www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Article

Prepare to be impressed: Tamron 15-30 F2.8 vs. Nikon 14-24 F2.8

While we were at CP+ 2015 in Japan, we met with Tamron, and the company was kind enough to lend us their newly announced 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD. In Nikon mount, no less. Why the big deal about it being Nikon mount? Because that means we can attach it natively to the Nikon D810 - the highest-resolution DSLR currently on the market (until the Canon EOS 5DS and 5DSR show up in June). 

15-30mm is a wide range for a full-frame zoom, made more impressive by the inclusion of vibration compensation (VC). The wide F2.8 aperture and inclusion of VC do mean the lens is rather heavy and bulky, weighing 1100g, 100g heavier - and physically wider throughout the lens barrel - than the Nikon 14-24 F2.8, as you can see below. 

Front ViewSide View

Both the Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 VC and Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 wide angle zooms have large, bulbous front elements that make attaching filters difficult, if not impossible. Although an option does exist for the Nikon 14-24, it requires rather large (not to mention expensive) 150mm wide filters. No such filter option exists (yet) for the Tamron, and neither lens offers support for rear-mounted gelatin filters.  

With a price tag of $1200, Tamron is taking the Nikon 14-24 head-on, and so we decided to do the same: pit the two against one another in a shootout. 

We shot a distant scene by mounting both lenses on the 36MP Nikon D810, focusing (in Live View) on the roof of the building just in front of the yellow crane near the center of the image. We shot Raw, and normalized the brightness across all images in ACR. We left sharpening and noise reduction at default, and applied no vignetting, chromatic aberration, or distortion corrections.

Image comparison
This widget is not optimized for mobile. Tap here to open it in a new window / tab.

At F2.8, the Tamron edges out the Nikon a little in center sharpness, outperforms it significantly in left corner sharpness, and is of comparable sharpness at the right corner. Note that at slightly less extremes, the differences are hardly worth noting, with the Nikon even perhaps slightly outperforming the Tamron in the left and right less extreme corners. By the way, we have a suspicion the Tamron may be a tiny bit decentered, and that a better copy would've yielded even better performance for the Tamron on the right side of the frame.

By F5.6 the lenses perform very similarly in the left and right corners, while center sharpness goes to the Tamron, but for a subtle reason. We picked a focus method that yielded maximum sharpness across the field which, for the Nikon, meant a slight center sharpness cost (the Tamron showed no such tradeoff). Once we focused the Nikon using the center point at the shooting aperture, we got better center sharpness that matched the Tamron's, but at the cost of softer corners. In other words, with our copy of the Nikon, we couldn't optimize for both center and corner sharpness. For a more in-depth look at this behavior, visit our deeper dive on page 3.

The Tamron continues to outperform the Nikon wide open at even longer focal lengths, though the pattern of the lenses being largely indistinguishable by F5.6 holds. Play with the widget and have a look yourself, but suffice it to say: we're impressed.

Sharpness isn't the entire story though... read about how this lens performs with respect to other optical considerations - like how wide it gets compared to the Nikon - on page 2.

Buying Options

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
From Amazon
Nikon D810
From Amazon
Tamron SP 15-30mm F/2.8 Di VC USD
From Amazon

Comments

Comments

Total comments: 344
See more
We PhotoBooth You

Two great lenses!

0 upvotes
bronxbombers4
0 upvotes
Ran Plett

So it looks identical to the 16mm from Canon. Too bad because I think everyone wants to get just a little wider than 16mm.

0 upvotes
martindpr

About the brightness of the frame, the answer should be that at full aperture, they should transmit all the available light and as stated by the manufacturers this should be around f/2.8 since the physical transmission, lens elements' absorption, reflection and losses of refraction should convey similar amount of light to the sensor. I reckon where Tamron got it wrong was the aperture ring tuning, and for the following reasons: You were testing the Tamron with a Nikon body, but Tamron doesnt produce this lens only for Nikon. Every manufacturer tunes its camera - lenses compatibility, but I guess Tamron wanted to standardize the aperture tuning regardles of the mount.

0 upvotes
Anders_C_Madsen

I think you are confusing f-stops and t-stops. The first is a simple physical formula while the second is an actual measurement of the light transmitted through the lens.

