Is it logic to get Tamron now and later Canon?

Hi all,

After long debating and doubts between Tamron 15-30 and Canon 16-35 f4IS i ordered the Tamron, honestly i still prefer 2.8 over IS, and Tamron has VC, both lenses have great reviews, and someone mentioned the bokeh so i thought with 2.8 i have very slightly better bokeh, then after long wait i decided to go with Tamron and be responsible with this decision.

Now, the question is: is it really logic more if i got Tamron now and later i buy Canon 11-24 so one lens with f2.8 and another with f4? or is it logic to have 2 lenses with f4 if i went with 16-35 f4Is now and later with Canon 11-24? this was another reason too that i don't want to have all my UWA lenses with only f4 regardless how amazing sharp they are, and if many talked about that 16-35 can accommodate filters, then 11-24 doesn't, and filters aren't the issue at all, but what do you think if you have a plan to go with 2 UWA one now and the another one later, how you will do it?

In what context is your 'does it make sense' question being asked?!

Tareq, most folks on POTN are not as economically 'blessed' as you are with your country's oil income sharing. Most folks would say that if you two bought new lenses now and sold them, and later purchased one new lens in their place, you are losing a lot of money and should be patient...or buy two USED lenses today, as you will lose little money in the later resale on the used market. The two used lenses now and one new lens later would make a ton of sense, if only for the reason of "What would you do, while you are waiting for that one (ideal) lens to show up?

Your question is somewhat confusing. Are you asking about the 'wisdom' or 'sense' of one of the combinations? or a single lens vs. the other?

1. Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 + Canon 11-24mm f/4: why would you own both? One has FL range which is shorter, the other FL range which is longer, but both about 15mm from short to long end. One is f/2.8 vs. the other at f/4. It depends upon YOUR priority... my own priority is shorter and faster, is better than longer and slower. But 16mm on FF is plenty wide for me, so the Tamron 15-30 alone makes sense (for me).
   
2. Canon 16-35 f/4 IS + Canon 11-24mm f/4: It depends upon YOUR priority...my own priority is shorter FL, rather than longer FL, but 16mm on FF is plenty wide enough for me. The Canon 16-35 f/4 IS would be my choice, due to the IS. I care not for 11-15mm on FF.
   

Wilt wrote in post #17879336
In what context is your 'does it make sense' question being asked?!

Tareq, most folks on POTN are not as economically 'blessed' as you are with your country's oil income sharing. Most folks would say that if you two bought new lenses now and sold them, and later purchased one new lens in their place, you are losing a lot of money and should be patient...or buy two USED lenses today, as you will lose little money in the later resale on the used market. The two used lenses now and one new lens later would make a ton of sense, if only for the reason of "What would you do, while you are waiting for that one (ideal) lens to show up?

Your question is somewhat confusing. Are you asking about the 'wisdom' or 'sense' of one of the combinations? or a single lens vs. the other?

1. Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 + Canon 11-24mm f/4: why would you own both? One has FL range which is shorter, the other FL range which is longer, but both about 15mm from short to long end. One is f/2.8 vs. the other at f/4. It depends upon YOUR priority... my own priority is shorter and faster, is better than longer and slower. But 16mm on FF is plenty wide for me, so the Tamron 15-30 alone makes sense (for me).
   
2. Canon 16-35 f/4 IS + Canon 11-24mm f/4: It depends upon YOUR priority...my own priority is shorter FL, rather than longer FL, but 16mm on FF is plenty wide enough for me. The Canon 16-35 f/4 IS would be my choice, due to the IS. I care not for 11-15mm on FF.
   

It means i should think about 11-24 then, and i am not that "blessed" as you said, if i am as you think then i will buy all those three lenses without asking or waiting long.

Well, i still not sure about your point that you said you care about shorter and faster, so if we take your point about shorter and faster then Tamron 15-30 and Canon 11-24 should be the first two, but you mention 16-35 as your first and you then said IS, in fact i felt confusing about your answer before i am confused about my question as you mentioned.

