C200: Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 VC AF on C200

[djangosan]

Has anyone here used the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 VC on their C200? I know there are problems with the C220 PDAF using the 35mm and 45mm primes, as well as the Gen II of the 24-70 (I hear Gen I works OK). But I haven't heard anything on the SP 15-30mm f/2.8 VC. I assume it's also a no-go, but if anyone has had actual experience, would love to hear it.

Thanks

 

[djangosan]

Sorry, I think I just found my answer. Apparently, the lens doesn't play well with the c100, so I don't expect it to do any better with the C200. But if anyone wants to chime in with real-world experience, I'd still love to hear it.

Thanks again.

 

[djangosan]

G1 v G2

G1 v G2

One thing I just discovered is that there are 2 generations of this lens. I've noticed re Tamron that the G2 lenses consistently do not play well with the C200. So I'm wondering (& crossing my fingers) that people's bad experiences may have all been with G2?

 

[crammond]

From my experience, all G1 lenses work ok on C100/C100 MK2 yet all of the G2 have problems.

 

[djangosan]

Thanks! That's what I thought. I may have to hunt down a G1 to find out.

 

[puredrifting]

Just my general experience with third party lenses for years but in a world where the Sigma ART lenses exist, I wouldn't use a Tamron lens of any kind. I have never used the G1 or G2 lenses for
video but have used plenty of other Tamrons over the years and IMHO, the Sigmas are by far the best general third party lenses as far as build, reliability and image. The Sigma 18-35 ART is a
killer lens.

 

[djangosan]

WTB: Unicorn

WTB: Unicorn

The Sigma 18-35 ART is a
killer lens.

Thank you! I agree 100% and I have one, but it's not stabilized. And I've also kind of disliked the handling on the Tamrons I've used previously, but I'd still really like to find a wide (wider than 24mm), stabilized lens for 4k on the C200.

I used to shoot environmental portraiture & point-of-view verite coverage ("let's walk around, show me your world") on the underappreciated Canon 17-55. It was a documentary workhorse. But it (as I know you are also painfully aware of) doesn't cover the full 17:9 4K frame w/o vignetting. So...

I can shoot on the 17-55 and tell the editors to blow in (not a great option, but I often do that as we generally deliver everything 16:9); I can shoot on the 18-35 and tell the editors to stabilize (icky, and again they generally have to blow in some percentage to stabilize it); I can put up the Sigma & throw the C200 on a stabilizer (which starts to get into Frankenrig territory if I need to shoot on it for awhile, and definitely gets in the way of creating a "forget about the camera, let's just talk" vibe); or I can find some stabilized wider glass to take its place.

The only other viable lens I've found (wider than 24) is the Canon 16-35 IS, but it's an f/4. And no, I don't need everything shallow focus, but at a wider FOV it's nice to be able to take the edge out of the backgrounds and make my subject pop a little. Sometimes even 2.8 doesn't quite feel like enough (again, the beauty of the Sigma's 1.8).

I should have titled the thread "WTB: Unicorn".

Anyway, that's my dilemma and why I was looking for any real-world experience with the Tamron. But I do appreciate your advice and your take on the Sigma.

 

[puredrifting]

Thank you! I agree 100% and I have one, but it's not stabilized. And I've also kind of disliked the handling on the Tamrons I've used previously, but I'd still really like to find a wide (wider than 24mm), stabilized lens for 4k on the C200.

I used to shoot environmental portraiture & point-of-view verite coverage ("let's walk around, show me your world") on the underappreciated Canon 17-55. It was a documentary workhorse. But it (as I know you are also painfully aware of) doesn't cover the full 17:9 4K frame w/o vignetting. So...

I can shoot on the 17-55 and tell the editors to blow in (not a great option, but I often do that as we generally deliver everything 16:9); I can shoot on the 18-35 and tell the editors to stabilize (icky, and again they generally have to blow in some percentage to stabilize it); I can put up the Sigma & throw the C200 on a stabilizer (which starts to get into Frankenrig territory if I need to shoot on it for awhile, and definitely gets in the way of creating a "forget about the camera, let's just talk" vibe); or I can find some stabilized wider glass to take its place.

The only other viable lens I've found (wider than 24) is the Canon 16-35 IS, but it's an f/4. And no, I don't need everything shallow focus, but at a wider FOV it's nice to be able to take the edge out of the backgrounds and make my subject pop a little. Sometimes even 2.8 doesn't quite feel like enough (again, the beauty of the Sigma's 1.8).

I should have titled the thread "WTB: Unicorn".

Anyway, that's my dilemma and why I was looking for any real-world experience with the Tamron. But I do appreciate your advice and your take on the Sigma.

No worries, you sound as if you have thought all of this through pretty well. For a lot of that type shooting, I like the Canon EF S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM although no chance of shallow DOF with this lens and it is slow. Great for gimbal and
outdoor use though. I agree with your take on the EF S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, I have one too and it's of limited use on the C200. Even with the crop in to UHD, you still see vignetting in the corners and the build quality is meh and the lens is a
dust trap.

Good luck on your search.

 

[jb.]

I have a Tamron 15-30mm DI VC G1 that works fine on my C200. It occasionally acts up a little on my Z-Cam E2 with Speed Booster, but that's two layers of conversion, so I'm not surprised.

Tamron seems to have found a little bit of a niche with this lens and the 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC (which I also have). There is no other 24-70mm with f/2.8 and image stabilization on the Canon EF mount.

I will say that the Tamron is massive.

 

[djangosan]

Thanks jbregar! That's enough of a yes for me to give it a go. I use to shoot with the G1 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC via metabones on the FS7 for that very reason. It was sharp! The Nikon focusing direction would always throw me 'cuz my other glass was Canon, but mostly no big deal.