Facebook Twitter Google+ YouTube Flickr 500px
See My Reviews

Three Way Shootout Part 4: Flare, Astro, and Conclusions

Dustin Abbott

April 27th, 2015

We are now approaching the finish line!  I have taken nearly 800 photos as a part of this review process in a variety of settings (this on top of the hundreds previously I had taken during my review period of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM  and  Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens  in my review of those lenses) and I feel like I now have a good sense of each lenses’ strengths, weaknesses, and purpose.  This final part of our Three Way Shootout will focus on three additional areas of comparison (Flare Resistance, Astraphotography and Coma, and Handling) before we look hard at each lens’ value and helping you decide which one is right for you.

Flare Resistance

The ability to resist flare without veiling, ghosting, and a loss of contrast is very important in a wide angle lens.  Some of those qualities may have artistic merit in a wide aperture prime lens for portraiture or fine art shots, but not in a wide angle lens.  All of those things are going to be distractions in a wide angle landscape shot and are often very difficult to correct for in post.  Vignetting or chromatic aberrations are much easier to deal with than veiling or ghosting artifacts.  The good news is that all of these lenses do a reasonable job, and the new Canon f/4L and the Tamron do an exceptional job.  Take a look at the beginning of this video for the section on Flare Resistance.

If you want to take a look at the original photos, I am including them here below.  I’ve done a controlled test from each lens at apertures of f/2.8 (or f/4 with the 16-35mm f/4L), f/5.6, and f/11.

Canon f/4L IS:

Canon f/2.8L II

Tamron 15-30 VC

You can see that the smaller aperture is most likely to introduce some kind of flare artifact, although none of these lenses produce anything too significant in this test.  Veiling is also quite well controlled.   The older Canon is (unsurprisingly) the least flare resistant.  Coatings have significant improved in recent years.  Both the f/4L and the Tamron do exceptionally well here, with a very faint win going to the Canon.

The f/11 shot in this series gives us a nice look at the sunburst/starburst effect from these three lenses.  The older f/2.8L is in some ways the most interesting, with some extremely long blades.  Those could also be distracting if they extend into a useful part of your image.  This is a taste thing.  The Tamron produces a less extreme, but very nice result.  My least favorite is the f/4L, but all of them do quite a nice job and are a far cry from the boring sunstar produced by either my Rokinon 14mm full frame lens or the Rokinon 12mm f/2 lens I have for mirrorless bodies.

Just for comparison sake, here is what my Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 did in the same test.  It should be noted, however, that this lens has a scratch on the rear element that may be affecting its performance here.  I’ve not really had an issue with flare in the past.

Astraphotography and Coma

Almost everyone loves the incredible pictures that can be taken of the starry skies at night, and it certainly is a great application of these lenses.  If you aren’t familiar with shooting this kind of image, I’ve written (and recorded) a tutorial for how to to both shoot and process nightscape images.  My lens of choice for the past several years has been the Rokinon 14mm (I used it for the image above).  It has been chosen by a number of professionals for its low coma and wide angle of view over a number of far more expensive competitors.  Can one of these lenses dethrone it?

I received the two Canons about 10 days before the Tamron was available to me (for this second time), so I did a number of comparisons between them. One thing that I really wanted to do as a part of this comparison was to test the lenses for astraphotography. Any wide angle lens that I use will definitely do some duty shooting the night sky, and I wasn’t really satisfied with the results that I got from the Canon 16-35mm f/4L last summer. I wanted to give it a second try.

I’ve previously noted in a number of reviews that I find that one can much better use a lens when you become familiar with it. Every lens has its own quirks. I rediscovered one from the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L; you cannot trust infinity focus by just using the distance scale. I didn’t know exactly where proper infinity focus comes, but this is the second copy that I have used, and in neither case was I able to go out in the dark and trust that setting the lens to the hard stop at infinity would produce proper focus on the stars. From the size of the star highlights it is clear that the lens focuses beyond infinity (it begins to go out of focus and focuses on nothing).

To infinity and beyond isn’t a good thing, here.

As a result, my first round of astraphotography photos were pretty much spoiled. This is kind of a big deal, because I was able to go out with the Tamron and get really great results using the same technique a few months ago.  The results from the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II weren’t much better.

Before testing the lenses for astraphotography again I did something that you should do, too, if you decide to do this type of shooting; I determined in the daytime where infinity focus actually was.  I did this by focusing on the sky (clouds) during the day by autofocusing of them, and then noting where infinity focus was (in the case of the Canons it was actually at the beginning of the long bar that leads to ∞ in the focus window.  I confirmed that focus at night by using Live View 10x and manually focusing on a bright object in the night sky (Venus, in this case).  So beware that if you own or purchase either Canon lens you will need to figure out where infinity focus actually is, as the manual focus ring will focus beyond infinity. In all fairness, however, the majority of my most successful nightscapes (check out some of them here) have been shot with the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, and its calibration isn’t even close to being accurate at infinity (much worse than the Canons). As far as focus calibration goes for this type of shooting, however, the Tamron 15-30 VC wins the prize.  Infinity focus comes either at or very close to where it is indicated by the hard stop.

That bit of logistics out of the way, I proceeded to shoot a series of night sky images with all four lenses (the Rokinon provided a baseline for me).  We are going to get critical in a moment, but let me first say that I was relieved to produce nice looking nightscape images with all of the lenses.  That was a relief to me, as I had previously been disappointed by the results from the 16-35mm f/4L, and it is otherwise an amazing lens.  That being said, however, two of these lenses are more suited to this purpose than the others.  I strongly suggest that you take a look at this video starting at the 5:45 minute mark to get the best look at the performance from these lenses in astraphotography.  It is hard to tell the story in just the images shared below.

To summarize the findings from this test:

The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II produces the worst coma of the bunch.  It has the advantage of an f/2.8 aperture over its f/4 brother, but the advantage ends there.  Star points become the shape of flying ducks (they acquire wings) in the corners of the image.  This becomes increasingly obvious with the brighter points of light.  Bright points of light also have a bit of a smear around them that makes them look look more mush and less sharp.  Star points also don’t look particularly sharp and precise even in the center of the frame.

The Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS mostly suffers in this comparison because of its less than desirable maximum aperture for this time of work.  There is somewhat a of sweet spot for this kind of shooting (between 15-20 seconds), as even an exposure of 30 seconds will begin to show some movement in the stars (the beginning of “star trail” photography).  The other lenses let in (theoretically) twice as much light as the f/4L IS, meaning that you have to either jack up the ISO settings or use a longer shutter speed.  Neither of these are particularly appealing.  The other challenge is that while the coma isn’t as bad as the f/2.8L, star points in a number of places around the edge of the image look wedge or diamond shaped.  Even in the center of the image, however, the star points are less distinct than those of the Tamron or the Rokinon – even with identical settings.  They are elongated and stretched rather than precise.  The overall “look”of the image isn’t bad, but it certainly does not hold up under scrutiny.  If this is an important use of a wide angle lens for you, the f/4L IS may not be your best choice for a number of reasons.

The Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 has been the champion for this type of work (along with the amazing Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/15mm), but its days at the top of the heap are now over.  It still has a very good coma result, with light points only become distorted somewhat in the extreme corners, but the incredibly heavy vignetting also reduces its light gathering efficiency in the corners.  It also isn’t as sharp as the Tamron wide open, and that makes the star points less precise (I have often used this lens at f/4 when conditions allow to get sharper nightscapes from it).  It is still a great budget option for this kind of work, but we have a new king.

The Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD is the clear winner of our comparison.  It’s vignette performance is excellent, as is its sharpness wide open.  Star points appear the most precise and sharp, and the extreme corners only produce a bit of elongation on star points (a bit of a tail but no wings!).  The center performance is clearly the best, and its excellent contrast makes for great looking nightscape images.  I even stopped it down to f/4 and shot it with identical settings to the Canon f/4L and the results clearly favored the Tamron.  It isn’t coma free, but it is better than the rest and is my new choice for this type of work.

Another photographer named Ron Brunsvold has taken the time to do a more scientific approach to finding the best wide angle lens for shooting nightscapes. I would encourage you to take a look at his findings here as he tests even more lenses in a controlled environment.  He summarizes by saying, “Bottom line is that it will take a bag full of lenses to accomplish or in some cases slightly exceed the performance of a single Tamron SP 15-30mm lens.” He also discovered what has unfortunately been my own conclusion; the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS excels in many areas, but low light or night sky performance is not one of them.

If shooting astraphotography is a priority for you, I encourage you to take a close look at the Tamron.  It does a great job for this type of work.

Handling, Autofocus, and Handholding (Image Stabilizer)

There is more to these lenses than just their optics.  While it is more difficult to scientifically quantify the difference in handling on each of these lenses, I can relay my feelings in using each one.  Ironically, I would have to say that it is the older lens that wins this prize for me.  The EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II is still a great lens to use in the field.  When it was released the 82mm front filter thread was an issue as it was larger than the 77mm standard and few lenses shared it.  In the past 8 years that has changed as lenses have trended towards larger front elements and now a number of lenses use the 82mm filter size.  The filters are more common and thus cheaper.  The zoom ring is by far the best of the bunch here, moving effortlessly in a manner that reminds me of some of the 70-200mm variants.  By comparison the other two lenses zoom ring require more effort and just feel a little “rougher” by comparison.  All of these lenses handle well, don’t get me wrong, but the older Canon just feels the most refined.

The demands on an autofocus system are lower on wide angle lenses as opposed to telephoto lenses.  For example, the depth of field at 15mm, f/2.8, and a subject 8 feet from the camera is more than 85 feet!  Change the focal length to 150mm and leave all the other variables the same and the depth of field is less than 2 inches.  You quickly get a sense of the difference in the demand for precision.  This isn’t to to say that wide angle lenses don’t need to focus accurately.  They do, but they don’t have to work quite as hard to get accurate results.  I can’t report any issue with focus accuracy with any of these lenses.  I’ve had consistent, repeatable results both in this test period along with my previous test periods for the f/4L IS and the Tamron.

When using the center point of the Canon 6D in decent light it would be hard to distinguish focus speed.  They all focus quickly and accurately. In the field, there was a bit less hesitation from the f/4L IS over the Tamron using the outer points.  The lenses do have a different feel even if there isn’t much variation in speed.  The Tamron seems to lag for a split second while inertia builds.  The Canons don’t pause in that way, but actual focus lock speed is roughly the same on the center point. The Tamron was able to focus accurately in extremely low light conditions.  The improved light gathering of the f/2.8 variants help in low light focusing.  If I were to give an edge to any of these lenses overall, however, it would be the to f/4L IS.  It focuses very quickly and very accurately and seems the most refined.

The f/4L IS and the Tamron both have image stabilizers (Vibration Compensation on the Tamron).  Some would debate whether or not an image stabilizer is necessary in a wide angle lens, and I will definitely say that image stabilization is more important in telephotos lenses.  Still, the image stabilizers do play an important role with these lenses, giving some versatility in situations where you desire a longer shutter speed and don’t have a tripod or when you want to shoot video.  I shot video sequences walking with the lenses and there is a definite difference between the steadiness of footage taken with the stabilizers on and the footage with them off.

