p.2 #1 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
I’m curious as well. I’m leaning towards sticking with my 14-30, which is quite good on the longer end, but I could see moving to the Tamron if it is actually quite good throughout.
Edit: actually just picking one up at my local store. I’ll give it a spin and see how it is.
p.2 #2 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
So have mine in hand. Lens looks really nice, and is solidly built, though all plastic. Only real negative thing is the zoom ring is VERY smooth, and very lightly damped. Smoothness is good, but the zoom ring is very easy to turn, and so if you pick up the camera by the lens you will 100% change the zoom setting. Because only a small inner part moves during zooming there is no creep, of course.
From very early test shots this looks frankly great. Surprisingly sharp into the corners even wide open at 16mm, and corners looked good throughout the range stopped down, though this is with the caveat of only having looked at a few images transferred to my phone as of now.
p.2 #3 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
It’s easy to be spoiled by Nikon‘s perfectly dampened zoom rings, that offer both good resistance yet just enough to prevent lens creep. Sony first party can’t even get this right, so I would not hold it against Tamron for not.
p.2 #4 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
Man -
This lens has the potential to be really very good - unfortunately, my copy is displaying some complex field curvature at the wide end that makes it...inconsistent.
When focused at medium distances at the wide end of the zoom range, close detail on the left edge is beautifully sharp, and the center and right of frame are darn sharp too...but left edge detail towards infinity (and even just 20-30 feet away) is VERY soft. If you focus AT infinity, it's sharp across the frame, so it's not like it's horribly tilted..but it's enough that several of my shots show this. Probably the best illustration is the shot below, at f/5.6:
The closer upper left corner is not bad at all:
But look at the lower left edge and you can see anything distant is completely out of focus, and at this focal length, focus distance and f-stop, it really should all be in the depth of field:
Look at the right edge, and it looks how you'd expect:
However, if you focus at infinty, it looks great across the frame.
The issue is also visible here:
This is at f/8 at 16mm.
Left edge shows very soft infinity detail, but the light pole is nice and sharp (and it's tack sharp to the lower left corner too):
The right edge is sharp both at the near railing, and at infinity with the buildings visible through the bridge gaps:
Also, a shot like below (at 19mm), looks fantastic, as the scene conforms to the curvature on the left edge, making it absolutely tack sharp across the frame:
Despite the fact that it isn't as good wide open at the longer end as it is at the wide end, stop down a little and throughout the focal range I get sharpness to the corners. Also, bokeh at f/2.8 is actually quite pleasing:
I think I might try to exchange mine, because I think one that's well centered is likely to be quite excellent. Why are wide angles so hard?
p.2 #5 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
I exchanged my copy today. The replacement isn't perfectly centered (it's slightly better on the left edge than the right), but it is well within what I would consider normal, and it's really only seen on a flat subject wide open in the corners...something that is basically a non-existent shooting condition, and even in those rare situations where you'd be doing that, it's not really bad either. Wide open at 16mm it's very sharp across the frame except for that noted small dip in the right corner. Zoomed in a bit, it's still sharp edge to edge wide open, though towards 30mm, the corners soften some. Stopped down a bit, it's sharp corner to corner throughout the whole zoom range.
From what testing I've done, it isn't quite as flare resistant as some of the Nikon lenses, with ghosts being plentiful in some sun positions, and fairly minor in others, but it's not a bad performance here. CA is well controlled (no real visible lateral CA at all...the CA correction in LR does basically nothing since there's nothing to correct, and longitudinal CA is also very minor). Bokeh is honestly beautiful for an ultra-wide zoom.
Overall, it's a very nicely performing lens. Note that my observations are done on a Z6 III, so a 45MP sensor may be a little more demanding, but it's a really nice lens.
p.2 #7 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
Jman13 wrote:
I exchanged my copy today. The replacement isn't perfectly centered (it's slightly better on the left edge than the right), but it is well within what I would consider normal, and it's really only seen on a flat subject wide open in the corners...something that is basically a non-existent shooting condition, and even in those rare situations where you'd be doing that, it's not really bad either. Wide open at 16mm it's very sharp across the frame except for that noted small dip in the right corner. Zoomed in a bit, it's still sharp edge to edge wide open, though towards 30mm, the corners soften some. Stopped down a bit, it's sharp corner to corner throughout the whole zoom range.
From what testing I've done, it isn't quite as flare resistant as some of the Nikon lenses, with ghosts being plentiful in some sun positions, and fairly minor in others, but it's not a bad performance here. CA is well controlled (no real visible lateral CA at all...the CA correction in LR does basically nothing since there's nothing to correct, and longitudinal CA is also very minor). Bokeh is honestly beautiful for an ultra-wide zoom.
Overall, it's a very nicely performing lens. Note that my observations are done on a Z6 III, so a 45MP sensor may be a little more demanding, but it's a really nice lens....Show more →
Jordan, Christopher Frost reports in his review that at 22 mm the corners are noticeably softer wide open compared to those at 16 mm. Can you, please, check this if and when you have some time? Perhaps another case of sample to sample variability?
Thanks.
p.2 #8 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
The corners are definitely softer at f/2.8 at the longer focal lengths, but they’re not really bad there. Stop down a little though and the corners get sharp at all focal lengths. Central 90% is sharp from wide open throughout, but the 16mm end is quite good even at f/2.8.
p.2 #9 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
Jman13 wrote:
The corners are definitely softer at f/2.8 at the longer focal lengths, but they’re not really bad there. Stop down a little though and the corners get sharp at all focal lengths. Central 90% is sharp from wide open throughout, but the 16mm end is quite good even at f/2.8.
Thanks Jordan. This is good to know. I am toying with the possibility of using this lens for some milky way photography...
p.2 #10 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
I actually just did a quick test at 22mm - it's actually still quite good at f/2.8 at 22mm...it's a bit longer (25-30mm) where the corner softening comes in worse.
Here's 100% crops at 22mm center and extreme upper right corner. F/5.6 is sharper in the corner, but f/2.8 is still quite good here. Center's virtually identical no matter the aperture:
p.2 #15 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
Wide open performance seems like a double edged sword...really nice bokeh but lots of glow around in focus/near focus highlights. It doesn't feel particularly sharp in any regard by modern standards.
The coatings play very nicely with Nikon color profiles, though, great looking images. 2nd image shows the glow around the butterfly very well.
p.2 #16 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
Corners at 30mm are certainly nothing to write home about, though I tend to not really care about corner performance unless it's so bad that it is distracting.
p.2 #17 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
What focal length is that at? Because it doesn’t see to jive with my experience at all. I’m finding the corner performance very impressive, outside of 25-30mm and f/2.8; where it’s merely ‘good’.
p.2 #19 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
Ok. Yeah, 30 is definitely weaker than the wide end, with lower corner contrast overall. Still I think it’s good there, just not great, and shows plenty of detail stopped down. And some spherical aberration up close at 30mm wide open which does put a little of that glow in.
p.2 #20 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
Jman13 wrote:
Ok. Yeah, 30 is definitely weaker than the wide end, with lower corner contrast overall. Still I think it’s good there, just not great, and shows plenty of detail stopped down. And some spherical aberration up close at 30mm wide open which does put a little of that glow in.
Yeah, I basically wanted to see what the "worst" case is with this lens, which is more than fine. I will rarely use it wide open.
