p.1 #1 · How does the Tamron 15-30 G2 stack up to the Canon 16-35
Although I shoot Sony bodies (for now), I'm finding that the Sony 16-35 GM is just plain overkill for the amount I use it. I'm interested in adapting either the Tamron 15-30 G2 or Canon 16-35 ii for landscape and light astro work.
If you had to pick between those two lenses, which would you choose? I don't have a ton of interest in the 16-35 iii as the corners are apparently super dark wide open, which would be bad during astro.
p.1 #2 · How does the Tamron 15-30 G2 stack up to the Canon 16-35
My research indicates the 15-30 is generally considered the better for astro work. It is a beast. I replaced my 16-35II with a III and regretted it for the reason you site. But for Astro, I prefer the 16-36 f4. Looking at the digital picture tests, the f2.8 version may be a little sharper but that advantage, disappears as you stop down. As a result, I only carry the 15-30 if I expect to need the speed or extra width.
p.1 #3 · How does the Tamron 15-30 G2 stack up to the Canon 16-35
RoamingScott wrote:
Although I shoot Sony bodies (for now), I'm finding that the Sony 16-35 GM is just plain overkill for the amount I use it. I'm interested in adapting either the Tamron 15-30 G2 or Canon 16-35 ii for landscape and light astro work.
If you had to pick between those two lenses, which would you choose? I don't have a ton of interest in the 16-35 iii as the corners are apparently super dark wide open, which would be bad during astro.
I've owned both at various points. Tamron is definitively sharper and renders more pleasantly IMO.
Dec 05, 2019 at 11:28 PM
Guest
Guest
p.1 #4 · How does the Tamron 15-30 G2 stack up to the Canon 16-35
Here are the reviews by Klaus of Photozone (now OpticalLimits). Both on the same body (5DSR) so the figures should be directly comparable. https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1072-tamron1530f28g2
Distortion at the wide end is comparable, with the tiniest edge going to the Tamron (but it's 15mm vs 16mm anyway)... https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/992-canon1635f28mk3
... Then again I'm usually not the one to biatch about (most) technical aspects but the vignetting at 16mm on the Canon is truly something.
The 16-35L II is probably not a patch on either in the terms of sharpness. I had it and sold it in favour of the 16-35/4 IS because it had quirky field curvature and whatnot, and f/2.8 wasn't very useful to me anyway - f/4 and IS give me better results than f/2.8 ever had. I tended to stop my II down to at least f/4 at most times anyway - which, however, didn't really heal the FC.