Tareq, although you may not consider yourself 'blessed', anyone who can afford to buy ANY Hasselblad digital is 'blessed' in the minds of anyone struggling even to buy a FF Canon that has been made in the past 3 years (other than the 6D)! And even if that time is now passed, we are pleased (and secretly envious) you were able to get the Hassy!

My own choices of a single lens:

Shorter: On APS-C, 11-22 vs. 16-35, choice is 11-22, as 16mm on APS-C is not wide enough for me
Faster: On APS-C, 10-22 f/3.5 vs. 12-16 f/2.8 vs. 11-22 f/4 IS, choice is 12-16 f/2.8 because I want the raw speed of lens

Shorter on FF: 15-30 f/2.8 vs. 11-24mm f/4, choice is 15-30 f/2.8, i want the raw speed of lens.
Faster on FF: 16-35 f/4 IS vs. 11-24mm f/4, choice is 16-35 as 16mm is plenty wide for me on FF!

IS or not: Canon 16-35 f/4 IS + Canon 11-24mm f/4, choice is 16-36mm because of IS
...but I would rather have f/2.8 no IS over an f/4 IS

Would I want/need a combination of two lenses?
my choice is 11-16 f/2.8 along with 16-35mm f/2.8, as it gives me aperture speed across the range of 12-35mm.

...forget the brand consideration for the above discussion (although I will usually exclude a certain brand from consideration)!

Tareq, having looked at your gear list, it would appear that 'not that blessed' means a very different thing over there to here

Wilt wrote in post #17879376
Tareq, much a you may not consider yourself 'blessed', anyone how can afford to buy ANY Hasselblad digital is 'blessed' in the minds of anyone struggling even to buy a FF Canon that has been made in the past 3 years (other than the 6D)!

That "blessed" time or days passed away, i was lucky before or blessed or say i was wise how to save and how to buy, but since 3-4 years ago i went from a bad situations to worse, and i don't have to compare myself to those who can't afford something high end, there are others who can afford bodies and lenses every year and even me feel jealous, so if you said i am blessed, then what i can say about those who i feel jealous about?

Last year i didn't buy any gear if i can remember, and in 2014 i bought Sony A7r and i think 2 lenses or 3, in the past i was able to buy 2 bodies and 3-4 every year, even when i bought Hasselblad that time i was able to buy Canon gear too, but in 2014 with less gear and last year nothing it means i am not going strong as before, what i bought before is in the past, and i ordered Tamron, not even Canon, so that i asked as i feel that this Canon lens of 11-24 could be the only gear i may buy after the Tamron lens this year, maybe you and some think i am blessed, but there are some who have this lens and 16-35 f4Is together.

If my question isn't good to be answered then i can understand, you explained your point and that is fine, bit talking about how lucky i can afford something or blessed isn't my question, i may not afford anything this year after this Tamron lens, and even if i decide about Canon 11-24, i may buy it next year not this year, but i start to talk about it now so i can have this whole year to think and decide.

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #17879383
Tareq, having looked at your gear list, it would appear that 'not that blessed' means a very different thing over there to here

So, is that my Hasselblad making it that way way "blessed" for you?

In fact, i am also a member in another sites of photography, and there are members who have 2 or 3 digital medium formats, i have one, having another one or 2 is even double of what i have without my digital medium format, and those members are in USA, i don't know any local or arabic photographer who owns or has more than 1 digital medium format, in fact i am one of very few to have a digital medium format, so where is about oil in our region if many arabs can't afford it? and we are very few population, around 1 million of citizen, but seeing photographers in USA and Europe having more digital medium format or even one shooter has 2 and that is with lenses and accessories which are way way more expensive than Canon/Nikon/Sony gear, so i can say the same about "blessed" with you, visit Hasselblad and Phase One sites or Profoto/Bronocolor sites and show me how many arabs there who are blessed?