I was able to achieve slightly better results with the Tamron than the Canon. I was able to handhold the Tamron at 30mm at speeds as low as .8 seconds, while the lowest I achieved with the Canon (at 35mm) is .5 seconds.  I was able to achieve the result with the Tamron more consistently.  It ironically may be the increased weight and bulk of the Tamron that aids in handholding it.  Just note that there is a law of diminishing returns with wide angle zooms as compared with the results with telephoto lenses. There is a vast amount of difference in the amount of shutter/mirror vibration in a 1/10th second shutter speed compared to a 1 second shutter speed. The good news is that with either lens handholding a 1/10th shutter speed is a cakewalk.  This is a definite advantage for these lenses over the older Canon f/2.8L, particularly when both of these lenses cost considerably less.  A slight edge goes to the Tamron for handholding.  They’ve done a great job with their VC systems on a variety of lenses that I’ve tested.  I was able to take some very cool pictures handheld at shutter speeds approaching one second that were still sharp and very stylish, plus it made a difference in panning shots.  See a few examples below:

We have already covered in a previous article that the Tamron is considerably bigger and heavier than the other two lenses.  If your goal is to keep the ounces down for backpacking or because of some physical issue, then our winner here is the f/4 IS.  The Tamron is packing a lot of technology and optical goodness into that package, but it definitely comes at a size and weight premium.

There is an elephant in the room when it comes to handling and use issues, and that is the no filter issue for the Tamron.  Unlike the other two it has a bulbous front element and a fixed lens hood that precludes the use of traditional screw on filters.  This is my single biggest issue with the Tamron. If it could use traditional filters I would declare it the hands down winner of our comparison.  But not being able to use traditional filters is a big deal for a lot of people…including me.  It means that (at least for the moment), I won’t be taking shots like this with the Tamron:

One of these is from the f/2.8L, the second pair from the f/4L.  None of them are from the Tamron.

Still, I will approach it the same way I did the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 – exposure bracketing, and then investing in a square filter solution when it arrives.  I can’t help but note that the lack of screw in filters for the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G hasn’t seemed to hurt its widespread adoption or use by a horde of landscape photographers.  I believe the Tamron will be a popular enough lens (there is already a serious backlog of preorders) that someone will create a square filter system for it. Polarizers are often not a great idea on lenses this wide; a graduated ND filter is far more important to me in this type of lens than a polarizer. What hurts is not being able to use my ND64 or ND1000 filters.  Note also that there will be additional expense involved with purchasing aftermarket filter systems for the Tamron that simply won’t exist in the same fashion for either of the Canons.  This is an important consideration as well.  None of these lenses is a perfect solution, and if you are a big filter user, you will probably be better served with choosing one of the Canons.

One final (minor) issue:  the Tamron has a fixed lens hood and thus its lens cap fits over the hood like that of the Nikon 14-24, Rokinon 14mm, and Zeiss 15mm (amongst others).  It is the least offensive of these lenses, however, because the thickness of the lens cap is only about an inch compared to 2-3 times that for some of the others.  It seems to fit securely, and is still slim enough to go into a pocket.  It is also easier to put on and take off than traditional flat, pinch caps but does take up more room for storage than they do (it is roughly three times as thick).

Price and Value:

Some of you are reading this article out of intellectual curiosity, some to help validate the choice you already made, and some of you are serious shoppers that are looking for advice on where to invest your money.  Let me preface this by saying that I don’t think you can go wrong between the f/4L IS or the Tamron.  Both of them are exceptional lenses.  But what will matter is the areas of particular strength and whether or not those areas align with your own needs.  Unfortunately there is no lens here that has it all; as always, there is some give and take.

  • The 16-35 f/2.8L has a wide aperture that lets in twice the light as the f/4 lens and retains the ability to use traditional filters, but it lacks an image stabilizer and has the weakest optics.
  • The 16-35mm f/4L IS has amazing optics and an effective image stabilizer, and it too retains the ability to use traditional filters, but it has a slower aperture than the other two and is thus less appealing as an event/wedding lens where you need to stop action and need the wider aperture.
  • The Tamron 15-30 VC has the wide aperture, image stabilizer, and the great, modern optics, but at the cost of being able to use traditional filters.

I’ve put together a series of bullet points to help your decision.

  • The Tamron has a six year warranty period vs. the 1 year warranty period the Canons (in North America). I’ve had a great ongoing experience with Tamron’s warranty service, so this is, to me, a very valuable bonus.
  • Experience says that you are probably more likely to need that warranty with the Tamron, though no lens is exempt from defect. At the same time, there are a couple of my Canon lenses that I have felt like needed service, but I have not sent them in for adjustment or repair because they were (quickly) out of warranty.
  • If you are a JPEG shooter some Canon bodies will correct for “Peripheral Shading” (vignetting) and even Chromatic Aberrations in body…but only with Canon branded lenses.
  • Third party manufacturers have to reverse engineer autofocus algorithms, so there is always an (off) chance that Canon could change those algorithms with a future body and leave you with a lens that needs updating. This is unlikely, but the risk is higher with a third party lens. In Tamron’s defense, they have done an exceptional job with their USD/PZD lenses and I have found focus accuracy very high with the four such lenses that I have owned (three of which remain in my kit).  I have used or reviewed almost all the others and had good results with them as well.
  • Historically Canon L series lenses have held their value very, very well. It is not uncommon to buy a used Canon L lens, use it for a few years, and then resell it for just about what you paid for it. The exception to this rule has been when buying newly released Canon lenses new; in recent years they have often had a heavy price premium in the first six months to a year and then the price relaxes somewhat. I have felt bad for those that paid $2400+ for the new EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II only to see the price settle down to $2000 (or less) and those that paid the ridiculous $1600 for the new EF 24-70mm f/4L IS only to see its price quickly drop to $1000 (or cheaper). The lesson here: Canon lenses hold their value well…once market value has been established.
  • Historically third party lenses have not held their value as well. In past years Tamron and Sigma lenses would often quickly lose several hundred dollars off their purchase price, and then settle into a holding pattern around there. There was also a prevailing attitude that third party lenses weren’t as good. This perception seems to be changing on both levels now. Many professionals now have a Tamron or Sigma in their kit, and have often chosen that lens over an equivalent first party lens. Third party lenses are a LOT better than what they used to be. Furthermore, the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (sticking with this focal length example) was released at about the same time as the Canon 24-70II. It was released at an asking price of $1299 in the US. Its current list price is…$1299. It has seen instant rebates of around $100 (like all lenses) periodically, but thus far it has actually held its value very well. I checked the used market and found that most used copies are selling for well over a thousand dollars while copies of the Canon 24-70II are selling around $1800-1900. The lesson here is the same as before: a good lens at a fair market price seems to hold its value well.
  • Both the Tamron 15-30 VC and Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS are released at very reasonable prices relative to their performance, and I noted with delight in my review of the Canon that it was proving the exception to the rule of Canon’s recent exorbitant initial pricing. It has held the price point of $1199 thus far, and other than the usual sales and rebates, I fully anticipate this continuing to be the market price. The same applies to the Tamron, which is being introduced at the same price point despite being an f/2.8 lens. Its price significant undercuts the Canon f/2.8 variant ($1699) and the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G ($1999). I fully anticipate Tamron stealing some market share from both of those lenses.

I don’t know what Canon is going to do regarding to do with our third member of this shootout – the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L. The lens was released in early 2007, and while a lot of people have used it, enjoy it, and have produced amazing images with it, the consensus has always been that it wasn’t as good as it could be…particularly as a landscape lens. Canon has continued to sell it at a $500 premium over the newer (and much better) f/4L IS variant. There are a number of event photographers and journalists that need the better light gathering of an f/2.8 lens and it has few competitors (the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 is one, but their market share is low). I suspect the new Tamron (which is making far more of a splash already than the Tokina ever did) is going to steal a number of those sales with both a much better price and pretty much better everything else, too. So what will Canon do?

Probably nothing.

They will continue to get sales from both those who mistrust third party lenses and those who don’t know there is a better option. They will also continue to get sales from those who value the cache of the red ring. And, in their own sweet time, they will probably bring out a new lens with the wider aperture and the optical performance of the f/4L IS. Just expect to pay a lot for that lens.

In the meantime, I feel that both the f/4L IS and the Tamron 15-30 VC offer excellent value for their price points.  The Tamron is the greatest value, as its direct f/2.8 competitors cost more and offer less.  The only lens here that I would question the value of is the f/2.8L; it offers less in most areas for more money.

Conclusions

You can watch some of my conclusions on these three lenses starting at the 11 minute mark of the video below, or read on beneath.

Who Are They For?

The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II shows its age in many ways while still pulling out a few tricks.  I feel like this lens is going to require more time spent in processing to produce images similar to the other two…but for the most part it could be done.  You can add in contrast, reduce the vignetting, and, in most cases, deal with the chromatic aberrations.  The one thing you can’t fake is sharpness in the corners, so this lens would not be my top pick for those of you who feel you will shoot a lot of landscapes.  The great handling of the lens, the reasonable size and weight, nice bokeh, and tried and tested Canon L series build quality will make it an attractive pick for those of you who feel you need the wider aperture and don’t want a third party lens like the Tamron.  It comes at a cost premium over the other two, however, and that is a little hard to stomach when in many ways it lags behind the other two.  If you tend to shoot more event work and artistic shots where absolute sharpness and contrast is not a priority, this lens might be your pick.  I’ve seen a number of brilliant shots with it over the past eight years, but I feel that most consumers would be better served with either the Tamron or the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS.  You can watch my review of it here:

The Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS is an exceptional lens and a huge leap forward for Canon in the wide angle zoom department.  It is as competent as any wide angle lens out there, and is the natural choice if you plan to only (or primarily) do landscape photography and don’t need the wider f/2.8 aperture.  Its slower maximum aperture is its greatest weakness, and it has a bit more vignetting, distortion, and coma that what I would like, but it also offers exceptional sharpness, contrast, virtually non-existent chromatic aberrations, and exceptional flare resistance.  My single greatest criticism remains:  I personally find it a bit bland.  But it is an exceptional lens.  It has the smallest front element, lowest weight, a great image stabilizer, while retaining a tough weathersealed body.  It really is the new benchmark and offers great value for the money.  If you need traditional filters and don’t do a lot of low light photography, the 16-35mm f/4L IS is a sure bet.

The Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD is a very interesting proposition.  It seems aimed more at the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 G than any single Canon lenses, and direct head to head comparisons of those two lenses have been very interesting.  For Canon users the Tamron offers the best of both worlds but with two major caveats:  it is much bigger and heavier than the Canon zooms and does not allow for the use of traditional filters. If you want to shoot interiors, events, or the night sky along with landscape work this is now your best option.  It is super sharp wide open at all focal lengths and has a host of optical strengths, including sharpness and contrast, low vignetting, relatively low distortion, and great chromatic aberration and flare control.  It also offers the advantages of the wider aperture and focal length.  It has no real optical deficiencies and offers both weathersealing and special coatings on the front element to be resistant water and fingerprints.  It is now my personal choice for a wide angle option…not because it is better than the f/4L IS, but because it suits my shooting priorities more.  My next article for PhotoNews magazine will focus on the “trinity” of Tamron zooms for professional work.  I’ve received a number of emails from people that have purchased the Tamron 15-30 VC since my initial review and  all have been delighted with it.  You can see my video review of the lens here:

The Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is really just along for the ride in some of these comparisons, but remains an amazing budget option both in terms of its optics and the incredible angle of view that it offers.  I wrote a review of it here.

This series has been very fulfilling as I feel that I have been able to “test these lenses to death” and be completely confident in my recommendations.  There were a few surprises along the way, but mostly my previous conclusions/suspicions have been confirmed.

If you haven’t seen them already, please check out:

Part 1: Specs, Build, and Objectives

Part 2: Resolution

Part 3: Angle of View, Distortion, and Bokeh

Part 5:  Gallery of Favorite Images from the Review

I hope that this series has been helpful to you as a consumer and perhaps helped you make a more informed decision.  If this is the case, please support my affiliate partners that provided these lenses and buy through these links.

