Tamron 10-24 ePHOTOzine review by Pete Bargh


RichardDay

Link Posted 09/10/2009 - 21:17
I've just been reading a very positive review of the Tamron 10-24mm by our own Pete Bargh on ePHOTOzine link, and, contrary to most reviews of this lens, he seems to think that it's actually very good, even when comparing it to the much loved (and now very expensive! ) DA 12-24. The few images he posted do seem to support his views, or do you think he has a very poor DA 12-24?

Does anyone else have any thoughts, or experience, that the Tamron is a very fine lens if you get a good one?

I've also heard that the chaps at SRS tend to recommend this lens as well.
Best regards
Richard Day

Profile - link - (click on About for equipment profile) - My Flickr site - link

Anvh

Link Posted 09/10/2009 - 21:40
DPreview also has a positive review up about the 10-24, it isn't a bad lens all in all, certainly since it's one of the cheapest wide angle lenses.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

johnriley

Link Posted 09/10/2009 - 21:48
AP also ran a good review of this lens.
Best regards, John

RichardDay

Link Posted 09/10/2009 - 22:10
Anvh wrote:
DPreview also has a positive review up about the 10-24, it isn't a bad lens all in all, certainly since it's one of the cheapest wide angle lenses.

Really?

My interpretation is that DPReview rated the IQ of the Tamron somewhat lower than the Sigma 10-20 and significantly worse than the Tokina 12-24. From Pete's review I wouldn't have said that was the case.

I had 2 copies of the Sigma 10-20 and found them much as DPR describes them in relation to a Pentax DA 12-24 that I'd borrowed and didn't keep them as the 12-24 was very much better.

From Pete's review it would seem that the copy of the Tamron he had is at least as good, if not better, than the DA 12-24 he has. If this is truly the case then I'm really interested in the Tamron, especially as now the Pentax is astronomically expensive.

I guess I will have to take a trip to SRS and try a few (I will need to find a really good one ).
Best regards
Richard Day

Profile - link - (click on About for equipment profile) - My Flickr site - link

RichardDay

Link Posted 09/10/2009 - 22:11
johnriley wrote:
AP also ran a good review of this lens.

I guess that it's not available on line?
Best regards
Richard Day

Profile - link - (click on About for equipment profile) - My Flickr site - link

johnriley

Link Posted 09/10/2009 - 22:24
Quote:
I guess that it's not available on line?

It will be available as a download, but at a cost, as are all of AP's tests.
Best regards, John

George Lazarette

Link Posted 09/10/2009 - 23:24
I'm surprised that more people did not buy one of Aminstar's Samsung 12-24 lenses when they had the chance.

I'm a self-confessed brand snob, but a saving of hundreds of pounds trumps brand snobbery every time.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

Anvh

Link Posted 09/10/2009 - 23:38
This from DPreview Richard
Quote:
Comparison to other wideangle zooms we've tested recently suggests the Sigma's class-leading days may be numbered. On APS-C, it simply can't match the biting central sharpness of the Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 Di-II in the 10-18mm range (for which, we suspect, users will mainly be buying this type of lens), and has more problematic distortion characteristics.

Doesn't sound to bad right? link
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

RichardDay

Link Posted 10/10/2009 - 11:38
Anvh wrote:
This from DPreview Richard
Quote:
Comparison to other wideangle zooms we've tested recently suggests the Sigma's class-leading days may be numbered. On APS-C, it simply can't match the biting central sharpness of the Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 Di-II in the 10-18mm range (for which, we suspect, users will mainly be buying this type of lens), and has more problematic distortion characteristics.

Doesn't sound to bad right? link

I agree that the results in DPR suggest that it's somewhat better than Sigma, which I would hope!

However when you compare it with the results from the Tokina (Pentax) 12-24, the divergence is much larger, especially at the optimum aperture of around f8 where the 12-24 hovers close to the Nyquist limits across almost the whole frame, wheras the Tamron and especially the Sigma fall down quite badly.

From Peter's tests, it would appear that the Tamron is much closer to the Pentax in many respects and maybe even better in some areas.

Anyway, I will trot over to SRS at some time to see if it's a worthy addition to my bag.

