Customer Reviews


135 Reviews
5 star:
 (70)
4 star:
 (41)
3 star:
 (9)
2 star:
 (9)
1 star:
 (6)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


132 of 134 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Great lens for the price
I'd imagine that many people are shying away from this lens due to some of the reviews. Rockwell's ultra-wide comparison is where I first heard about this lens, and it did not do too favorably there...

I was looking for an ultra-wide lens for Nikon DX format, with easy to correct distortion. I was originally looking for the Tokina 11-16, which has gone up in...
Published on April 30, 2009 by Michael C. Jackson

versus
61 of 76 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars decent handling, poor optics
I owned the Tamron 17-50, and 28-75 when I shot Canon. Both were fine lenses. This Tamron isn't. Having faith in Tamron, I purchased this lens without thinking twice. I wish I had read the reviews before seeing my own images. The optics are unacceptably poor. Based on my images, and other reviews, I don't think it was a sample problem. No front/back focusing problems, no...
Published on September 27, 2009 by Dana Gannon


‹ Previous | 1 214 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

132 of 134 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Great lens for the price, April 30, 2009
By 
Michael C. Jackson "MysticMCJ" (Louisville, KY United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
I'd imagine that many people are shying away from this lens due to some of the reviews. Rockwell's ultra-wide comparison is where I first heard about this lens, and it did not do too favorably there...

I was looking for an ultra-wide lens for Nikon DX format, with easy to correct distortion. I was originally looking for the Tokina 11-16, which has gone up in price considerably several times, and NEVER seems to be available. I was also thinking about the sigma, but the inability to correct the distortion easily wide open didn't make me too happy, and I couldn't find one locally to test. The nikon 10-24 isn't available yet, and the 12-24 is too expensive and not wide enough.

So, I decided to check this lens out at a local photo shop, and I'm glad I did. After a few test shots, I ended up purchasing it. It was sharp enough for my needs - A bit soft wide open, but I never shoot wide angle lenses wide open. F/8 looks near perfect to me on all edges and corners, with some slight color fringing that I REALLY had to look to see. The edges are occasionally soft, but I have only noticed this when I am pixel peeping.

It seems surprisingly well built. Metal mount is always nice, and the focus and zoom both have very good feels to them. It just feels RIGHT in my hands. I haven't drop tested it, and I don't plan to. I could see the AF mechanism going out on a bad drop, but that's just pure speculation.

Another plus - There is MORE than enough room to put whatever UV filter you would like on it with no vignetting. I don't know about filter stacking, but again, I never stack filters.

It does have it's quirks. AF stopped on me once when I was switching back and forth from AF to MF. A remount of the lens solved this, and I haven't had this issue since.

I'm also suspicious about the quality control. It looks like I got a good copy, but I can tell that a few out there have not. Just make sure you have a good return policy.

I'm not sure where you could go wrong with this lens. If you pixel peep and need ultimate sharpness wide open, go with the Tokina - It's a pro lens, and it's price has definitely increased to reflect that. I'm sure that the Nikon 10-24 will be an amazing lens as well - of course, at twice the price. For the non-pixel peepers who just want to make great ultra wide photos, it's hard to go wrong here. It's not optical perfection, but it's a damn good lens.

It all comes down to how you want to use it and what your budget is. Interior shooters, take note - Used in conjuction with a bounce flash, I get super-sharp and relatively distortion free images that look better than any interior shot I have ever taken.

Five stars because I couldn't be happier with this lens for my needs.

EDIT: After a couple of weeks, I've noticed something mentioned in an off-site review in which this lens was described as having a curved focus field - A ')' shape, if you will. After abusing this lens by shooting extremely (And I mean EXTREMELY) close up flat surfaces, I can agree with this. What this means in practice is that test charts and brick walls shot from a foot away may not be as sharp as they could, but real world usage is still great. What this also means is that if you shoot a lot of interiors or other scenes in which you have walls on both sides of you and a center of focus at the rear, the curved field will be very beneficial to the overall sharpness of the image. Just something to be aware of - I'm still happily shooting, it's exactly what I needed.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


47 of 51 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Review from a actual user., October 8, 2010
By 
Lets face it. You're buying a lens like this to shoot at 10mm, so most of my review will focus around the ultra wide end.

This lens is cool. You can create optically things that don't really exist, and take quite unique photos.

At F3.5 it's surprisingly fast. I've taken some night-time images of Salt Lake with this lens where it had the best control over lights not blossoming into a purple mass (even wide open) of any lens I've got.

