Seems sharper than the Sony 12-24 2.8. The straight lines in Jared's video are very straight, I like that. Want to see it used for more architectural stuff. 2.8 Isn't an astro lens for me, but seems decent there as well.
Not trading it out for my super cheap Viltrox 14/4 yet. Too much for me right now, but it's on my radar.
In this Czech review that compared Nikon Z version with Z 14-24/2.8 S the Tamron is quite sharp in center and corners at 12mm wide open, but at 14mm and longer the corners are softer than 14-24.
EB-1 wrote:
They seem to be testing wide open, not where most landscapes are. How does it do at f/5.6 or 6.3 before diffraction kicks in?
EBH
There are aperture series for 4 focal lengths. For 14mm sharpest corner is f/5.6 or f/8, for 16mm and 20mm it is f/8.
For landscapes it will be fine. For astro it might be fine at 12mm where corners look ok wide open, but not at longer focal lengths where you need to stop down aperture a lot.
But it is one review of one lens copy. Also corners of superwide lenses might be different in E-mount than on Z mount.
EB-1 wrote:
They seem to be testing wide open, not where most landscapes are. How does it do at f/5.6 or 6.3 before diffraction kicks in?
EBH
There are aperture series for 4 focal lengths. For 14mm sharpest corner is f/5.6 or f/8, for 16mm and 20mm it is f/8.
For landscapes it will be fine. For astro it might be fine at 12mm where corners look ok wide open, but not at longer focal lengths where you need to stop down aperture a lot.
But it is one review of one lens copy. Also corners of superwide lenses might be different in E-mount than on Z mount.
I caved and bought the lens. I'm pretty impressed so far. Overall color and contrast is excellent, AF is snappy and locked easily. Size is pleasantly compact and as such is in fact a reasonable travel option for me at about the same total size and weight of my 20-70/4 Sony zoom.
Optical comments from an initial "Q&D" backyard test on my 33mp A7Cii (my A7R6 is on the way and I will of course re-check this lens with that body.) That said:
At f2.8, the lens is impresively sharp in the center 2/3rds at all focals and this holds through f8 -- in fact I don't notice much gain here stopping down other than added DoF. Edges and corners at f2.8: 12mm edges are good but say 4mm of the corners are going a bit more notably softish; at 14mm both edges and corners are quite good; at 16mm corners and edges appear (surprisingly) as crisp as the center; at 18mm edges remain sharp but corners (say 2mm) appear to slip back a bit (odd); at 20mm corners come back to almost full crisp. At f2.8 I'll say 16mm is simply outstanding corner to corner and probably as good a good prime. At f8, all focals are very sharp across the entire frame and will no doubt please most pixel peepers.
I hope to shoot some night skies soon and will get a better idea on pinpoint lights in the corners wide open throughout the zoom range, so stay tuned. So far this lens seems a winner for my primary uses of travel and landscape.
The big decision for most folks is going to be is it worth the price, compared to say the Sigma 14-24? The answer is I really can't say. The Sigma is a couple hundred US less expensive. In my case for my uses, having the extra 2mm at the wide end seemed more useful than the extra 4 at the long end. While size is pretty similar, the Tamron does still come in a bit shorter and narrower; but then weight is a bigger deal where the Tamron comes in nearly 8oz less than the Sigma. This for me was a significant tic in favor of the Tamron.
I received mine today as well. I've owned both the Sigma 14-24 and 12-24 GM in the past and my first thought pulling it out of the box was "crap this thing is a lot lighter than I would expect an ultrawide f2.8 zoom to be". Because it is so light the controls don't quite have that solid GM or even Sigma feel but they function fine and the zoom feels good. Comparing IQ of the Tamron to the Siggy or the GM is just splitting hairs AFAIC, they are all fine. I was going to get another GM but this lens will be fine for my use.
Jack Flesher wrote:
I caved and bought the lens. I'm pretty impressed so far. Overall color and contrast is excellent, AF is snappy and locked easily. Size is pleasantly compact and as such is in fact a reasonable travel option for me at about the same total size and weight of my 20-70/4 Sony zoom.
Optical comments from an initial "Q&D" backyard test on my 33mp A7Cii (my A7R6 is on the way and I will of course re-check this lens with that body.) That said:
At f2.8, the lens is impresively sharp in the center 2/3rds at all focals and this holds through f8 -- in fact I don't notice much gain here stopping down other than added DoF. Edges and corners at f2.8: 12mm edges are good but say 4mm of the corners are going a bit more notably softish; at 14mm both edges and corners are quite good; at 16mm corners and edges appear (surprisingly) as crisp as the center; at 18mm edges remain sharp but corners (say 2mm) appear to slip back a bit (odd); at 20mm corners come back to almost full crisp. At f2.8 I'll say 16mm is simply outstanding corner to corner and probably as good a good prime. At f8, all focals are very sharp across the entire frame and will no doubt please most pixel peepers.
I hope to shoot some night skies soon and will get a better idea on pinpoint lights in the corners wide open throughout the zoom range, so stay tuned. So far this lens seems a winner for my primary uses of travel and landscape.
The big decision for most folks is going to be is it worth the price, compared to say the Sigma 14-24? The answer is I really can't say. The Sigma is a couple hundred US less expensive. In my case for my uses, having the extra 2mm at the wide end seemed more useful than the extra 4 at the long end. While size is pretty similar, the Tamron does still come in a bit shorter and narrower; but then weight is a bigger deal where the Tamron comes in nearly 8oz less than the Sigma. This for me was a significant tic in favor of the Tamron. ...Show more →
Thanks for the report! I thought the Tamron 12-20 would be shorter than the Sony 20-70. I didn't compare the specs of the two. Would love to see some shots of sunstar. it may replace my Vogtlander 12, 15 and 21 f1.4 if it's good enough.
Douglas L wrote:
Thanks for the report! I thought the Tamron 12-20 would be shorter than the Sony 20-70. I didn't compare the specs of the two. Would love to see some shots of sunstar. it may replace my Vogtlander 12, 15 and 21 f1.4 if it's good enough.
Noted. Will attempt sunstars at next outing with it. I’ve already listed my wide primes in the B&S
Sony 20-70 is only 3.9” long at its min vs 4.7” for the Tamron 12-20. But the Tamron is internal zoom and stays that size while the Sony extends as you zoom, so it’s only shorter at 20mm
I am seriously considering of getting that lens... In about 3 months, I hope I can see the Northern Lights, and this lens would be a welcome member in my bag. I actually need to sell a few lenses instead of adding to my lens lineup though. Oh, well...
jtra wrote:
In this Czech review that compared Nikon Z version with Z 14-24/2.8 S the Tamron is quite sharp in center and corners at 12mm wide open, but at 14mm and longer the corners are softer than 14-24.
In this Makofoto review I have noticed one unusual thing. At 12mm the corner is really sharp at f/2.8, then less sharp at f/4, then it gets a bit sharper at f/5.6 and it is fully sharp at f/8.
I have dismissed this initially. It is kind of unusual but some design are like that. It could be also a copy variation.
But then I re-watched Christopher Frost review and there it is the same at 12mm: sharp in corner at f/2.8, less sharp at f/4, getting sharp again at f/5.6 and sharp at f/8.
