Landscape Nikon 16-35 F4.0 vs Tamron 15-30 F2.8 G2 (Wide-angel Zoom)

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Ado Wolf

Ado Wolf

Well-known member
Member's gallery
I will be soon purchasing the Nikon D780 for Landscape work together with a Landscape zoom lens.
I already have the 24 F1.8 Prime which is not always wide enough and my Tokina 11-16 F2.8 is a DX only lens.

I have narrowed it down to Nikon 16-35 F4.0 and the Tamron 15-30 F2.8 G2.
I was always pro Nikkor lenses (for compatibility..) but the Tamron seem to be a better lens (based on internet research).
Which would you recommend? Alternatives are also welcomed ;) Thanks in advance

PS. I know the Z6+14-30 is a great Landscape kit, but I uniquely chose the D780 to use it with my other F native glass (no FTZ): 24, 50, 105, 70-200, 300, 200-500 lenses.
 
Member's gallery
I find he 16-35 to be a very versatile lens albeit an f/4 optic. It’s best wide end performance is around 19-21mm. I also have the 20 f/1.8 for when I need more light. I have no experience with the Tamron.
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
I will be soon purchasing the Nikon D780 for Landscape work together with a Landscape zoom lens.
I already have the 24 F1.8 Prime which is not always wide enough and my Tokina 11-16 F2.8 is a DX only lens.

I have narrowed it down to Nikon 16-35 F4.0 and the Tamron 15-30 F2.8 G2.
I was always pro Nikkor lenses (for compatibility..) but the Tamron seem to be a better lens (based on internet research).
Which would you recommend? Alternatives are also welcomed ;) Thanks in advance

PS. I know the Z6+14-30 is a great Landscape kit, but I uniquely chose the D780 to use it with my other F native glass (no FTZ): 24, 50, 105, 70-200, 300, 200-500 lenses.
Click to expand...

I have the Nikon 16-35 and have used the Tamron 15-30. I also have the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 which is similar to the Tamron. They are very different lenses.

The 16-35 is a relatively light weight lens with very good image quality across the frame. For landscapes, wide event scenes, and most uses it is just fine. It takes standard 77mm filters. There are plenty of used copies available if you wanted to go that route. VR makes it suitable for handheld work or low light. My primary use cases when I bought the lens were photographing from a canoe or photographing streams. I've also used it as part of a hiking or travel kit - 16-35, 50, and 70-200.

The Tamron 15-30 is much more like the Nikon 14-24. It's a big, heavy lens that is optically excellent - equivalent or better than the Nikon 14-24. It has a bulbous front element and does not take filters, so you would need to buy one of the holders and extra large filter sets. At f/2.8 it's good for astrophotography as well as other uses. The practical side of things is the weight and filters can be major issues. I have the Nikon 14-24 with similar design and the filter holder. Using filters is a pain in the neck and means I only use filters with a definite plan. The weight means I don't normally carry the lens for travel or hiking.

If you want best optical quality, the 15-30 is clearly the answer. But when you consider total cost plus the weight and size of the lens, the 16-35 is a lot more practical. I'm relatively insensitive about weight, but filters can be important. I do a lot of stream photography, and need a CP and sometimes ND filters, and in this use case the 16-35 has a big practical advantage.

One other consideration. You have a D780 - which is a great camera but it's a standard resolution camera. You probably won't have enough resolution to fully observe the optical benefit of the 15-30. On the D780, I don't think the difference in optics is meaningful. I say that having both high resolution and standard resolution cameras.
 
Member's gallery
You might want to take a closer look HERE. Nasim Mansuroc @ Photographylife has done a nice review of the Tamron 15-30 nd compared it to both the Nikon 14-24 and the 16-35, and there is also a dedicated review of the 16-35 f4.

I really like the 16-35 f4. You need to shoot it f8 to get good corner performance and you should avoid using it at the long end. But apart from that it is a very nice lens and considering you want to use it on a 24 MPixel sensor you should have enough resolution. If I need more than 24mm I prefer using the 24-70 f2.8E, because here its better.

Depending on what you want to do it might be a real plus to be able to use normal screw-on filters. Because I own the 24-70 f2.8 E I need 82mm filters for this one anyway. To save some money I got some high quality and slim metal step up rings to use the 82mm filters on my other lenses as well. Using this on the 16-35 I discovered that there is a benefit related to reducing vignetting compared to using a 77mm filter directly. That said, you have to live with not being able to use the hood.
 