I don't "need" more than the 17-70 in most circumstances, certainly not enough to spend 12-24 money (even the Samsung at 450 'ish), but it would be nice to have something centred around 14mm which I find a very workable F/L for quick wide shots (I usually prefer to stitch several shots when I have the time to compose). I have considered the DA 10-17 as I quite like the lack of perspective stretch distortion and the creative effects obtainable from a fish eye, but de-fishing, even at the longer end where it's less damaging, reduces the IQ sufficiently to be unattractive.
Best regards
Richard Day

Profile - link - (click on About for equipment profile) - My Flickr site - link

Anvh

Link Posted 10/10/2009 - 12:49
It depends on how much you weight the value for money.
The Pentax 12-24 is a better lens but cost also 50% more here and even more in the UK.
The Pentax is however a better lens in all respects since it preforms across the whole length of his range, where as the others only are better or coming close in certain parts their range.
Then their also comes the aspect on the appeal of other characteristics that aren't talked about like contrast, saturation and bokeh, I believe Pentax will win all three, mostly because of their coating.

I'm still hoping like some others here for a DA*11-16 but by the looks of it that will never come.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

George Lazarette

Link Posted 10/10/2009 - 14:31
Stefan, a DA* 11-16 is unlikely to be much better than the 12-24, nor much smaller, and it would lose the useful 8mm at the top end. Why would you want it?

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

RichardDay

Link Posted 10/10/2009 - 15:58
George Lazarette wrote:
Stefan, a DA* 11-16 is unlikely to be much better than the 12-24, nor much smaller, and it would lose the useful 8mm at the top end. Why would you want it?

G

I'm with you there George, that's why I like the idea of the 10-24 Tammy as it could suffice as a walk around street lens, I actually found the DA 12-24 a fine lens for this reason, that extra 4mm makes a big difference, losing 8mm would be terrible IMO.

I had the Sigma 10-20 (two of them) and was forever changing back to my DA 16-45 for the more convenient focal range, even for street and architectural work (not to mention the better IQ which is what concerns me about the Tamron). Unfortunately the DA 12-24 or even the Samsung are now too rich for my pocket v. usage.

I'm forever kicking myself that I didn't buy a Samsung 12-24 when I saw one in our local Currys for 199 a while back.
Best regards
Richard Day

Profile - link - (click on About for equipment profile) - My Flickr site - link
Last Edited by RichardDay on 10/10/2009 - 15:59

Anvh

Link Posted 10/10/2009 - 17:28
The 11-16 is far sharper and that sharpness doesn't falloff in the corners, at least even less then with the 12-24.
Also when comparing prices the 11-16 isn't really that more expensive then the 12-24.
Of course you will lose some range but when you have the 16-50, then you've that covered and it's an option you decide for.

I only don't understand why it's f/2.8 although that can be handy indoors with group shots maybe?
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

RichardDay

Link Posted 10/10/2009 - 17:53
I doubt if the 11-16 will ever happen in Pentax mount, but there is no doubting that it's a very fine lens.

Anyway, the range is too small for me as I found 10-20 a nuisance and reverted back to the 16-45 a lot of the time. Having used a 12-24 and found the coverage to 24mm made all the difference and reduced lens swapping to a very large degree, it's for this reason that I'm interested in the Tamron. I just hope that it's IQ doesn't dissapoint.

I've been reading some user reports from people who have had both the Sigma and the Tamron and there is a gereral concencus that the Tamron is the better of the two, but the Pentax/Tokina definitely is regarded as the best, apart from maybe flare and CA, it's just such a pity that it's risen so much in price.

Fingers crossed that I will find the Tamron satisfactory.
Best regards
Richard Day

Profile - link - (click on About for equipment profile) - My Flickr site - link

Anvh

Link Posted 10/10/2009 - 22:36
The Tamron doesn't seem to preform very well at his long end though, hopefully good enough though.
My father is also considering buying it for indoor shooting.

About the Pentax lens it's a bit better priced here in the Netherlands, you can even picked it up yourself and save money probably.
link € 719,00 = 669,00, they ship to Belgium and Germany for sure so UK shouldn't be a problem either I believe.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.