Review notes: I want to give a shout-out to Tamron of Canada (Amplis Foto) for providing the copy of the Tamron for this comparison and B&H Photo of New York for providing the 16-35mm f/4L IS and the 16-35mm f/2.8L II for this comparison. The copy of the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 that I use for comparison was purchased from the great people at Amplis Foto a few years ago. Reward these companies that provide the answers to your questions by shopping there…and reward my work on your behalf by using these links to shop through.

Gear Used:

Canon EOS 6D DSLR Camera (Body Only)
Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens (Canon EF)
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens
Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 ID ED UMC for Canon
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Software for Mac and Windows (Boxed Version)
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Alien Skin Exposure 7 (Use code “dustinabbott” to get 10% off)

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.

B&H Logo

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52014 in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews! Consider supporting Amplis Foto in Canada by buying the new Tamron 15-30 VC from them. They provide service in Canada for all Tamron products, and a great people to work with.

[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Three Way Shootout Image Favorites

Dustin Abbott

April 27th, 2015

This is simply a gallery of images taken during the month of April 2015 when I compared three wide angle zooms head to head in a three way shootout.  These three lenses are the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L IICanon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS , and the  Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD.  I took a number of images during that period that I am proud to share. Some of these have received some post-processing, while others are just as they came out of the camera.  Enjoy!

If you haven’t seen them already, please check out:

Part 1: Specs, Build, and Objectives

Part 2: Resolution

Part 3: Angle of View, Distortion, and Bokeh

Part 4: Flare Resistance, Astraphotography, Handling, and Conclusions

Review notes: I want to give a shout-out to Tamron of Canada (Amplis Foto) for providing the copy of the Tamron for this comparison and B&H Photo of New York for providing the 16-35mm f/4L IS and the 16-35mm f/2.8L II for this comparison. The copy of the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 that I use for comparison was purchased from the great people at Amplis Foto a few years ago. Reward these companies that provide the answers to your questions by shopping there…and reward my work on your behalf by using these links to shop through.

Gear Used:

Canon EOS 6D DSLR Camera (Body Only)
Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens (Canon EF)
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens
Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 ID ED UMC for Canon
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Software for Mac and Windows (Boxed Version)
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Alien Skin Exposure 7 (Use code “dustinabbott” to get 10% off)

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.

B&H Logo

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52014 in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews! Consider supporting Amplis Foto in Canada by buying the new Tamron 15-30 VC from them. They provide service in Canada for all Tamron products, and a great people to work with.

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Three Way Shootout Part 3: Angle of View, Distortion, and Bokeh

Dustin Abbott

April 20th, 2015

Header 3

Our time with these three lenses has certainly demonstrated how far development has come in the past few years in the wide angle zoom department.  Our comparison of these three lenses has certainly favored the newer Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS along with the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD, but this week’s comparison series will further complicate matters a bit by demonstrating at least one area where the older Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II beats out the newer competitors.  In this episode of our three way shootout we will be examining three aspects of these wide angle lenses:  angle of view, distortion, and bokeh.

Angle of View

The first two points of comparison are somewhat related, as the angle of view is only one part of the equation.  A lens can have a wide angle of view on paper but that angle of view can be less than useful if there is a tremendous amount of distortion, particularly that distortion that corrupts image quality along the edges of the frame.  I would suggest watching the first two minutes of the video below to see an interactive look at the comparative angle of view for our lens candidates.

Our results show that the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 blows other lenses away in terms of absolute angle of view.  Every millimeter on the wide end makes a huge difference in the angle of view. The Rokinon’s 14mm focal length produces a field of view of 115.7 degrees (WOW!), while the Tamron’s 15mm produces a field of view of a slightly more modest 110 degrees. The Canon 16-35 frames at about 108 degrees while the Nikkor 14-24 actually frames at 114 degrees (as done Canon’s own 14L lens). Just for kicks: the Zeiss 15mm also frames at 110 degrees just like the Tamron, so the exception to the rule here is the Rokinon, which frames noticeably wider than all other options.  But this comparison also shows that there is more at play here than the numbers.

I recognize that for most prospective buyers, this comparison is really about the Tamron 15-30 VC vs. the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS – so let’s first look at side by side comparisons of the angle of view of these lens at close distance (about 3 1/2 feet from a bookshelf), in a tight architectural space (a bathroom), and then at landscape distance.

The difference in angle of view is relatively modest, but noticeable in every setting.  My feeling is that matters less for most landscape photographers (stepping back an additional 5-10 feet is often possible), but will make more of a difference to those of you who are considering shooting interiors or events.

Here is a series from each of the four lenses in this setting:

Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II

Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 VC USD

Rokinon 14mm f/2.8

The Rokinon has a massive angle of view, but has an equally massive amount of distortion that means that it will not be a natural choice for most people that are looking to do architectural or interior work.  As a manual focus only lens (with a very imprecise focus ring)  the number of people that will want to use it for event work is negligible.  It is a great budget landscape and astraphotography lens, but isn’t a serious part of our considerations.

It is interesting to note that the two Canons do not frame identically at close distance (although they frame almost identically near infinity).  The older f/2.8L II frames a bit wider than the new f/4L IS, but it is only a minute difference.

The Tamron’s advantage on paper seems relatively small (2 degrees), but we see that this makes a noticeable difference in framing both in tight spaces and in the field.  Of perhaps greater significance is that it achieves this while producing a very modest amount of distortion (the lowest of our trio).  As we will see in our next segment, the combination of these elements further extends its advantage in this area.

Of our three contenders, the Tamron wins the angle of view war on the wide end by a fair margin.  Some have suggested that it isn’t as wide as the focal length suggests, but my tests show that it is clearly wider by an appropriate margin than either of the Canons.  The Rokinon is an anomaly; it frames wider than other 14mm lenses both on paper and in practice.

There is one other point to consider, however, and that is the Tamron sacrifices 5mm on the other end (30 vs. 35mm).  This produces a slightly lower maximum magnification figure than the other two lenses.  Every photographer has their own purpose in mind for using these lenses, so you need to consider what is more important to you – more on the wide end or more on the telephoto end.  I own both a 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom and a 35mm prime, so I personally prefer the wider focal length of the Tamron – it adds something that my other lenses aren’t replicating.

Distortion

We have already noted that the Rokinon represents the extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to distortion.  It’s distortion is the most difficult to correct for.  None of our three main contestants have a particularly difficult distortion pattern to correct for, but they all exhibit some barrel distortion (as is extremely common with wide angle lenses).  I read this evening with interest that LensTip reported a higher degree of distortion for the Tamron than the f/4L IS, which does not reconcile with my findings at all.  Photozone’s test show just slightly more distortion for the f/4L than the older f/2.8L (they have not tested the Tamron yet).  There is variation in these sites in their reporting on the older lenses, which surprised me.  That being said, I must work with the evidence in front of me, and my tests show the Tamron exhibiting much less barrel distortion in real usage…and that seems to reconcile with what the profiles created by Adobe show.

Start watching at the 1:55 minute mark for the section on distortion.  It is easier to visualize these differences in the interactive format shown in the video.

If you look at these before/after photos you will see that there is certainly more barrel distortion that needs correcting with both of the Canon options than what is apparent with the Tamron.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS

Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II and Rokinon 14mm f/2.8

In fact, even though a profile in ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) for the Tamron now exists and will certainly be in the next build of Lightroom (rumored to be announced this week), I find that it makes so little (apparent) correction to the image that I wonder whether it is worth using it. I have taken multiple images into Photoshop, applied the correction, and then decided that I prefer the original and remove the correction.  I certainly am not doing that with the images from the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS.  This is not to suggest that distortion from that lens is particularly bad (it is not) but the nature of the distortion is that it is apparent to my eye.  I don’t see a lot of distortion in the images from Tamron and feel that the profile lops off some of the image without a whole lot to show for it.  There’s too much give and not enough take.

I’ve given you visual evidence to judge for yourself, but my own conclusion is that the Tamron exhibits less barrel distortion on the wide end than either of the Canon options.  I can’t really give you an answer as to why other sites report otherwise, but I will say this:  I have noted that sometimes third party lenses sometimes receive more criticism than first party options.  I also have the advantage in this situation of comparing these lenses side by side rather than in a vacuum. Head to head comparisons sometimes reveal surprising things, as does field testing as compared to just shooting charts.

Bokeh

I recognize that bokeh is probably not a top priority for many people in a wide angle lens (this is hardly a strength for them), but I have been pleasantly surprised with a number of wide angle options.  Furthermore, this type of lens (particularly the f/2.8 variant) is not only used by landscape photographers but frequently by event and wedding photographers, and there are certainly occasions that getting close to the subject and throwing the background out of focus can create unique and beautiful images.  (If you would like to understand the concept and purpose of bokeh more, visit this excellent article by PHLEARN).

Start watching at the 4:50 minute mark for the section on bokeh:

Let’s first take these lenses one at a time, starting with the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS:

The Canon is at a disadvantage in bokeh situations because it has an aperture that is only half the size of the two f/2.8 variations.  Despite that, however, a nice maximum magnification figure (.23x – the highest of the trio) means that there are situations where it can produce some bokeh highlights despite its f/4 maximum aperture.  This will happen when you get close to your subject and have a little separation from the background.  When shot in identical situations to the other lenses the f/4L IS does produce “busier” backgrounds due to the smaller aperture.  It can’t overcome physics.  There are two knocks on the “Christmas light” highlight performance:  1)  There is a definitely a hard line around the inside outer edge of the bokeh circles that draws the eyes and 2) the bokeh highlights become somewhat “lemon” shaped towards the edge of the frame in a way the other two lenses don’t.  Not quite “cat eye”, but definitely not round, either.  The wide end bokeh gets more busy and less attractive, but don’t expect anything impressive from any of these lenses at 15/16mm when it comes to bokeh highlights.  Physics, and all that…

Next, let’s take a look at the Tamron 15-30 VC:

The Tamron benefits from having a large f/2.8 aperture, but suffers a bit in this type of test due to have a shorter maximum focal length compared to the other two (30mm vs. 35mm) and a resulting lower maximum magnification (.20x).  This diminishes its advantage somewhat in the size and softness of the bokeh highlights as compared to the f/4L IS.  That advantage would be a bit more pronounced were the framing identical.  The performance here reminds me a bit of the Tamron 24-70 VC – the highlights are a bit…busy.  There are some inner concentric lines that are often referred to as “onion bokeh”.  It doesn’t have the hard edge of the f/4L IS, but it produces the busiest bokeh highlights of the three and also will display a random “dot” here and there in the bokeh.  This performance actually surprised me, as I felt in field use (much like the 24-70 VC) that the bokeh was quite nice, particularly in the transition zone between focus and defocus.  The wide end bokeh remains busy, but is a bit softer than that of the f/4L IS because of the larger aperture.

I’ve saved the best for last.  We will now look at the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II:

The Canon has long been a staple of event and wedding photographers, and while it suffers in comparison to the other lenses when it comes to absolute sharpness and corner performance, it is a real winner in this kind of situation.  Its maximum magnification is only a fraction lower than the f/4L IS (.22x).  More importantly, the bokeh is shockingly beautiful for such a lens at 35mm, with big, soft bokeh highlights that completely lack any hard edges or visual noise inside.  They stay beautifully round right up the edge of the frame.  It puts the other two lenses to shame with this performance.  The lens sacrifices some sharpness and contrast to the other lenses, but much like, say, a Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50mm it makes up for it with nice drawing and rendering of out of focus areas.  This is a great performance!  The wide end isn’t as visually impressive for a number of reasons, but is still the best performance of the three.