The f-stop value = focal length / diameter of lens opening, hence something that can be calculated directly based on two measurements and is fixed, regardless of camera mount.

What you are talking about sounds a lot more like t-stops, which can vary from lens model to lens model, even though they may have the same f-stop values.

0 upvotes
martindpr

Yes, T - stop is transmittance, but my point was that AT A GIVEN APERTURE (f/2.8, f/4 etc...) it's affected by a lot of stuff, one of which is the diaphragm tuning, which is not so straight forward. Hold your thought there. At the other hand different manufacturers use their own standards of f stop/ISO tuning. Earlier lenses had lower transmittance, thus the sensor at, say, ISO 400 had to have a bit more sensitivity than today's sensors which are more on the "dimmer" side because lenses have improved (higher transmittance). Check this on DxO: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5300-versus-Nikon-D200___919_203 Go to measurements and then to ISO sensitivity. It could be that Tamron still uses this older methodology.

0 upvotes
martindpr

And I forgot to mention that every manufacturer has its own tweaks and Tamron had to make one product for all (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax).

0 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal

I also think it has to do with the aperture tuning - that mechanical lever probably has accuracy/precision limitations.

0 upvotes
MarkByland

While working for a camera shop in Peoria, IL, a guy from RedBull walked in one day and wanted to look at the new Tamron 24-70/2.8. He said he had heard good things. Toting a 1Dx, he puts the lens on and we head outside for a few test shots, tracking focus ability and such. Upon him pixel peeping, I see some raised eyebrows. He is impressed.

He asked if we had VII of the Canon 24-70/2.8L and we did not. Off to another local higher-end dealership he went to test the lens. I even called them for him to see if they had it in stock. About 45 minutes later he came back and picked up the Tamron ...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 38 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Robin Ducker

While this is an impressive performance I would be far more impressed if there were some near-field shots with objects taken at less than a metre and extended into 5-10 metres away. This is where a lens performance can really be judged because infinity focus is just one parameter.

Second, buyers of the 14-24 2.8 are attracted to the lens' build quality and durability so It would be good to have some sort of insight into how long the Tamron could perform. Not knocking - just acting like a real lens buyer.

2 upvotes
Rick Knepper

The image above tells us about a lens' corner/edge performance. Shooting a scene that is corner to corner infinity is the same as shooting a flat wall. This removes DoF (other than the aberration) as a source of softness. Of course, there are many other tests necessary before making a final judgment on any lens. @15mm & f2.8, 5 meters is infinity.

0 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal

Rick, I hope these sorts of tests were what you were looking for :)

0 upvotes
ormyatomic

Users of the New Tamron SP 15-30mm good news for you guys..

There is a filter system for you new Tammy:
http://lucroit.com/SHOP/product.php?id_product=21

I hope you find it useful ;)

3 upvotes
SmilerGrogan

I have a new idea for a test to replicate the harsh climatic conditions that many of your readers will subject the lenses to. Store them in a freezer for a couple of days (preferably a walk-in) and then test them for autofocus performance and accuracy while they're still cold. Then repeat the test by storing them in an oven heated to 110°F for a couple of days (most modern ovens will hold that temp easily). I know my Nikon gear has survived worse out in the world but I wonder how these third-party lenses would do under tougher circumstances.

2 upvotes
User4379697712

Most modern ovens won't go below 170 deg.(older will) so you could cook your lens and I believe Dustin Abbott tested the Tamron in freezing weather in one of his reviews and it performed perfect, I will be getting mine today and when the temps get to be 115 Deg. in the shade here in Las Vegas I will give it a test in the desert sun.

Good review by Dustin Abbott
http://dustinabbott.net/2015/02/tamron-sp-15-30mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/

0 upvotes
tbcass

Robin Ducker; Near field photography isn't what this type of lens is usually used for.

2 upvotes
Codster

It was a no brainer buy for me and considering the price and close results to the Nikon which I don't think many people have taken into account. I bought this as soon as I could and love it.

1 upvote
RichRMA

"Easily corrected" in ACR or post-processing. Does anyone enjoy having to do that? Let this be done in-camera automatically when possible.

