Photoclubalpha

I read a comparison of all wide angle zooms in the May issue of UK Digital Photo. They gave Sigma's 10-20mm their gold award. I currently own that lens but would like to replace it with Tamron's new 10-24mm lens. I have seen mixed reviews of this lens but Digital Photo did conclude that it "Handled distortion well and put in a good sharpness and fringeing performance at F22. (Reference to F22 is because they viewed the lens for landscape use and max. depth of field). Four stars for image quality. Nikon 12-24mm only lens to get five stars for IQ. (That would not surprise DK.)
Question: Anyone here who have tried the Tamron 10-24mm and can give some advice/comments as to its performance? My son needs a new DSLR and my plan is basically to pass on my A700 & Sigma 10-20mm to him when that rumoured A800 is released, provided it has an uprated APS-C sensor with lower high ISO noise. I would then also purchase the Tamron 10-24mm as the extra 4mm the the narrow end would prevent a lot of lens changing. 35mm equivalent of 15-36mm would immensely useful for me providing I do not suffer a reduction in image quality compared with the Sigma.

Well, you could start with my review here on photoclubalpha - although it was done on Nikon bodies:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2009/02/2 ... mm-f35-45/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let's just say it is impressive in some ways, but I would not swap my 11-18mm for it. The 11-18mm remains a technically good lens (drawing, illumination, type of geometry) which though not quite as sharp as the Sigma 10-20mm is much less prone to into-the-light flare. It also has less obvious geometric distortion because some attempt is made in the design to optimise this (as with the CZ 16-80mm), while the Sigma just lets barrel distortion rip at 10mm. Then again, the barrel distortion can be corrected perfectly using Photoshop Distortion>Lens Correction filter, while the 11-18mm needs DxO or LensFixCI.

The best ultrawide zoom I've tried has been the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 which is not available in Sony fit.

David

Thanks David for reminding me. I did read your review of the Tamron 10-24mm at the time of posting but had forgotten. In fact your conclusions lingered in my memory and hence the reason for my original posting. I am not too concerned about any slight vignetting, which can easily be removed in PS. I am more concerned about corner softness. Maybe I should stick with the Sigma 10-20mm after all.

David Kilpatrick wrote: (...) but I would not swap my 11-18mm for it. The 11-18mm remains a technically good lens (drawing, illumination, type of geometry) which though not quite as sharp as the Sigma 10-20mm is much less prone to into-the-light flare. It also has less obvious geometric distortion because some attempt is made in the design to optimise this (as with the CZ 16-80mm), while the Sigma just lets barrel distortion rip at 10mm. Then again, the barrel distortion can be corrected perfectly using Photoshop Distortion>Lens Correction filter, while the 11-18mm needs DxO or LensFixCI.

The best ultrawide zoom I've tried has been the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 which is not available in Sony fit.

I'm curious how would you compare the Sigma 12-24, even on APS-C?

The Sigma 12-24mm is better, no doubt about it, on APS-C than any of the dedicated APS-C wide zooms. Only one problem - it seems to be difficult to get any body which actually focuses it properly. The Alpha 900 does the job, but I still prefer the 11-18mm Sony on the A700 because it is very accurately focused.

David

Maybe this is the lens that will beat the old and new Tamron wide angle zooms although it does not meet David Kilpatrick's request for a F2.8 through the zoom range new Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM on http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses ... avigator=6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Looks interesting although it is still restricted to 10-20mm.

I just hope sony don't re-badge this tamron lens. About time they made their own UWA zoom, or threw some money at Tokina and do a deal with them.