I feel lucky to buy Tamron after long time of holding my 16-35m f2.8 mk1 which i bought in 2006, so 10 years i was holding that lens, even i still have 24-70 2.8 mk1 and it is maybe lost in Canon service as i didn't brought it from them and paid the repair, maybe it is gone after 3-4 years there with them, so if i asked about wanting to get 2 lenses in the future with one already ordered you thought i am rich enough to buy more and more? well, i always come here to ask questions as i choose this site as my first reference, but i feel when i ask about gear it shows me as show off more or less.

Tareq, I think the short answer is that in the world of lenses it is tough to really know what suits us best till we use it. This happened to me recently. I lusted after a particular lens but kept it for less than a week after purchasing it. In theory it was great but in practice it was a bad fit. I think the best thing is to try the lenses in question if you can. Borrow, rent or stop by a retailer and put it on your camera for a short spin. It will likely give you a better, more personalized sense of which approach to take.

nqjudo wrote in post #17879476
Tareq, I think the short answer is that in the world of lenses it is tough to really know what suits us best till we use it. This happened to me recently. I lusted after a particular lens but kept it for less than a week after purchasing it. In theory it was great but in practice it was a bad fit. I think the best thing is to try the lenses in question if you can. Borrow, rent or stop by a retailer and put it on your camera for a short spin. It will likely give you a better, more personalized sense of which approach to take.

I know this is a better idea to test it before, but sometimes not all can have that facility or option, for example in my country i may test the lens but only inside the store for short time say 2-5minutes and this will never prove much just the field of view and AF speed, but in real world many factors can play roles, i tested lenses before in stores and it didn't make me to have any decision unless i tested lenses that i know earlier that it is perfect from here and there.

Let's say, my question is look like someone asking about 24-70 2.8 and 24-105? is it logic to have both, and is it more logic if someone go with 24-70 f4 and 24-105 which is also f4, so it is like one lens is just a part of the another one, while my question was about 11-24 and 15-30 or 16-35, 11-24 is different than 16-35 or 15-30, 1-2mm for some can make or give or show a difference, also even if i have 15-30 or 16-35 i would like to won Canon 11-24 because of many reviews and shots showing how sharp nice amazing great lens it is, and i always love more UWA lenses even if i have 10 lenses, i had 16-35 and i have Sigma 12-24 and there is a difference, even between Samyang 14mm and 16-35 i saw a difference, and i have TS17 and it is different than Samyang 14mm regardless that it is only 3mm between both, so between 11 and 15 or 16 there is 4-5mm.

Ok, let me ask you this another way, if you have an UWA lens for example Canon 16-35 or Nikon 14-24, won't you buy Canon 11-24 if you have more budget to buy it if without selling your current UWA? or, will you sell you 16-35 or 14-24 to buy Canon 11-24? or you think that 11-24 is too too much wide that it is unnecessary regardless how sharp and great it is?

Heya,

I just don't see why you'd need one lens that does F2.8 and another of the same focal lengths, essentially, at F4. With or without stabilization. There's not enough of a difference in depth of field at these focal lengths to worry $2~3k around a wee bit more "out of focus area" (bokeh is different; you're not getting "more" of it). You either need F2.8 or you don't. And really, do why settle for F2.8 on focal lengths like 24mm, 28mm, 30mm, 35mm? You can get them 1 to 2 stops faster than this as it is. It makes sense at 15mm, but, then again, you can get a Rokinon 14mm F2.8. Granted, the point of the zoom is to eliminate needing all those primes. But I would think if you wanted 15mm and 30mm on one lens, you're mostly going to spend more time at 15mm, because frankly, everything longer than 20mm can be had with a much faster lens for way less. Then you have the F4 lens, with even wider angles. Two different tools, one with a stop faster aperture, the other with much wider angles. If you're a wide angle junkie, the 11-24 makes the most sense. If you're doing long exposure night sky, the 15-30 F2.8 makes more sense. Really though, if you need speed, there's faster glass to be had and I guess I don't see a difference between 24mm and 28mm enough to care to have both at the same time on a zoom, let alone 28mm and 30mm; I guess I'd rather have 14mm, 24mm and 35mm and not worry with what's between, and I can have those at F2.8, F1.4 and F1.4. There is no substitute for 11mm though that isn't fisheye.