3 upvotes
Digitaliz

Well, if you shoot RAW, lens corrections wont be applied.

4 upvotes
balico

Everything that has to be corrected in ACR or post will degrade image quality. So the best lenses need the least correction.

6 upvotes
Denis of Whidbey Island

So the only undegraded image is an in-camera JPEG with all lens correction and color/contrast/curves turned off ... and don't do any tweaks in your computer; everything degrades image quality?

Seriously, folks, many working photographers rely on ACR lens profiles or DXO body:lens corrections to earn a living. Perhaps the best lenses are perfect and get mounted on perfect bodies, with perfect photographers at the controls. Pat yourselves on the back while the rest of us happily use the tools it takes to get the jobs done.

9 upvotes
AngularJS

Great lens, but I'm saving for the Canon 11-24.

5 upvotes
balico

Ya you can add it to your wish list with the 645Z and Zeiss Otus :p

3 upvotes
Viviana Rich

Yes It is Great lens

0 upvotes
Lawn Lends

Great lens! but you could buy three Tammys for that price.

2 upvotes
SmilerGrogan

Please do your part to keep Ken Rockwell-isms out of DPR. If you're going to use the term "coma" please also use the right term for sunstars.

It is my understanding that the correct term is "diffraction spikes."

1 upvote
GlobalGuyUSA

No one cares, because unlike Latin, English is a living language and as such still evolving. Your term is no more correct than sunstar, and sunstar is probably more accurate for DSLR photography.

Sunstars are made by one set of aperture blades in a diaphragm; easily applicable and understandable to DSLR photography. Diffraction spikes, by contrast, are spoken about when regarding physical support beams that cross the image -- part of a telescopic architecture -- usually supporting 2 large mirrors, which, of course, has nothing to do with DSLR photograpahy.

Obviously, we're splitting hairs here. But given the specialization of the industries and their technical differences, a linguistic separation is more than appropriate. You can learn more about diffraction spikes as it relates to Telescopes, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipe3NN1yPzM

9 upvotes
SmilerGrogan

My main point is that language is the mother of thought and using lazy Rockwell-speak will lead DPR writers to the same lazy habits of mind for which Mr. Rockwell is so infamous
And if "diffraction spike" is the wrong term, what IS the right one?

1 upvote
Clint Dunn

Everybody (except SmilerGrogan apparently)...calls them sunstars.

1 upvote
Denis of Whidbey Island

I care ... about slowing the "living language" down so it can be understood. It's one thing for usage to evolve to adapt to a changing world or to communicate more clearly. It's another matter to allow incorrect usage to become the norm due to sloth.

0 upvotes
GlobalGuyUSA

Because "no one" in photography understands "sunstar," Denis?

Sloth can also be interpreted as using lazy, old terms instead of more widely accepted and easily understood terms. You may not have studied linguistics, but there are clear patterns in living languages that orient them to the specific and ease of use with increasing sophistication. Had we all stuck with Classical Latin or Classical Chinese or Ancient Egyptian, you wouldn't be able to express nearly as much as you do today and certainly not with the degree of ease or the subtle nuances.

Three cheers for "sunstars," I say -- and 3 boos for "diffraction spikes." Photography is a popular activity, it shouldn't be bound by engineering speak that verges on legalese. That kind of language is only meant to keep people out of the conversation, rather than including them. A footnote, "sunstars are also known as diffraction spikes," would suffice. The insult tied to Rockwell is uncalled for.

1 upvote
Denis of Whidbey Island

"No one cares," is false since someone does care. It remains false even if s/he who cares is not the ultimate arbiter of correctness you are, GlobalGuyUSA.

0 upvotes
Michel F

Are people who use the word Tammy instead of Tamron suffering from Ken Rockwellism too ? Personally I find this more annoying than sunstars vs diffraction spikes.

2 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal

Oh come on.

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer

Rockwell is uncalled for. But we're stuck with him and pearls of wisdom such as jpeg files being superior to raw, lens sharpness does not matter and long lists of things "real" photographers do or don't do.

But if it wasn't Ken it would be someone else. Like Fred Picker implying he had something in common with Edward Weston and Paul Strand. Ah, the good old days....