Field Use:

The test above is a very specific and unique one that is rarely duplicated in field use.  I have encountered issues with the onion bokeh issue on the Tamron 24-70 VC less than a handful of times despite taking well over 10,000 shots with it in a huge variety of circumstances and taking it to multiple countries.  It is a factor to consider, yes, but hardly the most important one.

Field use tells me that all of these lenses will produce nice results near minimum focus.  They all have useful maximum magnification figures and are nice performers in the field.  Still, this is one area where the older Canon gets the win.  Here are some field results in the same order as above:  f/4L IS, 15-30 VC, and f/2.8L II.  Some shots will give you a direct field comparison between two of the lenses.  There are fewer samples from the f/2.8L II because I concentrated more on comparing the two main players here.  Hovering over the thumbnails will tell which of the lenses is in use.

Conclusions

All three of these lenses have strengths and weakness.  The Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD pulled off a win when it comes to the angle of view (expected) and distortion (unexpected).  The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II  turned in a shockingly good performance in our bokeh comparison.  The Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS had no outright wins in this week’s comparison, but has already demonstrated that it is an exceptional all around performer that really lacks any kind of glaring weakness (f/4 aperture aside).  The Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is really just along for the ride in some of these comparisons, but remains an amazing budget option both in terms of its optics and the incredible angle of view that it offers.  Expect a strong performance from it in our astraphotography comparison next week.  If you haven’t seen them already, please check out:

Part 1:  Specs, Build, and Objectives

Part 2:  Resolution

Part 3: Angle of View, Distortion, and Bokeh

Part 4:  Flare Resistance, Astraphotography, Handling, and Conclusions

Part 5:  Gallery of Favorite Images from the Review

Next week will bring this series to its conclusion, as we will compare a variety of other aspects of these lenses’ performance, including flare resistance, coma and astraphotography, handling (including handholding), and the final conclusions on each of these lenses.  You will definitely want to check it out!

Review notes I want to give a shout-out to Tamron of Canada (Amplis Foto) for providing the copy of the Tamron for this comparison and B&H Photo of New York for providing the 16-35mm f/4L IS and the 16-35mm f/2.8L II for this comparison.  The copy of the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 that I use for comparison was purchased from the great people at Amplis Foto a few years ago.  Reward these companies that provide the answers to your questions by shopping there…and reward my work on your behalf by using these links to shop through.

Gear Used:

Canon EOS 6D DSLR Camera (Body Only)
Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens (Canon EF)
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens
Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 ID ED UMC for Canon
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Software for Mac and Windows (Boxed Version)
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Alien Skin Exposure 7 (Use code “dustinabbott” to get 10% off)

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.

B&H Logo

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52014 in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews! Consider supporting Amplis Foto in Canada by buying the new Tamron 15-30 VC from them. They provide service in Canada for all Tamron products, and a great people to work with.

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Three Way Shootout Part 2: Resolution

Dustin Abbott

April 13th, 2015

Red vs. TungstenThis article will seek to examine what is probably the single biggest burning question for us all:  can the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD live up to the superlative standard for sharpness (particularly in the corners) set by the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS?  I first want to give a shout-out to Tamron of Canada (Amplis Foto) for providing the copy of the Tamron for this comparison and B&H Photo of New York for providing the 16-35mm f/4L IS and the 16-35mm f/2.8L II for this comparison.  The copy of the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 that I use for comparison was purchased from the great people at Amplis Foto a few years ago.  Reward these companies that provide the answers to your questions by shopping there.  Back to the question of whether or nor the Tamron can optically compare to the Canon…

Before answering that question, let me first say this:  There is only one loser in this comparison, and that is the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II. It tells its age in many ways, including very poor performance in the corners, noticeably inferior contrast (even stopped down), poorer flare resistance, and much more chromatic aberrations (both green and purple fringing).  One thing that I have learned as a reviewer and one who actually does photography with a huge variety of lenses is that field use is kinder to many lenses than chart testing.  Some lenses don’t chart very well, but compensate by producing good pictures when actually used.  Some of you may own the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II and probably have produced some stunning photos with it.  I have certainly seen a number of amazing images from it.  If you own it and like it, then just go on enjoying it; the existence of these other lenses doesn’t make yours worse!  I have had to the same thing with my EF 135mm f/2L despite its optical performance being passed by both the Zeiss APO Sonnar T* 2/135mm and the Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC.  But when this lens has to go head to head with the new Canon or the new Tamron, it comes away looking pretty bad by comparison (with a few notable exceptions that will show up in the next articles).  When I took it and f/4L IS out I could definitely tell a difference between the images.  The difference was immediately noticeable when comparing images, as both the sharpness and contrast differences (along with chromatic aberrations) were quickly apparent.

Not so with the Tamron and the f/4L. These are both amazing optical instruments. There is a bit of give and take:

  • The Canon has better chromatic aberration control (almost none). The Tamron has very little, but more than the Canon.
  • The Tamron is much better in the vignetting department, with noticeably less shading in the corners. That difference is even more apparent when it is stopped down to f/4.
  • The Canon is marginally sharper in the extreme corners, with the advantage virtually gone by the time the Tamron is stopped down to f/4.
  • The Tamron produces slightly more micro-contrast.
  • The Tamron (obviously) produces a more blurred background at or close to minimum focus.
  • The Tamron (surprisingly) has less distortion.

Most of these differences, however, are only distinguishable by comparing images taken in controlled environments side by side.  In fact, it is very hard to distinguish images taken by these lenses from each other except if they are shot with narrow depth of field (the f/4 backgrounds are a little busier due to the smaller aperture). The color rendition is quite similar. There were a few situations where the Canon had some motion blur because it would drop to a lower shutter speed due to the slower maximum aperture, but under normal circumstances I would just raise the ISO to compensate. This is really only an issue if you are a low light situation where that isn’t an option.

In subsequent articles we will look closer at:

  1. Angle of view
  2. Distortion
  3. Coma and shooting the stars
  4. Bokeh
  5. Flare Resistance
  6. Handling

This article is going to take a closer look at resolution, however.  The best way to visualize this comparison is by watching the video below where I go through the process of acquiring the images and then interactively look at the results.  I think you will find this very interesting:

None of these images have received any processing or correction.  I shot them as RAW images so that there would be no in camera processing.  There is not additional sharpness, chromatic aberration correction, distortion correction, or vignette correction.  As you can see, the optical difference between our two top competitors is marginal.  Both the Tamron and the Canon f/4L IS offer extremely impressive resolution.  If you would prefer to do this comparison yourself, here are the full size images of the Tamron at f/4 (top) and the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS at f/4 on the bottom – if you will click through you can go to a page with the full size images that you can zoom into at any point.  One thing to note:  the focus point was the poles in the center of the image, which means that at this aperture the bottom corners (and bottom quarter of the image) are not yet in focus, so don’t draw any conclusions on any of the lenses from that.

Tamron f-4Canon f-4

Here are the pertinent crop comparisons.  In this series, the Tamron is on the left (as marked) and the Canon is on the right.  Other than the heavier vignetting of the Canon and a minute amount of additional fringing on the Tamron, making a visual distinction between the lenses is difficult.  I do think the extreme left still slightly favors the Canon, but every other portion of the image is a draw.

As a final comparison, here is the f/4 image from the older Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II:

Canon II f-4You can quickly see that the newer lenses outresolve the older f/2.8L lens in a dramatic way.  That is particularly true in the corners, but is true throughout the frame as well.  The older lens also demonstrates far more chromatic aberrations and reduced contrast.  If you want to look further, I am including 1500px copies from the Tamron at 15mm, 20mm, and 30mm in f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11.

This second series will share similar images from the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS (f/2.8 results won’t appear for obvious reasons):  16mm, 20mm, and 31mm in f/4, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11.

The third series shares the images from the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II:  16mm, 21mm, and 31mm in f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11.

Our final series is from the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8.  These images (for obvious reasons) are only at 14mm:  f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11

It may be harder to visualize the differences in these images, so let me summarize my findings: at 15/16mm for the Canon f/4L and Tamron further stopping down is just about either getting a slightly deeper depth of field or because you want a slower shutter speed:  they are both essentially perfect sharp at f/5.6 and sharpness doesn’t change at f/8 or f/11.  f/5.6 is probably a great aperture to choose for landscape work, as it represent something close to peak sharpness across the frame.

As for the Rokinon, it suffers in this comparison for a few reasons.  The incredibly heavy vignetting really detracts from the image quality here, but note that this is very easy to correct for in post.  The Rokinon also suffers because of its fairly extreme distortion that stretches the edges of the image and gives the appearance of softness.  Towards the center of the image it is fairly equal to the other competitors, but is definitely the worst in the extreme corners.  Stopped down and corrected it continues to offer great image quality at its bargain price point, but it is not at the level of our top two performers.

At 20mm most of the previous observations remained true, although the Tamron looked better in the corners than the Canon f/4L while the Canon looked better in the center (essentially reversed, which could be a focus variation).  When stopped down to f/5.6 and beyond the images were indistinguishable from each other.  The older Canon continued to lag behind the other two lenses in an equally obvious way.  Test say that the Tamron is actually the sharpest option available in the 21-24mm range.

A 30mm the older Canon seems to fall behind even further.  It is quite soft wide open even towards the middle of the frame when compared to the other two.  The Tamron is now basically equal to the Canon f/4L even wide open at f/2.8.  Both of these lenses are producing a nearly flawless result, however, with great resolution across the frame and excellent contrast.

(Believe it or not, there are a couple of places in later discussions where the older Canon f/2.8 II is a winner, but resolution and overall image quality is not one of them.)

Put simply, while I do feel that there is a very marginal advantage at wider apertures for the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS (at least at 16mm), you can take resolution off the table as a means of making your decision between the new Tamron 15-30 VC and the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS.  In subsequent articles were will compare the differences in other areas that might help you make that decision one way or another, but I don’t think that you can declare a clear winner between these two new wide angle zooms when it comes to resolution…unless you need an f/2.8 aperture.  The Tamron is the far and away winner of our four contestants in resolution at f/2.8 (though the f/4L concedes this by default).  In practical use for most subjects, however, it would be hard to distinguish the images from one lens to the other.  The only exception to this rule is close focus shots at maximum aperture.  The f/2.8 aperture is going to produce more defused backgrounds, but this also represents a fairly marginal use of these types of lenses.  This series of images demonstrates how similar in practice these lenses really are.

If you were unable to tell the difference, here’s the clue:  Canon images are first in the sequence, Tamron images are second.  Most of the Tamron images are at f/2.8 (other than some of the landscape shots), while the similar shots from the Canon are at f/4, of course.  I think you will probably agree that in real world use, you aren’t going to be tell a resolution difference between these lenses.  They are just going to produce great looking, sharp images…period.  If you can’t produce sharp results with either of these lenses, then I’m afraid you can’t blame the glass.  These lenses offer the pinnacle of image quality in wide angle zooms.  The shootout will continue, but between our main competitors you will probably have to call this one a draw.

If you want to read the other sections, take a look here:

Part 1:  Specs, Build, and Objectives

Part 2:  Resolution

Part 3: Angle of View, Distortion, and Bokeh

Part 4:  Flare Resistance, Astraphotography, Handling, and Conclusions

Part 5:  Gallery of Favorite Images from the Review

 

Gear Used:

Canon EOS 6D DSLR Camera (Body Only)
Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens (Canon EF)
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens
Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 ID ED UMC for Canon
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Software for Mac and Windows (Boxed Version)
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Alien Skin Exposure 7 (Use code “dustinabbott” to get 10% off)

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.

