its sharpness a little further out than what the Sigma
25:44
does. Now, if we compare with the G Master lens at 16mm f/2.8 on the right,
25:49
we can see that the G Master arguably has a bit more contrast in the center of
25:54
the frame. Feel like this writing here is looking a little bit better. Uh, we don't have an apples to apples
26:01
comparison because I've updated the bills here. So, let's take a look down in this zone. And you can see that I
26:06
would say there's a little bit more contrast showing up for the G Master lens there. If we look at this area here
26:14
now, I would say that it's roughly a draw between the two. And if we move down towards the corner of the frame, we
26:21
can see that up till about this zone, they're roughly equal. As we move into this area here, however, the Tamron
26:28
shows just a little bit more consistency right out to the edge of the frame. Popping over here to this left side and
26:34
we can see that I I certainly like the feeling of the contrast better from the Tamron. And I would say even when it
26:41
comes to the detail, they're close, but particularly the closer you get towards the side of the frame, I feel like the
26:47
Tamron holds up just further out there. As you can see, for context, here's a
26:53
realworld shot. And obviously not optimal conditions shooting at in lower light, but we can see lots of detail
26:59
even at 61 megapixels. And you can see as we get towards the edge of the frame, detail is holding off right till the
27:05
edge of the frame. So o overall a really nice performance there. Now if you stop
27:10
the Tamron down to f4, I feel like contrast takes a pretty serious bump
27:15
forward. And so any advantage that, for example, the G Master had by f4, I think the Tamron is very, very close there. We
27:22
can see here in the mid-frame, it is looking better. And I really noticed up in this corner that there's just
27:28
definitely more pop by the time you get to f4. Contrast is brighter, detail is
27:33
just sharper. Looking really great even by that point. So that means by the time you get to landscape apertures like f5.6
27:40
here, even on 61 megapixels, tons of detail there in the center of the frame. As we move off towards the side, you
27:48
know, right here at the very edge, I would say that it looks better here than it does here. But it's still looking
27:53
very good right off to the edge of the frame. You know, even if we can look at these edge areas here, even though they
27:59
might be slightly impacted by depth of field, it's still all looking quite good. And so overall, this is a lens
28:06
that's going to produce really stunning landscape images. Now, as per usual, defraction is going to take a chunk out
28:12
of contrast and detail. Starting at f11, it's softened a bit, but still perfectly
28:17
acceptable. by f-16. I would say it's still usable, but you can see it is just a little bit softer due to the effects
28:24
of diffraction. Moving on towards the middle of the range here at 21 millimeters. I've got f2.8 on the left,
28:30
f4 on the right. We punch in, look at the center of the frame, we can see that it looks good wide open. Definitely more
28:37
contrast stop down to f4. You can see that pop a little bit more there. That's true in the mid-range. And while I feel
28:44
like it's close here in the mid-range uh in the corners, it's close. I would say maybe a hair better at 16 millimeters
28:52
than here, but overall still a very good and very consistent performance. And certainly by the time you're hitting f4,
28:58
you're at pretty excellent levels all across the frame. At 30 mm again, f2.8 and then f4, the center of the frame
29:06
feels very slightly softer to me, just a little bit lower contrast. You can see here, you can see that thus it makes a
29:12
more market improvement when you stop down to f4. I mean, look at the moir pattern emerging there. How much inkier
29:18
the text looks there. Likewise, if we look off towards the mid-frame zone, you
29:24
can see that look at just the word Canada for example, it's just much inkier looking at f4. And so, stopping
29:30
down definitely makes a big improvement. However, what I find here is that the corners never get quite as good as what
29:38
they did at uh at other focal lengths. And so even here, if I put now f5.6 on
29:44
the right, you know, it's improved, but it's still not what I would consider to be excellent. Um, and you know, I think
29:51
it's going to be perfectly acceptable in real world shots, which we'll examine in just a moment, but it's just not as
29:56
excellent as it was uh otherwise. Now, if we put that up compared to the Sigma
30:01
at 28 millimeters, both of them at f2.8, the Tamron actually does have better
30:06
detail in the center of the frame. I would say that the Sigma has better contrast. So, it's a little bit of a
30:12
give and take there. Um, if we take a look at another common area here at the midframe. Again, there's definitely more
30:19
detail there for the Tamron. Look at this figure for example, how much more detail is rendered there. And out here
30:25
at the edge, the Sigma has a better advantage at 30 millimeters. I would say that the 30 millimeter corners are the
30:33
weakest part of the Tamron. Um, but it's it's still it's it's not by much of a
30:38
dis distance either. Put it all in context at just a more typical 100% level magnification at 30 mm f2.8, we've
30:47
determined this is weaker, but it still looks really great. Lots of detail uh showing up there in this shot. However,
30:53
if I put f2.8 8 on the left, f5.6 on the right. We can see that in the center of
30:59
the frame, contrast is definitely kicked up. You know, there's detail is improved, but it's primarily the
31:04
contrast that is jumped ahead. But if we look over here closer to the side, you can see there's quite a bit of
31:10
difference in the contrast uh that just shows up there. And so, as we pan over to this side here, you can just see it
31:16
looks richer, better contrast at f5.6. So at 30 mm, stop down a little bit and
31:22
you're going to be in excellent zone in no time. So for a quick comparison, here is the maximum magnification you can get
31:28
at 30 cm, which is about 0.14 times. And then what you can get at 16 mm, which is
31:35
a 0.19 times of magnification. You can also probably make out here, and we'll
31:40
zoom in a bit, that you're also going to get better contrast and detail on the wide end. I don't love when lenses are
31:46
oriented like this because it is harder to get really close at a wide angle, but you can see that you're definitely going
31:53
to get the preferred results. And it also shows that difference in contrast, uh, at least wide open between 16 mm and
32:00
30 mm. Now, as far as the bokeh quality, again, you don't buy a lens like this for the bokeh necessarily. You can also
32:07
see that again contrast isn't topnotch at f2.8 at 30 mm. However, you can see
32:13
looking at the quality of the blur, even though this scene's fairly complex, it doesn't look too bad, this a more
32:20
advantageous type situation, we can see that, you know, there's pretty decent detail and contrast in the leaf here.
32:27
But as we look towards the background, it looks fairly soft really. And here at a very close distance, we can see detail
32:34
looking actually pretty good. And then the quality of the blur, it's not strongly blurred out, but the quality of
32:39
the blur itself is fine. Here's another shot. And this kind of helps us with the transition towards our actual uh flare
32:46
resistance as well. But you can see again that even in a back lit situation like this quality of the bokeal looks
32:52
pretty decent. So here is a look at a wider aperture here at flare resistance.
32:57
You can see no ghosting, no loss of contrast. stopping on down. You can see as we work that towards the corner, a
33:04
little bit of a ghosting pattern here, but quite minimal for an f11 type shot here with a more central composition at
33:12
f11. You don't see any of that ghosting pattern there. So, flare resistance overall is really quite good. Now,
33:18
again, it's not as easy with something like this to examine uh you know what
33:24
I'm looking for when it comes to coma performance uh because everything is in a state of movement. But what I'm really
33:30
looking at is we're starting to grow kind of those wings at the side. What I see is a little bit of stretching, but
33:36
what I don't see is growing any kind of wings. And so, while this isn't my favorite way to test for coma as
33:43
compared to what I might normally do, it looks like overall that the Tamron is doing a pretty decent job here without
33:51
growing any kind of wings. And so, not too much coma. Well, thanks for sticking around to the very end and I hope that
33:57
this has given you the information that you need to make an informed decision. As always, thanks for watching. Have a
34:03
great day and let the light in. [Music]