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 48 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
srados

We are here to discuss CAMERAS,LENS, LENS PERFORMANCE, yadadyadayda, etc. Spelling & Grammar police is not needed...English is one of the most universal recognized languages that even things or objects called "thingamabob" will be understand in contest of the sentence.So grow up babies.

1 upvote
Denis of Whidbey Island

Do the name calling, misuse of ampersand, poor punctuation, screaming capitalization and hubris come naturally, or are you expressing irony?

1 upvote
blakevanderbilt

I went an borrowed one of these lenses to test for myself, and realised that though the Tamron is a stellar performer, I wonder if it really achieved what it promised: a Nikkor 14-24/2,8 competitor. I've heard this line numerous times from reviewers and Tamron marketers, and I took their word for it, until I tested the lens out for myself. The 15mm on the Tamron is basically a 16mm on a Nikkor... I'm not a technical person, but as with the Tamron 24-70/2,8 VC, Tamron hasn't been very honest in the naming of their lenses. I don't see what's wrong with marketing this lens as a 16-30/2,8 VC, and making it a Canon 16-35/4 or Nikkor 16-35/4 competitor. For those who absolutely need the FOV, I wonder if Tamron is really an alternative. I was prepared to sell my Nikkor 14-24/2,8, but I held my horses. Not to say that Tamron can't still be a great landscape lens, but they need to be a little more modest in their marketing...

5 upvotes
User4379697712

Maybe the Nikon 14-24 is more like around 13 -13.5mm, who's to say the Tamron isn't 15 or 14.75mm, they're just not the same.

1 upvote
blakevanderbilt

okay... but that's not my point.. My point is that Tamron has mis-marketed this lens to be a "rival" to the Nikon 14-24/2,8.. From what I know, you have to be at least producing a similar FOV to be considered a "rival".. True, it may be a "rival" in image quality, but it's just not the same FOV...

0 upvotes
GlobalGuyUSA

User -- its far more likely that a manufacturer's Marketing Department "stretches" their field of view than shrinks it. Although Nikon is one of the more honest, the importance of the wide-end on the 14-24 and its limited range would have certainly resulted in it being called a 13-24, were it possible. But we don't need to assume either way.

This is something that can be easily measured. From my perspective, the Tamron really does seem to be close to a 16mm when you look at the images and compare it to other 16mm lenses. Which is only to say that the Nikon has a different and validly different look than the Tamron (no less significant than a 24mm and a 28mm lens).

The Nikon wins on wide. The Tamron wins on VR and range. But its range is probably more accurately compared to a 16-35, than a 14-24, with the Tamron seemingly a 16-30.

0 upvotes
User4379697712

My point is if a lens tests at 13.65mm your not going to call it a 13mm lens, it would 14mm. So if Tamron isn't at the least 15mm wide they could get sued for false advertising? I will test my copy of the Nikon 16-35 with the Tamron 15-30 today when it arrives. I wouldn't call it a "rival" either they really are different.

0 upvotes
User4379697712

Okay got the Tamron yesterday and paired it up the Nikon 16-35mm f/4, I took a couple of shots with both lenses at F/4. Tamron at 15mm Nikon at 16mm and used a tripod, the Tamron is wider not by much but it is wider at f/4. Then I shot the Tamron wide open at f/2.8 and it is much wider there an easy 1mm wider, also at wide open this lens is very sharp, I'm very happy so far. The Nikon 16-35 just sold on ebay so this is wide lens for now. Next test is in Death Valley, we will see how she holds up in the baking sun.

0 upvotes
LMCasey

Does it AF accurately on Nikon bodies?

1 upvote
mermaidkiller

Great that Tamron ! It blows away the Nikon !

Shame that the new Canon 11-24L not is tested as well.

1 upvote
blakevanderbilt

I would'nt say it blows away the Nikkor... It took them more than 7 years to come up with something thats only marginally better than the Nikkor.. I'm not impressed... At that to the fact that it doesn't go as wide, and that the FOV is basically just a 16mm on the Nikkor, I'd rather wait for Nikon to release an update to the 16-35mm F4 VR (maybe they'll make it F2.8 this time)

3 upvotes
HFLM

LOL. Look at the lensrentals optical bench test, too. Very very close performance.