B&H Logo

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52014 in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews! Consider supporting Amplis Foto in Canada by buying the new Tamron 15-30 VC from them. They provide service in Canada for all Tamron products, and a great people to work with.

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Three Way Shootout Part 1: the Lenses

Dustin Abbott

April 9th, 2015

Header 1

When I did my review of the Tamron 15-30mm VC last month, I did it without the benefit of having its direct competition (at least in a Canon mount) on hand. The review period was quick because of the demand for review pre-release copies and so I didn’t have a chance to get the competitors on hand. I had to rely on my memory of those lenses and the gut impressions I got from using them. Subsequent reviews by other review sites have largely confirmed those impressions. I felt strongly enough about the Tamron that I put my own preorder in. My one regret, however, was that I didn’t get a chance to directly compare the 16-35mm f/4L IS with the Tamron. When Tamron of Canada mentioned that I could get some more time with the 15-30 VC I immediately reached out to my buddies at B&H Photo to provide me a comparison copy of the 16-35mm f/4L, and just for the fun of it, to throw the older 16-35mm f/2.8L II into the mix as well. They were very obliging, and so I owe a debt of gratitude to both them and Tamron of Canada (Amplis Foto) for enabling this bit of “fanboy fantasy”. A lot of you have requested this comparison, so you thank these great companies for making it happen!

As I mentioned, there have been a number of reviews that have come to light since I launched mine in mid-February. Those reviews have for the most part affirmed the various conclusions that I came to myself. However, in one case, the chart testing at The Digital Picture by Bryan Carnathan (a reviewer that I have a lot of personal respect for) seemed to indicate that the Tamron was not a sharp as what I found to be, or at least as compared to the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS. While I did directly compare the Tamron 15-30 to two lenses from my own kit: the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (which by the way, has since been serviced by the fine people at Tamron Canada and is sharper than ever!) and the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, I regretted not being to compare it to its natural competition.

Threesome-2

I decided that I would do my own direct comparison of these three lenses, but I will stick to my strengths here. This will not be a chart comparison, but rather a real world photography comparison but doing my utmost to deliver those results in as accurate, controlled, and unbiased way as possible. I appreciate those that do chart testing, and always enjoy looking at those results and using them as a part of my own purchase decisions. I recognize that it is easier to be scientific with chart testing. But much like testing a camera without a lens attached (hello, DXO) I don’t find that they always tell the full story. In real life no photographer shoots charts; we shoot real-world subjects…with lenses attached! I personally find results that imitate the way I will actually use a lens to be more personally beneficial.

On top of that I want to do my best to help those of you that are weighing which of the fine options to choose for your own kit. I will do my absolute best to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each lens along with some visual evidence to back those conclusions up. I don’t work for any of these companies, nor do I own stock in them. I’m not trying to sell you anything. If anything, I am just thankful that after a long period of having no great option available in the wide angle zoom department, Canon shooters suddenly have a wealth of choices.

But what about the new EF 11-24mm f/4L? I do plan to review that lens at some point, but I don’t feel like it is really a natural competitor to any of these lenses. It costs nearly three times as much as the Tamron and the 16-35 f/4L IS and almost twice as much as the 16-35mm f/2.8L. While there is some focal length overlap, it is a far more extreme instrument, and, frankly, there are only a limited number of photographers that actually need the extreme focal length provided by the 11-24mm f/4L. These three lenses, however, are very natural competitors.

Natural Competitors

Part One Header

The Tamron is uniquely situated to compete with both of these Canon options, as it has the wider aperture of the former combined with the image stabilizer of the latter. At the same time it is a unique lens, so the feature set of the lens ends up being a combo of these two lenses rather just one of them. Part of what I will be doing is comparing the feature set of each lens to help you make a more informed decision if you are in the market. Unfortunately there is no lens here that has it all; as always, there is some give and take.

The 16-35 f/2.8L has a wide aperture that lets in twice the light as the f/4 lens and retains the ability to use traditional filters, but it lacks an image stabilizer and has the weakest optics by a good margin.

The 16-35mm f/4L IS has amazing optics and an effective image stabilizer, and it too retains the ability to use traditional filters, but it has a slower aperture than the other two and is thus less appealing as an event/wedding lens where you need to stop action and need the wider aperture.

The Tamron 15-30 VC has the wide aperture, image stabilizer, and the great optics, but at the cost of being able to use traditional filters and considerably more size and weight.  It also sports a six year warranty in North America – kind of a big deal!

Both the Tamron 15-30 VC and Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS are released at very reasonable prices relative to their performance, and I noted with delight in my review of the Canon that it was proving the exception to the rule of Canon’s recent exorbitant initial pricing. It has held the price point of $1199 thus far, and other than the usual sales and rebates, I fully anticipate this continuing to be the market price. The same applies to the Tamron, which is being introduced at the same price point despite being an f/2.8 lens. Its price significant undercuts the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II ($1699) and the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G ($1999). I fully anticipate Tamron stealing some market share from both of those lenses.

Here is the introductory video that will show you the difference in size and build and lay out the objectives for this comparison.

Here are a few of the questions that I would like to answer during this comparison:

  • Would my perceptions regarding what I found the more exciting lens bear up under direct comparison with the 16-35mm f/4L IS?
  • Is the 16-35mm f/4L IS as bad for astraphotography as what I remembered?
  • When compared directly, does one of these lenses have a clear resolution advantage in field use?
  • I noted the amazing contrast of the new Tamron 15-30. Will that still be the case when compared with the 16-35mm f/4L IS?
  • Is the added bulk and complication of not being able to use front filters a deal breaker with the Tamron 15-30 VC?
  • Is the added width of the Tamron on the long end going to make much of a difference?  Is the extra length on the Canons?

I’ve already begun a series of comparisons to answer these questions and more.  I’m discovering some interesting things, so stay tuned.  I will be breaking down strengths and weaknesses in a variety of fields for each lens, so keep watching for new articles and updates.  Take a look at each part of this comprehensive series.

Part 1:  Specs, Build, and Objectives

Part 2:  Resolution

Part 3: Angle of View, Distortion, and Bokeh

Part 4:  Flare Resistance, Astraphotography, Handling, and Conclusions

Part 5:  Gallery of Favorite Images from the Review

Gear Used:

Canon EOS 6D DSLR Camera (Body Only)
Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens (Canon EF)
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Software for Mac and Windows (Boxed Version)
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Alien Skin Exposure 7 (Use code “dustinabbott” to get 10% off)

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.

B&H Logo

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52014 in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews! Consider supporting Amplis Foto in Canada by buying the new Tamron 15-30 VC from them.  They provide service in Canada for all Tamron products, and a great people to work with.

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Review

Dustin Abbott

February 18th, 2015

Every year there are a select number of lens announcements that I find personally exciting. I reviewed no less than 15 lenses last year, and this is the fifth already this year, so a lot of gear passes through my hands. Not every lens has the same capacity to excite the inner gear geek within me, but count the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC as one that I have been excitedly awaiting. Why? Because once again Tamron is pushing the envelope and delivering a lens with a feature set photographers want but no one else is delivering…and Tamron has definitely delivered here!

The Competition

The Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED has been the lens to beat in the wide angle zoom category since it was released back in August of 2007. It set the gold standard for sharpness, quality of focus, and build quality. It easily bested all of the options for the Canon ecosystem and has been the lens that has inspired more gear envy for Canon users than any other Nikon product. Canon released its best wide angle zoom late last summer in the form of the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM. It sports great optics and an effective image stabilizer, but of course lacks the wider aperture of the Nikkor. The Nikkor has a faster aperture (and wider focal length) but doesn’t have VR (Vibration Reduction). It would seem that Tamron has set its sights upon becoming the class leader, however, because the new Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD lens has both the wide aperture of the Nikkor and the image stabilizer (VC, or Vibration Compensation) of the Canon. It becomes the first lens to pull that off – just as Tamron did in the 24-70mm f/2.8 standard zoom category (where it still stands alone two years after its introduction). This is an extremely ambitious lens, but can Tamron pull it off?

I strongly encourage you to take a look at my very detailed comparison of the Tamron’s direct competition: the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS and 16-35mm f/2.8L II. I tested just about every aspect of these lenses in the “Three Way Shootout” and it is the most thorough comparison of its kind that I’m aware of:

Three Way Shootout:

Part 1: Specs, Build, and Objectives

Part 2: Resolution

Part 3: Angle of View, Distortion, and Bokeh

Part 4: Flare Resistance, Astraphotography, Handling, and Conclusions

Part 5: Gallery of Favorite Images from the Review

Tamron has brought all of its resources to bear with this lens. It is designed to optically compete with the excellence of the Nikkor 14-24, with great sharpness wide open along with contrast that exceeds that of the Nikkor and Canon. It also has superior flare resistance due to fancy glass elements (XGM and LD) and coatings (eBAND and BBAR). A nice extra touch here is that the front element is coated in fluorine (like many of Canon’s recent high end lenses) that repels water, oil from fingerprints, and other things that might muck up the front element. This is a good thing, because, like the Nikkor, the protruding bulbous front element precludes the use of traditional filters. It has a fixed lens hood to protect the front element and is weather sealed to allow you to use the lens even when the weather turns sour.  This short unboxing video will give you a quick idea of the size and build of the lens.

I’ve noted that the Tamron has a bulbous front element (like similar f/2.8 lenses from Nikon, Tokina, and Samyang), but should add that the Tamron is not a true internally zooming lens.  The front element moves forward as the lens is zoomed towards the wide end of the focal length (15mm).  It is the most deeply recessed at the 30mm point.  There is what is essentially a second fixed lens hood around the front element that moves with it, but always within the confines of the outer fixed hood.  While all of this movement is not internal, the length of the lens does not change at all during zooming.  This design is clever for a couple of reasons.  First, like Canon’s first generation 24-70 f/2.8, it ensures that the front element receives the most shading where it needs it most – the long end of the zoom range.  On the wide end it helps to eliminate vignetting from a lens hood.  The “double hood” means that there is a lot of sturdy protection for that front element (here’s hoping you never had to test that!).  The lens is made from high end engineered plastics (which, frankly, are probably far more durable than metal, although for some reason we lens lovers always look for metal!  The lens cap fits over the outer edge of the lens hood.  I didn’t have any issue with it coming loose, but it does rely mostly on friction/vacuum to hold it in place.  This isn’t my favorite design, as the Zeiss Distagon 15mm tends to lose its lens cap on occasion.  The difference, of course, is that the Zeiss lens cap is metal, and I found that it contracted some in cold and would loosen.  You will see from the photo above that the lens cap comes with a bit of gaffer tape to ensure a tight fit.  I do like the fact that the lens cap is relatively shallow, meaning that it doesn’t take up so much room in your bag or pocket when you remove it.

It is not a small lens, easily surpassing the other two in size. It is 5.7”/145mm long compared to 5.2”/132mm for the Nikkor and only 4.4”/113mm for the Canon. It is also slightly heavier than the Nikkor at 1100 grams vs. 1000g for the Nikkor. The Canon is considerably lighter at only 615g, but its maximum aperture is also only f/4, meaning that it gathers only half the light at maximum aperture as either the Tamron or the Nikkor. The 15-30mm VC has a nine bladed rounded aperture iris that allows circular highlights to stay round even when stopped down. The bokeh from the lens is quite nice, although wide angle lenses by nature allow for fewer scenarios where one can really diffuse a background. Still, at the 30mm end I found a lot of opportunities to create surprisingly nice background blur.