My complaints are around CA at 10mm at the edges and corners. I wish it was better controlled. You can fix these in post, but I don't spend the time to PP every photo.

Your other wide options from here are the Sigma 8-16mm and the Sigma 10-20mm (3.5 and 4-5.6) I hear good things about the F3.5 10-20mm.

All in all, I'm happy with this purchase at this price. It's good enough for what I want to shoot with it at ultra wide, and when I want more, I'll switch to the DA 15mm Limited or the DA* 16-50.

*Taken from someone who USES the lens.*
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


24 of 25 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Wide angle, low distortion, May 14, 2011
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I have a Canon EOS20D and have always been a little frustrated by the 1.6x sensor factor. I'm used to a 50mm lens being "normal". I have used this lens for dramatic landscapes with a closer object of interest to add depth, as well as for portraits where I want to bring in more of the surroundings. In both cases it produces very sharp, impressive images. I am comparing them to my Canon macro/portrait lens (which is a very good lens).

The Tamron 10-24 is a superb lens that provides a very wide field of view with little distortion. Obviously, there is some distortion of the image, especially for the closer objects in relation to those further away. But overall, the images corner-to-corner look very good.

Some reviewers have said the lens suffers from a little lack of sharpness, but I have not found that to be the case, even at small f stops. I typically try to shoot at around f8 or f11 to maximize sharpness.

I did notice some diffraction limited softness when shooting at the very smallest apertures that are needed to get the kind of impressive depth of field shots that are possible with this lens. But all systems "suffer" from diffraction limits.

Occasionally the autofocus gets confused, so I suppose I could take away one * for that, but it is not any worse than any other autofocus lenses I have.

Make sure you order the lens type that is compatible with your camera.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


61 of 76 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars decent handling, poor optics, September 27, 2009
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I owned the Tamron 17-50, and 28-75 when I shot Canon. Both were fine lenses. This Tamron isn't. Having faith in Tamron, I purchased this lens without thinking twice. I wish I had read the reviews before seeing my own images. The optics are unacceptably poor. Based on my images, and other reviews, I don't think it was a sample problem. No front/back focusing problems, no decentering problems, and no side to side problems - just poor optics across the board. The lens is nice and light, and the zoom control is great - very smooth and nicely spaced, but the optics are just unacceptable.

The good news is that you don't need to spend $800 plus on the Nikon 12-24. I replaced this Tamron with the Sigma 10-20, and it's a fine lens. In addition to much better optics, it also focuses much faster, much quieter, and hunts much less than the Tamron. If you shoot Canon, get their EF-S ultra wide. It's great, and not that much more money.

This is the only review I've ever written. It's the first thing I've ever had to return due to poor quality. Thank goodness for Amazon.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


17 of 20 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Great for the price, November 28, 2009
Compared this to the Nikon 10 - 24 lens and the Tamron held up very well. One lens was slightly better in one category and the other was better in some but I can't justify the price you have to pay for the Nikon. Popular Photography just gave this lens an excellent review (Feb. 2009) and called it a sure bet. Tamrons quality control is much better than Sigma otherwise I might have tried the Sigma version of this lens.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


20 of 24 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Quality build, more distortion than expected, August 25, 2009
By 
J. Koppell (Connecticut, United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Using this lens with a 40D, I was underwhelmed with the results and will return it and try with the Sigma. The build quality and feel of the lens was very good. I use the excellent Tamron 18-270 so the company has satisfied me in the past.

As with any wide angle lens, the principal concern is going to be distortion and my expectations were realistic. Some barreling is normal. What surprised me is how often the aberrations crept out of the corners to the heart of the images. Not always, mind you. The problem is most severe when you've got the lens wide open -- but then isn't that part of the point of this lens? Also you do get different results depending on stop but i didn't find a consistent solution. Moreover, I'd rather not have to factor that in for every shot.

A couple of other points. Focusing was really good in the center of the image but pretty soft at the corners. Again, there was variation. Color representation was good and consistent.

This lens may turn out to be better than the competitors and I may end up having to re-purchase it but first I'll check out the Sigma and, if necessary, the Canon.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


10 of 11 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Good for the money, December 9, 2011
I love the perspective a 10mm provides on my Canon 50D. For the money this lens provides good results and is quite comparable to the Canon 10-22mm for far less money. The Canon lens is in no way twice the performance though the price is nearly twice as much.

Sharpness - A lot of mixed reviews in this regard. I can say that my copy provides a large sweet spot of sharpness at 10mm from center out. The corners are quite soft however this does not affect my shooting style. I prefer close in subjects at 10mm and enjoy this perspective. For landscapes, and night scenes, I have achieved pleasing results.