1 upvote
blakevanderbilt

yess but it doesn't "blow away" the Nikon or the Canon... people are over-exaggerating a lot with this lens...

2 upvotes
HFLM

@blake: very true.

0 upvotes
Henrikw

Wow - again, big kudos to Tamron! I bought their 24-70 in a heartbeat and sold my Canon equivalent - no regrets. Now my Canon 16-35 will be replaced by this wonderful new lens.
Keep it up!

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Hasa

I noticed the word "budget" for this Tamron lens :-) :-) :-) I got this true "budget duo": the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm F2.8 ($900 less than the Tamron) and the Sigma 15mm F2.8 (FE). The only bad thing I can say about the Samyang is the tendency to smear the extreme corners in a way that the Nikon 14-24 does not - and neither does the Zeiss 15 according to this comparison: http://3d-kraft.com/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D127:uwa-comparison%26catid%3D40:camerasandlenses%26Itemid%3D2
Ref. the moustache distortion of the Samyang - there is a lens correction file for LR out there. Another issue is flare control where the expensive lenses fare much better.

0 upvotes
nkistrup

Thanks Hasa for that link. Compared the Zeiss, Nikon, and Tamron lenses this weekend. And though the Zeiss was above average, it was no match for the 14-24 ... but I never looked carefully at the center. Tamron & Zeiss lenses, at their best, were getting close to the Nikon; but most of the time there was a very noticeable difference.

0 upvotes
Eazy123

Your Samyang/Sigma combo is exactly what I use for UWA. No need for the 14-24 for me.

0 upvotes
Vcize

Which lens correction file are you using? I've tried a couple different ones I found for the Samyang 14mm with my D800e and they all leave quite a bit of distortion behind.

0 upvotes
Eazy123

I personally use PTLens - that's the most accurate correction for that particular lens that I can find.

1 upvote
Hasa

Lens correcion: The Samyang 14mm F2.8 distortion-compensation file for LR has been made by Thomas Berndt and can be downloaded here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/30251825/5dmk2Samyang14profile.zip I sometimes dial the apllied distortion correction and anti-vignetting back a bit.

0 upvotes
Peter CS

One additional big difference for landscape photographers - the Nikon and Canon ultra-wides are weather-sealed and this Tamron is not! No one wants to worry about loosing such an expensive lens to the elements...

1 upvote
Digitaliz

It sure is weather sealed! Now where did you read it wasnt`?

/Stefan

5 upvotes
Peter CS

Where does it says that it is? Tamron certainly made a big deal about this in their release of the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses...

0 upvotes
Digitaliz

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-15-30mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd-hands-on-preview-26204

http://dustinabbott.net/2015/02/tamron-sp-15-30mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/

Matt Granger test theit new Flourine coarting which repells water. Which has been a big deal
http://www.mattgranger.com/gear-talk/item/734-tamron-15-30mm-vc-full-review-vs-nikon-14-24mm

Also, I have the lens and it has att weather sealed rubber band to protect lens camera house.

1 upvote
Digitaliz

Another found, but in Swedish, use google to translate

http://tidningenfoto.se/foto-pa-photokina-del-3/

Here's one stating moisture resistant, but since no actual lens is waterproof there of Always mentioning weather sealed and not watersealed (there are plenty of degrees of weather sealing) I still would call it weather sealed

http://alikgriffin.com/feb/18/tamron-15-30mm-f28-review-sample-images

1 upvote
Peter CS

Many thanks to the above individuals who have found and pointed out that this fine Tamron lens is in fact weather resistant! I gladly stand corrected!

Cheers,
Peter

3 upvotes
Jetranger_Pilot

Loosing? What does that mean? The lens comes loose?

0 upvotes
Danel

The Tamron looks good. The only thing I would worry about is that nice lenses are long term investments. Will the Tamron lens still work correctly on Nikon, or other manufacturers, in two, three or four generations of camera down the road?

1 upvote
Shakens

if a Nikon lens works on this future camera then the Tamron will also

3 upvotes
Danel

Not necessarily.