The optical formula is fairly complex, with 18 elements in 13 groups.  The Tamron allows for very close focus (11”/28cm), which is similar to the Canon and Nikkor, and its maximum magnification falls between the two of them (.23x for the Canon, .20x for the Tamron, and .15x for the Nikkor). This is a useful figure. But this is not the Tamron’s killer app; that would be its VC (vibration compensation).

Some photographers use a tripod all the time. I personally rarely use one. My tripod comes with me when I am shooting long exposures, astrophotography, and sometimes when shooting macros. I have found the VC on Tamron’s 24-70mm very handy while traveling (I’ve taken it five different countries) as it allows me to shoot at very low shutter speeds handheld. This new Tamron allows for even lower shutter speeds because of the wider focal length, and handholding images at even 1 or 2 seconds like this is possible because of it. This is very valuable for when the light is fading but you still want a smaller f-stop for deeper depth of field.  It also allows for some creative shots to keep the shutter open to emphasize movement.  Here are a few I got during my review period all taken between .4  seconds and 1 full second handheld (and remember that these were all taken in subzero temperatures – I suspect my handholding ability in warmer weather might improve!!)

My experience with Tamron’s Ultrasonic Drive (USD) is mostly positive. I’ve used 5 lenses with Tamron’s USD to date and have found that they are 1) very quiet 2) fast, but not quite as fast as the best from Canon and Nikon and 3) Most important, they are very accurate. The 15-30mm VC proved similar in performance. There sometimes seems to be a split second lag before the elements start moving, but once the motor “spools up”, focus is both quick and accurate.  It kind of reminds me of a turbocharged motor in a car – there is just a hint of “turbo-lag”.  All third party lens manufacturers must “reverse engineer” the autofocus algorithms from Canon and Nikon, but Tamron seems to have mastered that better than Sigma.  I’ve used several Tamron lenses professionally for several years (the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 VC lenses) and have found them extremely useful tools with highly accurate autofocus that deliver results my clients are thrilled with.

Wide angle lenses are frequently most often used by landscape photographers and wedding/event photographers. A wide aperture is less important to most landscape photographers as they will frequently stop down a lens anyway, but that wide aperture is far more important to wedding and event photographers that need to stop action in lower light conditions. The Tamron offers the best of both worlds, as its wide aperture and VC will help everyone.  More importantly it is perfectly sharp wide open, meaning that it will do an amazing job of capturing both portraits and event details.  I used it at a Valentine’s Banquet and was shocked at how sharp the images were wide open and how accurately focused they all were (these are out of the camera JPEGs).

When I get my own copy of the lens down the road, I intend to write an article looking at Tamron’s “holy trinity” of wide aperture lenses for professional use and will use the three in a wedding setting exclusively and then share the results.

I enjoy shooting with wide angle lenses, and have had the privilege to use and test some of the best from Canon, Zeiss, Samyang/Rokinon, and Tokina. The new Tamron has a great focal length, allowing you to use the very wide 15mm focal length to creatively frame and emphasize foregrounds along with more traditional framings from 18-24mm. The 30mm setting is close enough to the classic 35mm focal length to provide a similar look with a nicely wide aperture and excellent wide open sharpness.  That extra bit of width on the wide end is worth more to me than the additional 5mm on the long end when compared to a 16-35mm focal length.

A Close Look at Resolution

I’ve previously reviewed the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 Aspherical lens and liked it well enough that I added it to my own kit. It offers a great combination of excellent optics, a very dramatic focal length, and one of the most exceptional price to performance ratios of any lens…period. It can be had for about $300, and yet is one of the most compelling landscape and astraphotography lenses out there. Its feature list, however, is pretty bare.

  • Manual Focus only
  • No electronic connection (no EXIF data)
  • No image stabilizer
  • Prime – one focal length
  • Most of use would settle for a reasonably accurate focus ring (which few of us are getting)

On paper it doesn’t sound very compelling, but its optics sing. It is incredibly sharp, even wide open, and stunningly so stopped down. I recently reviewed the awesome Zeiss Distagon T8 2.8/15mm, and it is an infinitely better lens in a number of ways, but the Rokinon does quite a good job keeping up in the resolution department.

The Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD is, by comparison, a very feature rich lens. This new lens has set its sights on both Nikon’s 14-24mm f/2.8G lens and Canon’s new 16-35mm f/4L IS. It takes the wide aperture, design, and (nearly) as dramatic focal length from the former while adding the image stabilizer of the latter. That makes it unique in its feature set.

  • Dramatic focal length (15-30mm)
  • Wide aperture
  • Image stabilizer
  • Fast, accurate focus due to the USD (ultrasonic drive) motor

So the Tamron is far more feature rich than the Rokinon. It is more versatile, obviously, but this comes at a price. The Tamron (though a value compared to its zoom competition) is roughly four times the price of the Samyang/Rokinon ($1199). The Tamron zoom weighs essentially twice as much (1100g vs. 552g) and is about 2″ longer (and thicker as well).

But all of these features mean nothing, of course, if the image quality isn’t there. The reason why we are even discussing the budget option Samyang is because its optical performance punches so high above its price (and feature) class. I sold an L series zoom lens from Canon after I got it because the optical performance from the Samyang (mine is actually branded Rokinon) was so much better. So let’s compare these lenses side by side optically.

The backstory on this first comparison is that the shots were taken just as the sun was rising on an exceptionally cold morning (about -40F/C with the wind chill). I set up out on a frozen river and composed with a little peninsula as my foreground. There were some snow covered rocks there and some unique textures in the snow due to the wind. The sun was rising due east. The light changed somewhat even in a few minutes as the sun was breaching the horizon as I shot, so the exposures weren’t perfectly aligned. I added a slight bit of extra exposure to the Tamron’s f/11 image to match them. There is no other correction added to either of these; they have received nothing except standard sharpening on export. The camera was tripod mounted, using mirror lockup and a 2 second delay to eliminate any movement from the equation.

The first thing that jumps out at me in this first comparison wide open (f/2.8 for both lenses) is that the vignetting is much, much heavier for the Rokinon. The Tamron shows some peripheral shading towards the outer third of the image circle (a value of +55 in Lightroom with a midpoint of around 12 seems to clear it up perfectly). The Rokinon, however, is very, very heavily vignetted, taking a value of +87 and a midpoint of around 11 to achieve the same). This isn’t a huge issue if you are shooting RAW and doing post work, as vignetting is quite easy to clear up, but would certainly be bigger deal if you were doing video work or shooting JPEGS.

Secondly, I notice that the Rokinon frames considerably wider. Every millimeter on the wide end makes a huge difference in the angle of view. The Rokinon’s 14mm focal length produces a field of view of 115.7 degrees (WOW!), while the Tamron’s 15mm produces a field of view of a slightly more modest 110 degrees. The Canon 16-35 frames at about 108 degrees while the Nikkor 14-24 actually frames at 114 degrees (as done Canon’s own 14L lens). Just for kicks: the Zeiss 15mm also frames at 110 degrees just like the Tamron, so the exception to the rule here is the Rokinon, which frames noticeably wider than all other options. This is an impressive performance (and increases the value of the Rokinon even further), but a little of that goodness is undone a bit by some fairly extreme distortion towards the periphery of the image circle.

The third thing I notice is that the color rendering is considerably different between the two lenses. I tried matching the color temperature between the two images, but even then the color is different. The Rokinon renders quite a bit warmer than the Tamron. The Tamron is more Zeiss-like in its color rendering, and in recollection I would venture that its color rendition is actually a little more accurate (that is supported in the next series below). People love Zeiss lenses because of their color accuracy, and it is my feeling that the Tamron is producing nicely accurate colors.

In this first test it is a little more difficult to compare resolution as both lenses are not focused similarly. I am quite familiar with where hyperfocal distance is on the Rokinon because of having used it for a few years. I autofocused the Tamron on the rocks that were roughly 1/3rd into the image frame, but depth of field is still not infinite at this distance at f/2.8. The rocks and everything beyond are in focus, but the foreground textures are more in focus with the Rokinon. Even Live View 10x focus is tough with wide angle lenses because there isn’t much magnification, so trying to compare a manual focus lens with an autofocus lens is challenging. The textures are noticeably clearer on the focal point for the Tamron (the rocks closer to center), but I can’t guarantee that the rocks were the key focal point for the Rokinon. The rocks on the right actually look a little better on the Rokinon, and I see just a bit of purple fringing on the Tamron that isn’t there on the Rokinon (this could be bokeh fringing from different focus, however). This is a great result from the Tamron, however, because it is zoom compared to an exceptionally sharp prime lens. Being able to hold its own here is a notable accomplishment.

The f/11 images here reveal some similar truths. Vignetting is not completely cleared up for either lens, but it seems that the Tamron still has a slight edge. The color rendition is still the same. Resolution here seems to be a wash everywhere I look in the image, although the color fringing on the right rock is still slightly there on the Tamron, so I would say that the Rokinon has a slight edge in the chromatic aberrations department. One thing I will note is that I believe the contrast (and microcontrast) is a little better in the Tamron. This is an exceptional result for the zoom, and is one more indication of just how excellent the optical performance is.

Invalid Displayed Gallery

(Shot above taken with an iPhone 6 – this may give some perspective for the color discussion in a moment.) Our second series is a more controlled test where I purposefully tried to eliminate all potential variables. The camera was mounted as before on my Vanguard ABEO Pro 283AGH Tripod + GH-300T Head (a tripod I love, BTW!), mirror lockup, and a 2 second delay to eliminate vibration. In this series I went by stops from f/2.8 to f/11 (2.8, 4, 5,6, 8, 11). Then, to add another comparison point, I added the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD standard zoom at 24mm. I’m very familiar with the Tamron and know it to have very good image quality (it is extremely close in resolution to Canon’s 24-70L II, which is to say, very good).  I really recommend that you take the time to watch this test in an interactive fashion – it is very revealing!  Click on the video below.

If you prefer to read, here is some of that information. Let’s start with the f/2.8 images. I’ll give you the Rokinon image followed by three crops (lower left, center, upper right). This will be the pattern for all of these crops.  There is a lot of depth to this scene along with a huge variety of textures to resolve.

Once again we see that the Rokinon vignettes very heavily wide open. This definitely affects the crops and makes the image seem darker than what it actually is.  Resolution is very strong wide open and extends near the extreme corners.  In the extreme corners some distortion cause a bit of image breakdown.

Now, let’s move on to the Tamron 15-30 VC image and crops:

You will notice both far less vignetting and much more color accuracy.  Reviewing images from this new Tamron felt a lot like reviewing a Zeiss lens.  The color are accurate and the contrast seems better than the competition.  The textures are already outresolving the prime lens and less vignetting produces a cleaner looking image. The contrast is noticeably superior with the new Tamron. This is an amazing performance.  Look at the center crops here compared:

Rokinon:

Tamron 15-30 VC

Finally, let’s compare the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC at 24mm.

If you have watched the interactive video above, you have already seen that I quickly came to the conclusion that my copy of the 24-70 VC is decentered.  The right side of the image is really suffering.  (On a very positive note, even after two years I am only 1/3rd of my way through the warranty period!  I’ve already spoken to Tamron, and, “No problem, send the lens in and we’ll get if fixed for you!”)  The rest of the image looks fairly good, but the new Tamron 15-30 VC is a clear winner wide open.

