With the Tamron SP 15-30 F2.8 on my Nikon d750 I’ve noticed that in lower light conditions, with contrasting skies that are flat white, not blue, auto ISO can change dramatically when I take multiple shots of the same subject with same camera settings. The result is shots with a washed out, blown out look at high ISOs and then other shots that look properly exposed after the auto ISO drops. I have to add in contrast and black in post editing o make those washed out shots salvageable. It’s unpredictable as to when this happens, but most often I notice it when there is contrast with flat white skies, even if its filtered light. Is this an issue with wide angle lenses and auto iso?
astrik73
November 17, 2021 9:06 am
when you wrote a conlsusion comparing Nikon and Tamron at 24mm saying: “The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 also shows better overall corner performance at all apertures.” It doesn’t look like. Here is the corner sharpness score at 24mm basased on on your testdata: Tamron at: F2.8- 1359, F4- 1460, F5.6-1567, F8-1705, F11-1642, F16-1451
Nikon lens better at F4 and F5.6 only where at the other apertures, Tamron is better. The general score is: Tamron 4:2 Nikon. So, I am not sure how did you come to your conclusion saying that Nikon is better in the corners then Tamron unless you have personal preferences .
AlexSm
March 9, 2021 10:35 am
I’ve been using Tamron 15-30 for 1 year and I agree in common with almost all the above-mentioned info. Nevertheless I’d like to mention that “Ghosting and Flare” chapter tells us quite an optimistic view which needs to be corrected a bit. In fact the result is OK if you catch few bright light sources only and all of them are located at “the right place” of your image. But when you shoot some night city views against many street lights (especially located far from the center of image and close enough to you), you’ll be disappointed. For instance, while standing on the Charles Bridge in Prague among series of street lamps you’ll be trying hard to hide your lens from side illumination. By the way, in this situation you’ll unlikely get “starry effect” around lamps but you’ll definitely get bright halos.
Troy Phillips
June 21, 2020 3:04 pm
This is an older post but thought I’d add my two cents . As a landscape lens as most folks would us it for it’s phenomenal. I’ve used mine mainly for low light and high contrast live music photography and videography. For this type of videography it’s great. Now for the live music photography it’s not the best . I went with this lens over the Nikon and now wish I’d hadn’t. It’s autofocus is definitely slower and like many of the older Sigma Art lenses it’ll want to grab focus on the back wall of a stage where light reflects. But the slow focusing causes many missed and blurry shots . You have to be slow and deliberate and hope your subject doesn’t move much . It doesn’t take much movement for the lens not to want to lock focus either . I’ve tried live view (on Nikon d810 and d850) with not too good of luck either . Best on the d850 though. It is a great lens and I’ve used it also for football and had great success in the good lighting football affords vs low light nightclubs and high contrast big stages shooting beams of light down on the big front element. The lens flares are ugly also , it’s a ceiling effect . The Sigma Art 18-30 I shoot on my d500 gives great multi-element cool looking old school images . It has great close up ability for nature and flower pictures. The color from the lens is great too . All n all I’d give this lens an 7 out of 10 for what I do . If I didn’t shoot live music with it I’d give it a 9 or 10 out of 10 .
Steve Giordano
October 3, 2019 1:05 pm
I see the second generation of this lens is available, but some very nice used ones are also out there at good prices, the biggest update I see is the upgrade to the VC. I’m thinking the savings on the 1st edition might be worth it without really losing much benefit. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks , Steve
Patrick O'Connor
June 18, 2019 6:08 pm
I know this is old so don’t expect a reply but, I’d read the actual difference between the Nikkor 14-24 and Tamron 15-30 was more than 1mm, the Tamron being closer to 15.5mm. Just wondering if that’s been anyone else’s experience. Also, something not addressed in the article is a consideration of what other lenses you typically carry in a particular situation. I can’t imagine using either of these lenses without also having my 24-70 along so, in my case, there’s little advantage to the Tamron’s extra 6mm on the long end. As for the wide end, it’s a lot easier to change lenses (to the 24-70 for the long end) than to take extra photos and stitch them together to make up the 1mm (maybe 1.5mm?) on the short end.
Disclaimer: I currently have the 16-35 f/4 and am looking to replace it, probably with the 14-24. While the 16-35 is “technically” a very good lens, the images rarely make me smile in the same way my 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 do.
Robert
December 28, 2018 3:45 pm
HI!
Im looking for a great astro-photography lens. Now its only between this Tamron , and Samyang 14 2.8. I think Tamron is the winner. But i want to use it as a random UWA lens too
But let me ask, how does it perform according to colors? the Nano coated, “N” Nikon lenses have some lovely goldish effect on colors. rich, nice gold tint. So how the Tamron performs?
Bob
November 11, 2018 1:27 pm
I’m curious about how valid it is to count number of shots taken at the extremes of a lens and conclude that having a lot at the extremes means we wish we had even wider or longer. The reason I say that is it’s easiest and perhaps the “default” to swing a zoom all the way to its extremes in particular circumstances. The fact you have so many shots at 15mm doesn’t necessarily mean you need or want more. Right!?
Roy
November 7, 2018 10:24 pm
Hi Nasim, are you planning to review the new G2 version of the Tamron 15-30mm any time in the nearish future? Would also be great to include the D850 body in reviews going forward as it is representative of the higher resolution sensors available today?