2 upvotes
Shakens

if a Nikon lens from the same age works then it should .
there not in the habit of making older lens not work

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Trubbtele

Looks nice!
Here is an link to a photoshop in Sweden who try out the lens; http://www.cyberphoto.se/info.php?article=ta1530ca

1 upvote
chipmaster

Looks like Tamron did a good job, between this review and Roger's they got something here! Looks like their holy trinity is out there with only the need of time to build the legacy of support and build.

I don't shoot much wide anymore and sold my 14-24, as in some ways my favorite lense but not used often.

Nikon should feel some heat, they've had the market to themselves for almost a decade and now someone comes out with something really as good and with some additional features! They had to invest in new design, tooling and price at something they will still make a profit ( Tamron that is ). Nikon has almost a decade to make back investment, hard to believe they can't sell their lense at Tamron prices and still make a profit.

I know if I go super wide again on FX the tamron would be get me a long look give its performance, VC and longer end flexiblity over a used 14-24.
I am actually also thinking of replacing my 24-70 with the Tamron as VC is just nice to have too!

1 upvote
Rishi Sanyal

Seeing as how 15mm on the Tamron required something more like 15.5 or more on the Nikon, what'd be really interesting to see is the actual FOV increase going from the Nikon 16-35 to the Tamron 15-30. Both offer VC, & a good copy of the 16-35mm can be really, really sharp.

Guess we'll have to get our hands on a 16-35 and make it our next shoot-out :)

3 upvotes
gatorowl

From a quick websearch I found these max FX FOV figures:

Nikon 16-35 mm 107 deg
Canon 16-35 mm 108 deg
Tamron 15-30 mm 110 deg
Nikon 14-24 mm 114 deg
Samyang 14 mm 115.7 deg

Thus, if these measures are true, then the Nikon 16-35 really doesn't approach the 15mm FOV that the Tamron offers.

Sources:
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_afs_dx_nikkor_16_35mm_f_4_g_ed_vr_review/

http://dustinabbott.net/2015/02/tamron-sp-15-30mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/

2 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal

Interesting. Thanks! The 6 aperture blades on the Samyang kinda makes DOA for me (same goes for the Sigma 12-24, though I'd be curious to see how it holds up in terms of sharpness across the frame next to these guys).

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
gatorowl

Dustin Abbott also asserts that the Zeiss 15mm has a 110 deg FOV, so perhaps the Zeiss was Tamron's target for FOV.

I tried the Sigma 12-24 and was very disappointed with it's IQ. The Canon 11-24 is exciting but the $3000 price tag is a no go.

Hopefully, Sigma reworks its 12-24 lens to bring it in line with its Art series, but I'm not optimistic.

I have the Samyang, and it is satisfactory for the few times that I actually need to go really wide.

0 upvotes
rustdream

Budget at $1200? You must be joking.

2 upvotes
T3

Well, considering that $1200 is still a whopping $600 less expensive than the Nikon lens, yeah, I'd say that the Tamron is a "budget" lens.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
gatorowl

Also considering that the new Canon 11-24mm L f/4 lens is $3000, a $1200 full-frame lens with this level of performance is indeed a budget lens and a bargain to boot.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal

Technically, it's $800 cheaper than the MSRP of the Nikon, right?

2 upvotes
GuitarCamera Man

It depends on the individuals budget and or how critically you view a photograph , how much use the lens will get and it better be a lot for $1200( not a bargain by any standard).

2 upvotes
wassim al malak

Thanks dpReview for all info. you give it to us , you are doing an appreciate job , you are the best .
really , thanks .

3 upvotes
budi0251

wonder how canon's 11-24 f/4 would perform, sure it's f/4 but it's an UWA rectilinear lens for 5DsR (50MP!!!).

0 upvotes
Snapper2013

psst, we don't wanna upset the discussion here. ;-)

0 upvotes
Mike Maier

It is a nice comparison, thanks. But with all the work involved you could have included Canon 11-24/f4 just to see what the double the price brings in quality.

0 upvotes
Rishi Sanyal

We don't have the 11-24 (yet), and secondly even if we did, we'd prefer to wait to test it on a higher resolution body :)

1 upvote
Mike Maier

I'll wait for XMAS :(

0 upvotes
aris14

Houston, errrr, Nikon, we have a problem..!
Excellent test, btw...!

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
2 upvotes