Very best,

Have you ordered the Tamron already?

It sounds as though you have at first then it changes to should I order the Tamron now or the Canon 16-35.

If you have already ordered the Tamron then stick with that and get the canon 11-24 later.

As to f2.8 vs f4 on UWA what are you using these for?
If its landscapes then it won't male a difference, unless your doing astro in which case the F2,8 tamron is the better option.

Makes sense to me to have fast glass, the Canon 11-24 is in a league of its own and its F4. The 16-35 has other options, I'd get a F2.8 one to go with the f4 11-24 such as the Tamron for when you need that extra stop of light.

Well, my UWA are used in three field, sometimes i can add another field, so i want a lens that can serve me for more fields than a lens that is very strong in one field and it is so so in another fields, so that i put f2.8 as priority.

I shoot landscapes, i shoot nighshots, i shoot long exposures, and i am really really serious about getting into Astro, and i am planning if i travel again after long time so i will shoot more of astro next time, i have Samyang in this area, but this lens has its pros and cons, and i also don't depend on one lens, and sometimes compositions control me, primes killing me sometimes, so that when i travel i prefer zooms, and maybe i won't carry Samyang with me, so i always put my 3 main zooms in bag then few more primes or extra zooms.

I already ordered the Tamron and waiting to receive it, so 16-35 is out of question completely, but in fact i has a plan to buy 11-24 in the future later, this year or next year who knows, but i was asking about, if i will buy that Canon 11-24, is it more compatible or logic with Tamron 15-30 f2.8 or Canon 16-35 f4? I can use Tamron and sell it to buy Canon 16-35 f4, but i don't feel that i would like to have lenses with only f4 with or without IS and no f2.8, and i am not looking for 20/24mm or longer, i have TS24 so i am not thinking about longer FL, that 15mm is really wide, but from what i shoot sometimes i really like to go even wider than 14mm, and that Samyang 14mm has that ugly converge[distortion] that i many times hate to use it, TS17 is wide but not that much wide so i keep using shift a lot, but if i travel and i shoot landscapes i may need zoom for compositions, and also for astro, and most of the time i am in move so i don't have time to change lenses as i will do that with many primes, when i was traveling in the past i was using 16-35mm a lot and i wasn't at 16mm 100%, and many times i was in situations where i wanted wider than 16mm itself, but last time i traveled was in 2009, and i bought that Samyang 14 and TS lenses after 2012, and i sold my 16-35 2.8 mk1 so wanted to have a replacement which was either Tamron or Canon 16-35 f4.

Anyone even considering buying a 11-24 is more blessed than I am. Still if I were that blessed I could see owning both a 15-30/2.8,for the night sky- indoor low light stuffy hen added the 11-24. That 11 is just so much wider. People own the 14L because their 16-35s aren't wide enough well 11 is sick wider than 15 or 16.

And Wilt - what is a 12-16/2.8?

FEChariot wrote in post #17879636
Anyone even considering buying a 11-24 is more blessed than I am. Still if I were that blessed I could see owning both a 15-30/2.8,for the night sky- indoor low light stuffy hen added the 11-24. That 11 is just so much wider. People own the 14L because their 16-35s aren't wide enough well 11 is sick wider than 15 or 16.

And Wilt - what is a 12-16/2.8?

Indeed, Canon won't produce this 11-24 unless it is for a reason, and if it was optically not that much good and too wide ugly distortion then it won't get that great reviews then.

.

Tareq,

To me it makes sense to get the lens you need for whatever photographic objective you have.

If you need a certain lens for one of your objectives, then it makes all the sense in the world for you to get that lens! Then, if another of your photographic objectives would be best met by getting another lens, it makes all the sense in the world to then go ahead and get the lens that will best help you accomplish that objective. If this results in you having two lenses that are rather similar, so be it.

So yes, it would make sense to me to make sure that you have the best tool for each one of the jobs you have to do.

.