Customer Reviews

Tamron AF 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Di-II SP LD Aspherical (IF) Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I did a lot of research prior to buying this lens....comparing it to other wide angles etc. It got good ratings and I agree. I use it with my Canon 20D and it performs well. Pics are clean with no major noticable abberations. You can get a somewhat cool "fisheye" effect at the low end without having to buy an expensive fisheye lens. Use a lens hood because there is the potential for a lot of flare typical for this lens class. For the pro-sumer like me....it does the job at a lower price than it's competitors. Amazon was fine.....best price with no problems with shipping etc/.

While vacationing in San Fransisco, I realized that I needed a wide angle lens pretty desperately.

I checked at four or five touristy camera shops (they all seemed kind of shady - the kind that want you to only pay cash). Finally, I found a shop near the fishermans wharf that had a tamron lens (everyone else only had sigma). I took the plunge and bought it for $529 thinking that I was probably over spending by a hundred bucks or so. (Turns out I got a pretty good deal)

Over the next 8 days the lens worked flawlessly! Wide enough to capture what I wanted: Alcatraz, the redwood forest, the golden gate and bay area bridges as well as the city skyline and wharf. I shot over 3,000 images, 1/2 to 2/3 of them with this lens. Every one of them was sharp. There is a slight fisheye effect (barrel distortion) at the 11mm end - but that was expected. The autofocus was as fast as any lens I own. You could buy a better lens but it would cost alot (alot, alot, alot) more than this great lens!

I would recommend this lens for consideration to anyone looking for a wide angle lens. I would also recommend a haze or uv filter - as the lens is so large at the end that it can catch alot more debris and dust than a normal lens. Also, use the lens hood - it saved my lens from a couple of dings and scrapes ( It also helped with solar flare but I had to use my hand frequently to block the sun - that's why I gave it 4 stars instead of 5)

I've been playing with this lens attached to my EOS 400D for couple of weeks now and I'm affraid it's not living up to my expectations, or it's relatively high price. Out of all the third party contenders (Tamron, Sigma & Tokina), this one is the most expensive, about $100 more than Tokina, yet it has the most limited zoom range, but most importantly, it's way too soft. Maybe I just have a bad copy, but in that case, for the price the QC should be better. At 18mm, it's marginally better than the 18-55 Canon kit lens, but then again, I don't need it for 18mm. Color rendition is OK and with some post-processing it makes acceptable 8x10 prints, but I just can't get over the price difference, so I'm returning it and trying my luck with Tokina 12-24...

I'm not sure how I would rate the value if I had to pay the normal retail price for this lens, but I got a used one for $350 and I consider it a terrific value. Get consistently good shots with it, even at 11mm using a polarizer -- much less vignetting than I expected. The lens is really small and light for something of this sort.

On the used market this lens seems to be lower priced than the Sigma 10-20mm.I got mine for $275, unable to find the Sigma for less than $350-400, or for that matter the much praised Tokinas, either 12-24mm or 11-16mm. So it all depends on how much you paid for it.

There are plenty of exacting tests and professional reviews of this group of lenses, to include Canon's own 10-22mm. For my 'real world' experience, the Tamron is good enough, focusing fast and positively (albeit not completely silently). Definition is also good, quite similar to my Tokina 16-28mm, unless you are looking side by side at 100% (actual pixels). It has some distortions, easy to correct on stills and in PS, not that noticeable in videos for which usage i bought it. In 1080 HD, I doubt one can see the difference with the Tokina.

On APSC, the lens is obviously wider than the Tokina 16-28mm. You can also use it on a full frame without vignetting at around 15-16mm and all the way to...18mm. It is small, light but construction is wobbly,'kit lens' like and I guess care must be exercised, not the kind of 'pro' lens you can use as a defensive weapon if need be. i use it for videos to complement a Canon 18-135mm so no complaint here. I am actually surprised by the convenience and the quality in that under $300 price range.

If I had $500 or more to spend, I would go for something else but I am very pleased with the results within my budget. I can also use it as a 16mm on my 5D Mkii and the full range on a Sony Nex (with the appropriate adapter). It's a good buy and with plenty of light, ar F8 or F11, it performs as fine as my Tokina 16-28mm. Nothing sexy and plain Jane indeed but does the job.

I'll post an update comparing it with the Sony 16mm + wide angle converter combo on Nex5. Size wise, on the tiny Nex, the Tamron does not look out of place.

ON SONY NEX5

With the Canon EF to Nex adapter, size is larger than Sony 16mm+WA adapter but still convenient to use.
It does not AF, of course, but is noticeably wider. Range is equivalent to 16.5-27mm (sony combo is equivalent to 18mm. Peak function works fine when you don't 'guesstimate' focus, which is OK to on this lens with the large DOF at the wide end.
The Tamron does not have an aperture ring. I use a Kipon adapter which has aperture control, sort of, but I don't know how this affect IQ. It does however control the amount of light.
At 4.5 the Tamron is slower than the Sony at 2.8.
Corners definition is definitely better with the Tamron. However in some of my UWA photography I like the blur in the corners and have to spent time in post to get that effect. Central definition, color and distortion look about the same to me, even at actual pixel level.
If you need wider angle, a still convenient size to use and to carry, do not mind manual focus and manual aperture and quality all the way to the corners, the Tamron is the way to go.

This lens sits on my camera for architectural work all the time - get yourself a good spirit level, distortion if the camera isn't leveled is spectacular, but that's the angle, not the lens.

I'm very happy with the product - it's responsible for about half the photos on <...>

Just one word of warning - dust. It's very dust prone in its interiors. When removing it, set it to 11mm closing the rear assembly.

I was so glad I bought this lens. I use this lens in weddings quinceaneras and in limos and it does wonders. I'm able to squeeze everyone in with out all the squeezing(lol) little tip, bounce a external flash from the wall or ceiling, and it get rid of all the blemishes and gives a soft light, with out the need of any professional studio lighting.
I use it on a canon xsi and t1i, and it's very wide, but what I found to be even cooler is that you can use it on full framed sensor cameras as well I third it on a film rebel and it was super wide like somthing you gotta try to believe, crazy lol.
All in all I fell in love with this lens, canons 10-22mm can do what this can do. Blues this is way cheaper. I defenatly recomend this lens you love it too.

Pros: It's really cool what you can do with this lens. The special effects at close range are very intriguing, and for capturing landscapes, home interiors, etc. it really does the job well. For that reason, it's very handy to have.
Cons: On my Canon 30D, the lens is not quite as sharp as my kit lens (28-135mm). It's not bad, especially on a tripod, but it could be better. I also get some purple fringes on back-lit edges. There seems to be a lot of contrast, making it hard to get the right exposure - pictures tend to be very overexposed and underexposed in a single shot. These problems can be remedied with software, and the ability to do what it does makes up for the disadvantages somewhat, but you do notice the quality difference.

All in all, I like using the lens. I'm glad I have it because of what I can do with it. Make no mistake, the quality isn't as good as my Canon lens, and if I had a higher budget, I might try something else.