My lens is at its sharpest at f5.6 - f8. In the center f3.5 is sharp but the sweet spot of sharpness is a bit smaller.

For an ultra wide lens, flare and CA are nicely controlled. The most significant CA is evident in the extreme corners.

Focus - Performance is good, even in low light. The motor is a bit more noisy than the Ultra-sonic type autofocus, but the focus speed and accuracy are quite good. The focus ring does turn on this model. The front element does not turn while focusing.

24mm performance is OK, and is useful in some situations. I have found that close in, pseudo-macro results can be acheived. I have read other reviews that claim close up 24mm performance is not good, but I have had good results in this scenario.

Overall - a good choice in a useful focal range and a good value. I would recommend this lens.
When used correctly, this lens provieds very good results.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


12 of 14 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Phenomenal performer, September 22, 2011
By 
Kam G. (Washington, DC) - See all my reviews
This was my first wide-angle DSLR lens and I just love the results it has produced. As expected, there is some distortion at the corners at 10mm, but the overall image quality is excellent. At 24mm it takes perfectly proportioned pictures. I see a lot of reviewers have commented that this lens is soft, but unless you're publishing your pics in a magazine I don't think it's much of an issue. I have been able to take some stunning landscape photos as well as great portraits. The images from this lens are plenty sharp, the auto-focus is quick and reliable, and has a nice solid feel. The lens is a bit heavy, but that's just what glass weighs. I highly recommend this lens, and try to get it while Tamron has a rebate out for it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


9 of 10 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Very good ultrawide lens for a reasonable price, October 25, 2010
By 
Neil H. (Middletown, CT United States) - See all my reviews
I have had very good results with this Tamron 10-24mm lens. Like virtually all zoom lenses it has some barrel distortion at the shortest focal length, but for most subjects this is quite small and goes unnoticed. What little distortion there is can of course be corrected in software if it's objectionable, e.g. if there are long straight lines near and parallel to the edges of the frame, but I have never found it necessary to do this. Wide open the lens is not sharp in the extreme corners, when perpendicular to a flat subject, especially at 10mm, but stopping down improves this quite a bit. The sweet spot appears to be about f/8. (It should be noted that even the much more expensive Nikon 10-24mm also is unsharp in the extreme corners wide open at 10mm, according to published lens tests and some user reports. It must be very difficult if not impossible to design and manufacture an ultrawide lens of this specification which does not make some performance compromises.) The lens on a Nikon DX camera is equivalent to a 15-36mm lens on a full-frame SLR because of the 1.5x lens factor. Tamron's literature has slightly different equivalency figures (16-37mm), but only because they are using a lens factor midway between the Nikon 1.5x and Canon 1.6x values -- so their numbers are actually not quite correct for either Nikon or Canon.

Some users have suggested that the lens has curvature of field, which may be at least part of the reason for the lack of sharpness in the corners, and I suspect this is correct. Lens tests are normally done with a flat plane as the target, so curvature of field which pulls the plane of best focus in toward the camera around the edges will inevitably cause some loss of edge/corner definition in such tests. However this may actually be of benefit when shooting interiors, since you are more or less surrounded by walls, and such curvature of field may benefit the overall sharpness. That does seem to be the case with this lens, judging by my own shooting of interiors, as they seem quite sharp overall. But in most outdoor shooting I have found the lens satisfactorily sharp as well, and that ultrawide angle sure is great fun to use. I do always keep the aperture around f/8 when possible, and I recommend doing this.

The lens in my opinion has a good quality feel, very nice fit and finish, solidly built and everything works smoothly. I have several other Tamron lenses and have always been well satisfied with them.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


31 of 40 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Useful focal range but it's not very sharp, November 14, 2009
By 
Pedro G. Grance (Asuncion, Paraguay) - See all my reviews
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I bought whis lens to give it a try to Tamron after reading several reviews and comparing against the Sigma and Tokina. I use it with a Rebel XTI (400D) and a complementation of a 24-105L. I like it, construction is good, distortion very well controlled, cromatic aberrations is just ok, sharpness is just ok on the center but regular to bad on the corners, even at f5.6, f8 or f16. I did some home test with some friends that own Canon 10-22 and Sigma 10-20. I believe that Canon is the best choice between these three options. Second place to Sigma (sharp a little better)I don't mention tokina because a have not try it.

Conclusion: It's ok but it is not impressive to say "WOW!!!!".
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 214 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

Details

Search these reviews only
Rate and Discover Movies
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.