Tamron 16-30mm F2.8 G2 Review | The Best Mid range Wide Zoom?

Dustin Abbott

Viltrox AF 35mm F1.4 PRO FE | Did We Need Another Viltrox 35mm?

S-LINE vs SONGRAW | 85MM F1.2 SHOWDOWN

Nikkor Z 20mm F1.8 S Review | Nikon's Best Wide Angle Prime?

Nikkor Z 85mm F1.2 S Review | Still the Best?

Tamron 16-50mm F2.8 A Review | Your New APS-C Zoom

TTArtisan AF 24mm F3.8 VCM Review | Full Frame $99 Pancake Treat

Sigma 50-120mm F2.8 DC OS Review | It Just Makes Sense!

SongRaw vs Viltrox Pro | 85mm Z-Mount Showdown

Laowa AF 35mm F2.8 APO Macro - A Flawed Macro Gem

7Artisans AF 18mm F2 | An APS C Pancake for $169!

The Best (Affordable) Way to Reach 600mm and 800mm on Sony

SongRaw 85mm F1.2 MS Review | Huge Lens, Huge Performance

Sony FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS Review | 600mm in Under a Kilo!

Sony FE 400mm F4.5 GM OSS Review | Lightweight Perfection!

Bluetti Elite 100 Mini Review | 1000Wh in a Small Package

Up next in 10

Tamron 16-30mm F2.8 G2 Review | The Best Mid range Wide Zoom?

Dustin Abbott