Now, let’s take at resolution stopped down.  I will include a series from each lens from f/4 to f/11, with crops from the f/11 image where depth of field is easily infinite for all lenses. Hovering over the thumbnails will tell you what you are looking at. First, from the Rokinon:

Tamron 15-30 VC:

Tamron 24-70 VC

While the optical difference is less pronounced by f/11, the new Tamron 15-30 VC is still the winner, with better resolution, contrast, and color accuracy.  The Rokinon is rendering everything extremely warm, but the sample photo earlier from the iPhone 6 and the images from the two Tamrons reveal that the Rokinon’s color rendition is the oddity here.  The decentering issue on the 24-70 VC is still evident even at f/11.  One area where the Rokinon wins (though in an odd way), is via light transmission, where it is clearly brighter at the same settings than either of the two Tamrons.  The oddity is that the difference in light transmission is not really apparent wide open, but becomes evident only as the lens (Rokinon) is stopped down.  DXO says both the Rokinon 14mm and Tamron 24-70 VC’s light transmission wide open (t/stop) is f/3.2, which is born out in my test, but for some reason the Rokinon is overexposing as it is stopped down.  The only real advantage I can see for the Rokinon is that it shows no chromatic aberrations even at 100% pixel level while the new Tamron shows just the slightest bit of green and purple fringing in certain situations (but only visible at full magnification).  Fringing is not really a significant issue for any of these lenses.  The difference in these lenses might be harder to tell from the images here.  I do recommend taking the time to watch the interactive video above to get a clearer sense of what is going on here.

I was blown away by this side by side comparison.  It really showed off how amazingly good the new Tamron is.  It has color rendition, sharpness, and micro-contrast in the textures and details that seem more like a Zeiss than a Tamron.  This is really an extraordinary performance. Matt Granger compared it directly to the mighty Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G and concluded that the Tamron may just be the better lens.  I have received anecdotal accounts from other Nikon users who have directly compared the two lenses and found the same.  This is pretty amazing, and is evidence of just how much Tamron has invested in this lens.

Contrast, Flare Resistance, Ghosting, and Chromatic Aberrations

As you look at the shot under consideration above you will probably recognize that this is one of the most challenging types of shots for any lens. The sun (which was extremely bright – bright enough to require an exposure of 1/640th at f/11, ISO 100) is right in the frame, and thus this is a completely backlit image. I added about a half stop of exposure to the foreground in post to balance it with the sky, but that is only real tweak here.

It quickly becomes apparent that contrast is exceptional in the lens. Despite the challenging shooting conditions the contrast is perfect. There is great definition in all of the snow textures, with very clear definition between shadows and highlights. Note also that the sky is nice and blue despite the intensity of the sun. This is pretty important, because the design of this lens (like the Nikon) precludes the use of any traditional filters. I suspect that aftermarket adapters for square filters will probably surface in six months or so. I’ve got just such a system for the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, and it makes the lens even more dynamic. The use of multiple exposures would have helped a bit with this image, but all of the highlight and shadow information is here already, so it would be very easy to process this photo even further.

Next up: flare and ghosting. I don’t see any loss of contrast due to flare here, and while there is some ghosting/veiling that you can see in this 100% crop, it is so minor as to be nearly nonexistent. This is an exceptional performance for a wide angle lens, and matches or exceeds anything that I have previously tested. This crop also shows that the sunburst/sunstar here is also VERY attractive, and that is a big deal to me.

This particular image is stopped down to f/11, which I did to exaggerate the sunburst and give more definition to the “rays” due to the aperture blades. Examining our resolution is still important here, however, as many wide angle lenses don’t sharpen up in the extreme corners even when stopped down. This image is at 15mm, where both the scale of the image circle requires a lot of resolution and where distortion is likely to play the biggest role. This second crop takes a look at the extreme bottom left corner of the image.

We can see that the detail is still very, very good here. No mushiness, and the textures remain nicely defined. There is the slightest bit of distortion apparent, but I have been very impressed with the LACK of distortion for such a wide focal length.  Note also that no profile yet exists for this lens in Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw, so there has been absolutely no distortion correction applied here.

But what about the other side? Sometimes lenses can be decentered so that they are sharp on one side but not the other. Let’s take a look at the extreme right corner from the new Tamron:

The performance here is just as good. Good textures, minimal distortion. Consider the resolution test for this image passed. When we step back and look at the image as a whole, it certainly gives a very sharp appearance. I love the crisp resolution on the patterns created by wind on the snow’s surface.

How about chromatic aberrations? An image with such extreme highlights and shadow contrasts should be the ultimate primordial ooze that the beast of color fringing could arise out of. Let’s look at another crop:

These branches should really show fringing if the lens were prone to chromatic aberrations, but I have to say that Tamron’s use of expensive elements and fancy coatings are doing a superlative job here. There has been absolutely no correction for chromatic aberrations to this image, and yet I don’t see fringing in the transition from dark to light in the branches, nor do I see them in the crops of the snow (which would also really show off CA). That’s a fabulous performance!

This final crop would also show CA due to the deeper shadows from the footprints and the extremely bright “lip” of where the footprints are made in the snow.

Fringing is once again resisted, and there is nice contrast between shadows and highlights along with great resolution.  I have found in all of my shooting with the lens only the very faintest amount of fringing and that it is only visible at 100% magnification.  This should be extremely easy to correct for in post.

As we saw in our previous test, there is a TON of texture information in this image, and everywhere I click in the image I am very satisfied with the resolution. This looks to be a lens that is ready to face the challenges provided by the high megapixel bodies from Nikon, Sony, and now Canon.

Distortion and Coma

Tamron has managed to keep distortion nicely in check compared to the competition. All of those fancy elements and coatings also manage to keep chromatic aberrations, flare, and ghosting at a minimum as well. It would appear that Tamron’s engineers decided to focus on optical performance rather than compactness, and I personally feel this was the right choice. The best lens is rarely the smallest one.  One can always create perspective distortion with a wide angle lens, like I have done here:

The native barrel distortion is very low in the lens for such a wide focal length, and it does a good enough job that I think that those who do architectural work will find it useful (I concluded the same for the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS).

The lens also shines when the lights go out, with its stunning resolution and micro-contrast rendering the night sky beautifully. Star points are crisp and clear, and coma is nicely controlled. I got some great nightscapes despite less than ideal conditions (a lot of light pollution and temperatures so cold I wasn’t willing to linger long and work on composition).

This is a much better result than what I was able to achieve with the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS.  I was delighted to find that the distance window was accurate for this type of shot.  I was able to set the focus on infinity (along with my other preferred settings) BEFORE going out into the -20F cold (I didn’t linger for too many frames out there!) and when I viewed the images, they were sharp and perfectly focused.  Not every lens is properly calibrated for infinity focus, but the Tamron did a great job.  I was thrilled by this because I was already considering the Tamron for my own kit, and a great performance here sealed the deal for me.

Conclusions

Tamron has also pushed the envelope just as it did a year ago with its 150-600mm VC telephoto lens when it comes to the price. The lens, while not cheap, is priced aggressively for its class at $1199. That falls far beneath the Nikkor’s price ($1999 at present) and matches the Canon 16-35mm f/4. Canon’s own 16-35mm f/2.8 has a price that is $500 higher. Tamron also has an industry-best warranty, with six years (in North America) along with 3 business day service turnaround.  Here is a full video ( you can check it here too xnxx videos ) review if you would like to see and hear about the lens in glorious high definition!

Consider me impressed. Tamron has brought a lot of goodness to bear here, and this lens is a serious competitor for the best in its class. Some will find the inability to use traditional filters a deal-breaker, and I will confess this is my primary disappointment. I fully suspect that aftermarket square filter systems will fill that void, just as they have for the Nikkor and the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. The size will also be a concern for those who are counting the ounces for backpacking and/or travel. But if neither of those things spoil your interest, you will find a lens that is, in my mind, now the most compelling option available if you own a Canon and still very intriguing if you own a Nikon. And if you are a Sony user, this is a great option to pair with some of Sony’s great new sensors. At the very least, the new Tamron 15-30 VC should definitely be part of the conversation if you are looking for a great new wide angle zoom lens. I have given this lens my highest compliment; I placed a preorder for myself.  If you want to see more sample images (including some full size samples), please visit the Lens Image Gallery here.

Pros:

  • Excellent wide open sharpness that only improves when stopped down
  • Effective image stabilizer (VC), the first of its kind in a wide aperture, wide angle lens
  • Fast and accurate focus via USD drive
  • Excellent color rendition and accuracy
  • Great focal length and a wide aperture
  • Exceptional contrast
  • Robust build with weather sealing and fluorine coating to prevent water buildup
  • Low distortion
  • Vignetting and chromatic aberrations well controlled
  • Highly flare resistant
  • Very attractive sunburst
  • Nice softness in the bokeh region
  • Very reasonable price – a bargain compared to the performance
  • Great six year warranty

Cons:

  • Large and heavy (largest and heaviest in its class)
  • Traditional screw on filters cannot be used
  • Early indications are that supply will not equal demand upon release like the 150-600 VC last year.
  • No case of any kind provided

End Notes:  I reviewed an early retail copy provided to me for review by Tamron of Canada.  If you live in Canada and are interested in this lens, I encourage you to do what I have done and preorder this lens from Tamron through Amplis Foto, their Canadian distributor.  If you use the code “AMPLIS52014” it will give you 5% off everything, and is stackable with other coupons.  If you live in the United States or other countries, I would encourage you to get your preorder in at B&H Photo here.  Find more information about the lens at Tamron.ca.

Gear Used:

Canon EOS 6D DSLR Camera (Body Only)
Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens (Canon EF)
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Software for Mac and Windows (Boxed Version)
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Alien Skin Exposure 7 (Use code “dustinabbott” to get 10% off)

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.

B&H Logo

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52014 in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews! Preorder the Tamron here:

[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Autumn Wonderland

Dustin Abbott

September 29th, 2014

“Autumn Wonderland”

 
© 2014 Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott

It’s winter that usually gets all the press about creating a wonderland, but for about 3 weeks every autumn, the world is transformed in an even more beautiful way. Today I unwrap the review on the amazing Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM lens. Follow this link to the review: Canon 16-35 Review If a video review is your thing, take a look: here I took this shot with the lens during my review period. It’s a lens with very few shortcomings!

Technical information Canon EOS 6D, Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM. Processed in Adobe Lightroom 5, Photoshop CC, and Alien Skin Exposure 6

Gear Used:

Canon EOS 6D DSLR Camera (Body Only)
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Software for Mac and Windows (Boxed Version)
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Alien Skin Exposure 6

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.

B&H Logo

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52014 in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Review

Dustin Abbott

September 29th, 2014

Header

Out of the Blue

I participate in a few Canon communities on the internet, and the rumor mill is continually at work in these environments. People who love gear love to see new gear released. They will argue the merits and shortcomings of gear they have never used (and often don’t even exist) with both passion and profanity. But recently Canon has been surprising us all. It surprises us by the lenses that it doesn’t announce and also by the lenses that it does announce. The rumor mill ranged from the hoped for (an equivalent to Nikon’s excellent AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF Lens), rumored (a 17-50mm f/4L IS), or the expected (a MKIII version of the 16-35 f/2.8L). Canon released none of those. What it did release (with very little prior announcement) was this lens, the extremely capable EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens.