Ed
April 22, 2018 7:49 am
Have you checked out the new sigma 14-24 f2.8 and compared it with the tamron 15-30? Ahich way would you go?
With the Tamron SP 15-30 F2.8 on my Nikon d750 I’ve noticed that in lower light conditions, with contrasting skies that are flat white, not blue, auto ISO can change dramatically when I take multiple shots of the same subject with same camera settings. The result is shots with a washed out, blown out look at high ISOs and then other shots that look properly exposed after the auto ISO drops. I have to add in contrast and black in post editing o make those washed out shots salvageable. It’s unpredictable as to when this happens, but most often I notice it when there is contrast with flat white skies, even if its filtered light. Is this an issue with wide angle lenses and auto iso?
when you wrote a conlsusion comparing Nikon and Tamron at 24mm saying:
“The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 also shows better overall corner performance at all apertures.”
It doesn’t look like. Here is the corner sharpness score at 24mm basased on on your testdata:
Tamron at:
F2.8- 1359, F4- 1460, F5.6-1567, F8-1705, F11-1642, F16-1451
Nikon at:
F2.8- 1129, F4- 1568, F5.6-1739, F8-1696, F11-1609, F16-1397
Nikon lens better at F4 and F5.6 only where at the other apertures, Tamron is better.
The general score is: Tamron 4:2 Nikon.
So, I am not sure how did you come to your conclusion saying that Nikon is better in the corners then Tamron unless you have personal preferences .
I’ve been using Tamron 15-30 for 1 year and I agree in common with almost all the above-mentioned info.
Nevertheless I’d like to mention that “Ghosting and Flare” chapter tells us quite an optimistic view which needs to be corrected a bit.
In fact the result is OK if you catch few bright light sources only and all of them are located at “the right place” of your image. But when you shoot some night city views against many street lights (especially located far from the center of image and close enough to you), you’ll be disappointed. For instance, while standing on the Charles Bridge in Prague among series of street lamps you’ll be trying hard to hide your lens from side illumination. By the way, in this situation you’ll unlikely get “starry effect” around lamps but you’ll definitely get bright halos.
This is an older post but thought I’d add my two cents . As a landscape lens as most folks would us it for it’s phenomenal.
I’ve used mine mainly for low light and high contrast live music photography and videography. For this type of videography it’s great.
Now for the live music photography it’s not the best . I went with this lens over the Nikon and now wish I’d hadn’t. It’s autofocus is definitely slower and like many of the older Sigma Art lenses it’ll want to grab focus on the back wall of a stage where light reflects. But the slow focusing causes many missed and blurry shots . You have to be slow and deliberate and hope your subject doesn’t move much . It doesn’t take much movement for the lens not to want to lock focus either . I’ve tried live view (on Nikon d810 and d850) with not too good of luck either . Best on the d850 though.
It is a great lens and I’ve used it also for football and had great success in the good lighting football affords vs low light nightclubs and high contrast big stages shooting beams of light down on the big front element.
The lens flares are ugly also , it’s a ceiling effect . The Sigma Art 18-30 I shoot on my d500 gives great multi-element cool looking old school images .
It has great close up ability for nature and flower pictures. The color from the lens is great too .
All n all I’d give this lens an 7 out of 10 for what I do . If I didn’t shoot live music with it I’d give it a 9 or 10 out of 10 .
I see the second generation of this lens is available, but some very nice used ones are also out there at good prices, the biggest update I see is the upgrade to the VC. I’m thinking the savings on the 1st edition might be worth it without really losing much benefit. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks , Steve
I know this is old so don’t expect a reply but, I’d read the actual difference between the Nikkor 14-24 and Tamron 15-30 was more than 1mm, the Tamron being closer to 15.5mm. Just wondering if that’s been anyone else’s experience. Also, something not addressed in the article is a consideration of what other lenses you typically carry in a particular situation. I can’t imagine using either of these lenses without also having my 24-70 along so, in my case, there’s little advantage to the Tamron’s extra 6mm on the long end. As for the wide end, it’s a lot easier to change lenses (to the 24-70 for the long end) than to take extra photos and stitch them together to make up the 1mm (maybe 1.5mm?) on the short end.
Disclaimer: I currently have the 16-35 f/4 and am looking to replace it, probably with the 14-24. While the 16-35 is “technically” a very good lens, the images rarely make me smile in the same way my 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 do.
HI!
Im looking for a great astro-photography lens.
Now its only between this Tamron , and Samyang 14 2.8.
I think Tamron is the winner. But i want to use it as a random UWA lens too
But let me ask, how does it perform according to colors? the Nano coated, “N” Nikon lenses have some lovely goldish effect on colors. rich, nice gold tint. So how the Tamron performs?
I’m curious about how valid it is to count number of shots taken at the extremes of a lens and conclude that having a lot at the extremes means we wish we had even wider or longer. The reason I say that is it’s easiest and perhaps the “default” to swing a zoom all the way to its extremes in particular circumstances. The fact you have so many shots at 15mm doesn’t necessarily mean you need or want more. Right!?
Hi Nasim, are you planning to review the new G2 version of the Tamron 15-30mm any time in the nearish future? Would also be great to include the D850 body in reviews going forward as it is representative of the higher resolution sensors available today?
Have you checked out the new sigma 14-24 f2.8 and compared it with the tamron 15-30?
Ahich way would you go?