Member's gallery
I agree with others, the 16-35mm F4 is a good lens, but very different from the slightly wider lenses. No experince with the Tamron, but I have the 16-35mm F4G VR and the 14-24 F2.8G, and I use them differently, you almost have to. The 16-35mm F4 is more resistant to flare than the lenses with bublus front elements, making it more suitable for shots that involve direct sunlight for example. It does lack sharpness beyond 28mm, and 16mm won't blow you away either. 18-24mm is very good on my copy, sharper than the 24-70mm F2.8G for example.

The 16-35mm F4 might not have the resolution figures that the F2.8 glass has, but it is much lighter. The ablity to use standard filters, or even less expensive filter kits (for square grads and such) makes it versitle. The VR really is outstanding, you can get sharp shots down to 1/15s or less if you have steady hands. As for price, I kind of feel like it is overpriced now days, it was cheaper when I bought it back in 2013. Nikon hasn't moved much on prices outside of seasonal discounts, because they need the revenue. I would suggest getting a good used copy, they are almost half the price of a new one (In Canada anyway).
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I got lucky and found a pristine used Copy for $650 (rather than new $1050) bought in 2017 (checked the Serial number)
No scratches or dents.. and was always used with a UV Filter. If I didn't know better, I'd say it was new.
I didn't have time to test it on a longer hike yet, but I love the range and the weight (even on my D7500).
The fact that I can use my existing 77 CPL and filters was a major part of my decision making.
I am sure Tamron lenses are good, but when I can go Nikon with my budget, I always go Nikon.

PS I am very impressed with the VR on this lens.. I can go down to very low shutter times when hand-held.
 
Member's gallery
I have both, Nikon 16-35 F4.0 and the Tamron 15-30 F2.8, but my 15-30 is the first model (g1) . I've made some impressive shots with both lenses but when I'm after a serious photo I take the Tamron, Particular in little to no light. I don't use filters so the lack of a filter thread is not a problem for me with the Tamron. If I did need to use a filter I would go with the 16-35. I've compared both lenses several times. In low to no light there is no comparison, the winner is always that f/2.8 over the f/4. You would probably be happy with either lens.
Lately I've been using the Nikon 14-30Z which seems to be the best of the three for what I shoot. For some reason the f/4 is not much of a problem on my Z7.
 
Member's gallery
I own the 16-35 f:4 and I will confess, it is by far my least favorite Nikon lens. Maybe I have a bad copy, but you really need to close down to get the corners sharp. Even at f:5.6 it is still soft and at f:8 it gets good but never great. I like the VR and I like the light weight, I just don’t like the optical quality. I own the 20mm prime and will grab it over the zoom anytime I can make do with 20mm.
So just make sure you get a good copy as it seems they might be quite variable.
 
Member's gallery
Not that it matters, but I was in the same situation about a year ago. Did all the research and ended up with the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 Art. In your case, the Tamron is rated just a bit higher than the Nikon lens on DxOMark.com.

If you plan on selling the lens in the future, go with Nikon as Nikon glass holds its value better, but both lenses will serve you well.
 
Member's gallery
@FB101 That's why I opted for a used one. I didn't think the lens is worth the current selling price of +$1000
Snow is falling today, Temperature dropped down to -9C / 48 F... and the sun should come up later.. so I will test it to find out how sharp it is.
I do have the 24 mm Prime for dark moments and might add the 20 mm down the line :)

@Strodav yes, I saw the Sigma as well.. what turned me away was the fact that I had to buy a Docking station in order to do fine-tuning, where as with the Nikon I can do it directly from the camera.

@Rogereh I do a lot of time-lapses of sunrises.. so Filters are a necessity for me. If that was not the case, I would have probably gone with Tamron 15-30.
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
@FB101 That's why I opted for a used one. I didn't think the lens is worth the current selling price of +$1000
Snow is falling today, Temperature dropped down to -9C / 48 F... and the sun should come up later.. so I will test it to find out how sharp it is.
I do have the 24 mm Prime for dark moments and might add the 20 mm down the line :)

@Strodav yes, I saw the Sigma as well.. what turned me away was the fact that I had to buy a Docking station in order to do fine-tuning, where as with the Nikon I can do it directly from the camera.

@Rogereh I do a lot of time-lapses of sunrises.. so Filters are a necessity for me. If that was not the case, I would have probably gone with Tamron 15-30.
Click to expand...

