p.3 #4 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
Playing with the lens to make sure I'm not making dumb decisions in the mists of the PNW...it is delivering precisely what I wanted...nice f8 sharpness for wide shots with nice sun stars if I decide I want that.
p.3 #5 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
RoamingScott wrote:
Playing with the lens to make sure I'm not making dumb decisions in the mists of the PNW...it is delivering precisely what I wanted...nice f8 sharpness for wide shots with nice sun stars if I decide I want that.
Do you have any examples for sunstars? I remember seeing some that didn't look amazing and that would be a pretty big downside for me in a wide-angle zoom..
p.3 #6 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
As long as the sun is coming through something, which is the only time I tend to want sunstars, they look ok to me. The flaring is pretty rough even with a hood for an unblocked sun. I need to get that booger off my sensor
p.3 #7 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
RoamingScott wrote:
As long as the sun is coming through something, which is the only time I tend to want sunstars, they look ok to me. The flaring is pretty rough even with a hood for an unblocked sun. I need to get that booger off my sensor
p.3 #8 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
Looking at sharpness at 24mm and 30mm compared to the Z 24-120 at f4 and f8.
One obvious takeaway is that the 24mm mark on the Tamron is badly marked
At 24mm, the Nikon is markedly sharper with more contrast, with the Tamron improved stopped down but never catching up.
At 30mm, the story is the same, but worse, with the Nikon running away with it. If you plan to carry this lens in your bag alongside the 24-120 I'd certainly swap to the Nikon as soon as you need 24 or longer. Frankly the f8 results from the Tamron are a bit embarrassing, though this was a close-ish focal distance which it struggles more with.
We also see the edges of the Tamron frame at 24 are a bit more warped from distortion than the Nikon, despite being a less-wide focal length in practice. I do think the Tamron f4 bokeh is quite pleasing, though!
p.3 #10 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
phinix wrote:
You can imagine that Tamorn will be worse than 24-120 S, but do you think its better than older Nikon 17-28?
No need to imagine it, I just proved it By most accounts, it sounds like the 16-30 is the overall better lens than the original rebadged 17-28, especially in AF speed thanks to the new focus motors.
p.3 #11 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
24-120 is too big and heavy for me, also AF speed for me is not that important, especially for the purpose of this lens - I would use it 90% on family trips as a only travel lens on Zf.
What do you think about image quality?
p.3 #12 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
I'll let you know next week after I've used it a bunch. So far, my initial impression is that it has the worst IQ of an almost $1000 lens that I've used in a while (mostly looking at sharpness and contrast at 100%), but I think that just speaks more to how good most modern lenses have gotten.
p.3 #14 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
Jman13 wrote:
I think it’s wild how different our impressions are.
My bar for quality in a modern zoom is the Z 24-120. I have a near flawless copy. Most lenses, especially discount third party glass, will have a very hard time measuring up. It doesn't mean they are BAD, but the flaws stick out like a sore thumb to me after 10,000+ shots with one of the finest zooms ever produced.
p.3 #15 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
I agree the 24-120 is phenomenal, but comparing the weak end of an ultra wide with the strongest end of the 24-120 is a bit unusual. In the parts where I mostly use an ultra wide (16-24mm) my copy is very sharp tot he corners, even wide open, and outpaces my 14-30/4S except at 28-30mm.
And in its weak area, it’s still pretty good, just not exceptional.
Looking at the two Nikon UWAs, it’s closer to the 14-24/2.8 than it is to the 14-30/4, despite being cheaper than both of them. (The 14-24 is still superior, of course, but you pay for it).
p.3 #16 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
Jman13 wrote:
I agree the 24-120 is phenomenal, but comparing the weak end of an ultra wide with the strongest end of the 24-120 is a bit unusual. In the parts where I mostly use an ultra wide (16-24mm) my copy is very sharp tot he corners, even wide open, and outpaces my 14-30/4S except at 28-30mm.
And in its weak area, it’s still pretty good, just not exceptional.
Looking at the two Nikon UWAs, it’s closer to the 14-24/2.8 than it is to the 14-30/4, despite being cheaper than both of them. (The 14-24 is still superior, of course, but you pay for it). ...Show more →
It's really easy to find a mint or refurb 14-30 for a few hundred less than the Tamron. I was never as impressed with the 14-30 as most people seem to be, and felt it was fine but not exceptional in any regard. Largely, so far, I feel the same about the Tamron, but appreciate the internal zooming, lack of flared thread, and faster aperture of the Tamron, so between those two, for me, the Tamron is an obvious pick.
I've never shot the 14-24, though I have eventual plans to pick that up, and when I do, this Tamron will be out the door with the quickness. I don't shoot that wide that often enough to care that the Z is bigger, and I'd much rather have the IQ for those few times I do.
If you like shooting wide and want to travel that way, the 14-30 and Tamron become far more compelling.
p.3 #17 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
So I’m out here and finding I’m just not reaching for the 16-30 over the 24-120…the extra speed is a little pointless if I know I’m giving up IQ, and the limited range is frustrating when I’m trying to limit lens changes.
I’m also not crazy about how it feels in hand vs Nikon glass.
Unless something changes, I’m thinking I’ll simply get the 14-24 instead at some point like I originally planned.
p.3 #18 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
RoamingScott wrote:
So I’m out here and finding I’m just not reaching for the 16-30 over the 24-120…the extra speed is a little pointless if I know I’m giving up IQ, and the limited range is frustrating when I’m trying to limit lens changes.
I’m also not crazy about how it feels in hand vs Nikon glass.
Unless something changes, I’m thinking I’ll simply get the 14-24 instead at some point like I originally planned.
p.3 #19 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
It’s not quite as solid as a Nikon S lens but I think it’s more than adequate.
I have to think Scott has a bad copy - I had never had such a disparate experience from someone else as in this thread. I’m out shooting with my 16-30 today and tomorrow doing fall waterfall photography and so far it’s performing quite admirably. Real world images look better than my 14-30/4, and pretty much every shot I took today with it was sharp corner to corner with wonderful color and contrast.
p.3 #20 · Tamron 16-30mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens for Nikon Z
RoamingScott wrote:
So I’m out here and finding I’m just not reaching for the 16-30 over the 24-120…the extra speed is a little pointless if I know I’m giving up IQ, and the limited range is frustrating when I’m trying to limit lens changes.
I’m also not crazy about how it feels in hand vs Nikon glass.
Unless something changes, I’m thinking I’ll simply get the 14-24 instead at some point like I originally planned.
I have no experience with the Tamron, but I bet you like the 14-24, which is a great pairing with the 24-120.