This announcement wasn’t as exciting as some of the hoped for options, but when the early MTF charts and sample images started to show up, people began to get a lot more excited. Canon has been on a roll of producing very well rounded lenses with strong performance as of late, and this lens is no exception. It is somewhat of a hybrid between Canon two previous L series wide angle zooms (the EF 17-40mm f/4L and the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II), adopting the aperture of the former and the focal length of the latter. It also adds an extremely effective image stabilizer into the mix, which for many helps to ease the sting of the aperture being only f/4. But the word on the street from both users and professional reviewers is pretty much unanimous: this is the best wide angle zoom that Canon has ever produced.

Panorama

In what was a bit of a nice surprise, the lens actually came with a reasonable price tag. $1199 places it solidly in between the prices of the two previous zooms ($839 for the EF 17-40mm f/4L and $1699 for the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II). One must also consider that these lenses have been on the market for many years, and during that time their price has dropped somewhat, so the new lens hit a pretty nice price point for a new release – particularly since it includes an image stabilizer. The surprise was that Canon’s recent offerings (while excellent) have all come with a serious bit of sticker shock. The most egregious was last year’s EF 24-70mm f/4L IS, which has since dropped to near half it’s initial release price. Kudos to Canon for positioning this lens in the “fair” range, and I suspect that it will result in strong sales right out of the gate.

Build Quality and Design

If you have bought a higher grade Canon lens in the past five years the build quality should be no surprise to you. It is the same mix of some metal bits encased in a lightly flocked, matte finish, high quality engineered plastic body. It looks very similar to several other lenses in my kit. Like the previous wide angle zooms it is weathersealed (hugely important in a landscape lens) and is complete with a rubber gasket around the metal bayonet mount. Note that a protection filter of some kind is required to complete the sealing. It is also both an internally zooming and internally focusing lens. It’s length will not change during either focus or zooming – what you see is what you get in all situations. It’s design ethos is actually most similar to the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II , with a barrel that tapers in a similar fashion with the focus window and switches in a similar place between the zoom and focus rings.

It is actually longer than either of the two previous wide angle zooms at 4.44″ (112.8mm), although this is just a milimeter longer than the 16-35mm f/2.8 @ 111.6mm). It is a bit lighter than that lens (1.35lb/615g vs. 1.4lb/635g). The 17-40L is both smaller (3.81″/96.8mm) and lighter yet (1.05lb/475g). The new 16-35mm f/4L IS is not a small lens, but it balances nicely on a full frame body and doesn’t feel particularly heavy. Both the zoom and focus rings are nicely damped. Nothing beats an internally zooming lens for smoothness of zoom action, though the weight here is slightly heavier than, say, some of the 70-200mm variants. The focus ring is particularly nice, though: very smooth and nicely wide. It doesn’t feel like an afterthought, which isn’t always true on an AF lens.

The all-important red ring is at the end of the barrel, although if your self-esteem rides on having that red ring you may need therapy. Beyond that is a 77mm filter thread (plastic). Those that have invested in the larger 82mm filters that fit the 16-35mm f/2.8 or the 24-70mm f/2.8 might be disappointed, but 77mm is an extremely common size and the filters are a bit cheaper than 82mm. The ability to use traditional filters is a pretty huge plus here. Some wide angle lenses have a bulbous front element that precludes the use of traditional filters. The front element (and rear element, too) has a flourine coating that helps reduce ghosting and also makes the lens surface easier to clean.  There are 16 elements in twelve groups here, and Roger Cicala from LensRentals has some very positive things to say about the construction of the lens after a breakdown.  Check out this great article called, “Of Course We Took One Apart“.

Finally comes the included lens hood, which is a serious improvement over either of the other Canon wide angle zooms. First of all, this petal shaped hood actually extends far enough that it might provide some real shading for the lens. Secondly, it doesn’t spread so wide that storage becomes as issue. It can be reversed and easily stored. This was not the case with either of the other two zooms, and many users (like myself) ended up leaving the lens hood at home most of the time. This design is far more practical. It also locks into place and needs to be released by pressing a button on one side (a design introduced on the 24-70 f/2.8 II). This keeps the hood from being jarred and moving to a place where it would create some shading of the actual image.

Red Barn

The lens cap is one of Canon’s new vastly improved center-pinch caps that both looks and performs better than the older design. It feels well made, unlike some pinch caps that feel somewhat loose and cheap in their design. The lens also included one of Canon’s little drawstring pouches, which, frankly, have next to zero value for me. I’m not currently using any of them because they provide little protection – maybe your experience is different. I would greatly prefer one of Sigma’s padded cases or a LowePro lens case.

AF and Image Stabilizer

Autofocus (AF) is as you would expect from Canon’s premium line. It is extremely quick, very accurate, and quiet. It is not, however, silent, and I was somewhat surprised by the little “shick” sound the AF motor made when focusing. This could be an issue for video use, although photographers will quickly tune it out altogether (or just use that great manual focus ring!). The Image Stabilizer (IS) is also not silent, and you will hear a light humming/whirring sound when it is engaged. It is loud enough that you will always know when it starts and when it stops, and in this way it is slightly less refined than Tamron’s VC (Vibration Compensation) system. Both the AF and the IS are otherwise extremely competent, and both do their jobs very effectively. Focus is grabbed without hesitation, and focus accuracy is excellent. Both the nature of the wide angle focal length and the middling aperture make critical focus less difficult, but Canon has done a great job here nonetheless. AF Servo tracking is equally excellent. I don’t recall one rejected image because of missed focus during my review period.

Other than the slight objection to the noise level, I have no other complaints about the IS on the lens. Some might call IS unnecessary on a lens like this, and I would agree that IS is certainly more critical on a telephoto lens. But if you are like me, however, you don’t always have a tripod with you. The ability to handhold a shot like this one at .3 of a second and get a sharp result like this is a very valuable asset to me.

Slow Shutter

One could probably go even slower with good technique and get a number of keepers. This is practical value – I wanted some blurring of the water in this shot, and only low shutter speed would accomplish that.

The IS also helps compensate for the f/4 aperture, and that will help alleviate the concerns of some that may be coming from the 16-35mm f/2.8L. Finally, anyone that shoots video (at any focal length) will certainly appreciate the rock steady image that the IS helps provide.

Field Use and Optics

Flowing

In the field the lens is a joy to use. Color rendition is excellent. That additional 1mm on the wide end is certainly more important than the lost 5mm on the long end (when compared to the 17-40L) in my opinion. 16mm provides a 108 degree angle of view that is nicely wide (though not as dramatic as my Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 and it’s nearly 116 degree angle of view). Don’t think of the focal range here so much as a zoom as a lens with different framing options. That “zoom” doesn’t get you a lot closer to your subject but it does allow for a variety of framing options.

The sharpness is a definite improvement here (over both the 17-40L and the 16-35 f/2.8), particularly starting mid frame and into the corners. The corners in particular show much more sharpness, less vignetting, and less chromatic aberrations. That’s what you call win win! The lens’ sharpness is already excellent wide open and only mildly improves when stopped down. There will be a bit less vignetting when stopped down, but this lens is seriously improved in that department already. Sharpness peaks around f/8, although the difference is so incremental as to only be noticed on a chart. This lens also shows good microcontrast, which also helps images appear crisp and sharp. There is really nothing to fault here. The lens is optically excellent.  I have included a few full size samples for you to examine in detail in the lens gallery.

Reflection

It also exhibits less chromatic aberrations and less coma (distortion of tiny bright points like stars) than its predecessors. It isn’t quite as good as the Rokinon 14mm in the coma department (or even the little Rokinon 12mm f/2.0 lens for the EOS M system that I have also just reviewed), but this is definitely a lens that can produce some killer night sky shots (though the ability to only open up to f/4 adds some challenge). I struggled to get good, clear night skies during my review period, but I got a few shots that show that the lens can produce nice looking starscapes, although it does lack the intense pinpoint detail that only lenses with super low coma can achieve.  Knowing the lens’ excellent sharpness potential makes me suspect that infinity focus may come a bit before the hard stop on the lens, as I relied on the hard stop on the focus ring to achieve focus at night.  If you are able to better achieve critical focus you may be able to produce better results that my examples (a darker sky with more contrast with the stars would help, too).

The lens can focus down to 11″/280mm, but the loss of the 5mm of focal length means that its maximum magnification is slightly less (.23x) than the 17-40L’s .25x. This is a great figure nonetheless, and means that you can nicely emphasize a subject while throwing the rest of the scene out of focus. This effect is obviously less extreme with an f/4 aperture than it would be with a larger aperture. In these rare cases when you are creating bokeh highlights the highlights stay nicely rounded due to the 9 rounded aperture blades.

Susan

I also find the lens produces very attractive sunstars when stopped down. This image shows a little extra ghosting because my CP-L filter is somewhat scratched, but it also really shows off the quality sunstar.  This lens will produce a bit of ghosting in some situations, but it certainly isn’t extreme.

Sunstar 2

Distortion and Minor Quibbles

Any wide angle lens will have some distortion, and one quickly learns that the angle one shoots from will either exaggerate or diminish that distortion. This 16-35 f/4 IS does have some barrel distortion on the wide end, but as the brick wall test shows it also corrects nicely with a standard profile in either Lightroom or Adobe Camera RAW. There is a small amount of pincushion distortion on the long end, but this would be near impossible to detect in field conditions.

Wide angle lenses take some practice, but that distortion can also be used in a creative fashion to emphasize things like the foreground.

Foreground

The single greatest Achille’s heal for this lens is one shared with its f/4 predecessor: it is a little bit boring. It is extremely competent (and a serious upgrade from the 17-40L), but neither is it particularly exciting. My feeling about the 17-40L was that I liked it but did not love it. That is less the case here, but still somewhat true. The f/4 aperture limits creative options, and the angle of view isn’t wide enough for extremely dramatic shots. It is a top of the line Toyota: utterly competent, brilliantly engineered, completely practical, but perhaps lacking a little soul.

Long Road

But I’m reaching here.

This lens is good…really, really good. It is so competent that you have to stretch to find criticisms. What is even more true is that this lens is going to serve hundreds of thousands of photographers around the world very, very well. I added a number of fantastic images to my portfolio during the review period, and I would have no hesitation to add this lens to my own kit as the primary wide angle option. If you are in the market for a new landscape lens, look no further. If you feel you need the f/2.8 aperture for event work or some other purpose, the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II may still be the better lens for you (I’ll also soon be testing Tamron’s newly announced SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD – should be interesting!). Many photographers have already embraced Canon’s newest wide angle zoom and have discovered that the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS is the lens they have been looking for from Canon for a long time!

Pros:

• Excellent Canon L Series build quality (Roger over at LensRentals has good things to say about its internal construction as well.)
• Fast and highly accurate AF
• Well mannered and effective Image Stabilizer
• Sharp, sharp, sharp…even into the corners (which wasn’t true of previous WA zooms from Canon).
• Chromatic aberrations well controlled.
• Flourine coatings help with keeping the exterior elements clean.
• Weathersealing
• Well designed lens hood that is far more practical and functional than previous WA zoom lenses.
• Does a lot of things very well at a reasonable price

Cons:

• Some will be limited by the maximum f/4 aperture.
• AF and IS are audible in operation – could affect video work.
• Not incredibly exciting????

Check out the Lens Gallery for many more photos and some full size samples.

Note:  I reviewed a retail copy of the lens provided courtesy of B&H Photo.  As always, I strive to be as objective and balanced as possible when doing these reviews.   All of the photos in the review have been taken by me using this copy of the lens.  Most all shown in the review themselves have received only minimal processing.

Gear Used:

Canon EOS 6D DSLR Camera (Body Only)
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Software for Mac and Windows (Boxed Version)
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Alien Skin Exposure 6

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.

B&H Logo

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52014 in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!
[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.