I own and have tuned Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron glass. Nikon's QC on lenses is pretty good so that if you AF- fine tune a Nikon zoom at one point, usually at full zoom, the rest of the zoom factors will be in focus. Both Tamron (Tap in) and Sigma (USB Dock) provide devices that allow you to update the firmware in the lens as well as fine tune the lens at several different zoom factors and distances. For example, the table for the Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 G2 has 18 different entries. The table for the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 has 3 entries to tune it at 3 different distances. When asked about 3rd party glass, for those who are willing to test and tune their lenses, then you can save some money with 3rd party glass and get some good results. If not, stay with your camera manufacturer's glass. One caveat, sometimes 3rd party glass is actually sharper than OEM glass, sometimes not. Check the specs and read the reviews for yourself. Three sources I trust are DxOMark.com and PCMag.com. I also like Ken Rockwell's stuff at KenRockwell.com
 
Member's gallery
The problem, for me, is if you tune a lens to a particular camera then it will still have those settings applied to the lens when you want to use that lens on a different camera. I have 5 Nikon cameras (6 with my wife's camera). using the USB Dock or Tap-in to internally change the "len's" settings would/could make a drastic change when rutting that same lens on a different camera. There are no settings within the dock/tap-in to allow for different settings for additional cameras.. The Nikon in-camera fine tune will make adjustments to the "camera" for the lens. This system doesn't apply the changes directly to the lens, just the camera. But unfortunately the camera fine tune only allows for one distance tune.

The other problem, for me, is fine tuning with either system (or any tuning system) never allows for any human errors like motion shake, wind, humidity and many other conditions and decisions that are made while shooting. So you will still have frequent bad photos if you are human...Last winter I fine tuned all my lenses with the Reikan Focal software. So now when I put any of those 20 something lenses on my D500, D810, D5, Z7 those corrections do not apply to those cameras. I've now decided that fine tuning for me is mostly a waste of time unless I have a lens that I use primarily on a certain camera. I've found that even on my D850 the "tuned" lens will vary from time to time. Just tune any lens to any camera then tune it again and you will most likely require a different setting. Just look at the suggested 10 times then average the settings. At any particular shooting the camera/lens may hit on any of the other 9 (or more) settings and will just as bad as not tuning in the first place. I know many of you will disagree wit h me but I will still have this opinion after reading your responses. The BEST method is returning and exchanging any lens that doesn't seem to work well for what you are using it for. Then just go out and be content with what the lens gives you.

If you decide to buy a used lens you must consider what the TRUE reason it is for sale for. Very few sellers will tell you the absolute truth because then the lens would probably not sell or bring a small price.
 
Member's gallery
I try to avoid fine tuning unless the results are really off.. since most lenses were spot on when bought new.

The lens I bought was sold after 4 years of use, because the seller switched to Z camera and wanted only native lenses. So I got lucky with this buy.
 
Member's gallery
Ado Wolf said:
I try to avoid fine tuning unless the results are really off.. since most lenses were spot on when bought new.

The lens I bought was sold after 4 years of use, because the seller switched to Z camera and wanted only native lenses. So I got lucky with this buy.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately new lenses and cameras are not "spot on". They are within the manufacture's tolerances. I'm not sure what Nikon's tolerances for cameras and lenses are but let's use +/- 10 as an example. So in this example the lens may be +10 from zero and the camera may be -10 from zero. Both would be manufactured within tolerance but there cold be could a 20 total spread, but within Nikon's tolerance spread. I've seen user's complain that their lens is plus or minus 17-20 from zero on the tuning scale and are they upset, but in reality it's still within spec and actually a very small amount.
 
Member's gallery
Yes I had this case with my 24 mm f1.8 prime, so I sent it back to Nikon and it was returned spot on.
I agree fine tuning is an added value, but it is not always necessary..
 
Member's gallery
If Nikon glass is always dead on, why did Nikon include AF-Fine Tune in their newer cameras? If their glass was dead on, Sigma and Tamron would not need to sell the Dock or Tap-in.

AF is a random variable with a rather large variance, so it take some skill and patience to do tuning right or every time you re-check tune, it will be off. I have found that once I tune a lens for my D850, it is pretty close to on with my D500 and visa versa.

A bigger DOF can mask tuning issues and DOF is your biggest weapon against a lens / camera that's just a bit out of tune.
 
Member's gallery
I only said the lenses I bought didn't need AF Finetuning on with my camera, I didn't mean to imply all Nikon lenses are dead on. I actually did AF Finetuning on all lenses based on Steve's instructions (video) and all were within +/- 3 Points, except for the 24 mm which was returned to Nikon. Thankfully I got lucky.

I also believe in the real world (my perspective of course) any AF finetuning within +/-3 will not be that noticeable for most uses (seeing photos on an iPad or monitor, sharing photos on social media, etc. Naturally given that we have this option, it would be a shame not to use it.
 
Member's gallery
I purchased the Tamron 15-30 in Nov of 2020 and just love it on my D810. Esceptonial sharpness and clarity. I could be a little biased as I have 3 otherTamron lens' and they are all nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top