Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

Does anyone have hands on experience with Tamron 10 - 24mm and/or Sigma 10 - 20mm Ultra Wide angle lens? Any comparison tests?

I have looked at several reviews and forums and the answers seem very contradictory with some saying Sigma is the sharpest, best and Tamron is soft and others saying the opposite with Tamron being sharpest, best and Sigma being soft.

I appreciate that at this price point the lens will not be perfect but I only want it for shots that I cannot get with my Tamron 18 - 270mm and am not likely to use extensively, so please do not suggest more expensive lens.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I think you have your answer. Flip a coin. I use a Tokina 16-28mm on a full frame camera, and I'm pleased with the results. Of course, the review comments could be due to variations in manufacturing.

djtravels Loc: Georgia boy now

Not what you asked for, but I went with a Tokina 12-24 lens. Wide enough for great landscapes and won't break the budget. And I wouldn't have posted this if I didn't like the results. djt

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Rather than overall sharpness, I would put emphasis on edge & corner sharpness, coma, and chromatic aberration. These are usually the weak areas in an UW. Then again, I use my UW lenses primarily for night skies where these shortcomings are most apparent. If you are open to other suggestions as well, I would ask what will you use your lens for, on what format (ff or crop), and what's your max aperture desire?

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

Hi.
I am using a Crop sensor Canon. The standard f3.5 will suffice as price rockets for larger apertures.
Tokina is a bit above budget and only goes down to 12mm, Tamron and Sigma OK, Canon seems to get marked down a lot due to poor construction and over all softness at all settings.

Want to try an UW for the many situations where my 18mm isn't enough and I understand UW are very useful for landscapes.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I have a Tamron 10 - 24mm and like it very much. No complaints. If you read the reviews you will drive yourself crazy unless you see a pattern in comments. I believe lots of those bad reviews are written by the competition.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I'm with PixelStan77, I've used the Tamron 10-24mm and it is just fine. This issue came up in another forum, so you might do a search, and somebody posted a picture of a train taken by this lens that was lights out.

MarkD Loc: NYC

I have a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. It's a very good lens and reasonably priced. There is noticeable barrel distortion at 10mm, but it goes away by 12mm or so.

donnahde Loc: Newark, DE

Don't mean to highjack this thread but my question DOES have to do with ultra wide angle lenses so might be helpful as well. I was just looking at a TOKINA 11-16MM/2.8 FOR CANON APS-C to rent on Adorama but I shoot Nikon. It came up as an option when I searched for Nikon compatible wide angle lenses. Does anyone know if this lens will work on a Nikon D7100? Thanks!

djtravels Loc: Georgia boy now

I use the Tokina 12-24 f/4.0 AT-124 PRO DX specifically, and I picked it up for $321.43, shipped from Amazon Oct 2013.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Addendum: One advantage of the 10-24mm is that I found myself using the 24mm end quite a bit.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I own both, the Sigma in Sigma mount for SD10 and SD14.
The Tamron for my Canon 7DII.

They are pretty evenly matched. Not really a perfect comparison since they are on two radically different bodies. But I have gotten good images with both.

Joecosentino Loc: Whitesboro, New York

good morning
try renting both lenses and see the results for yourself. I always rent before I buy a lens. I rent from lens pro to go

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

Donna if the Tokina has a Nikon mount....should work just fine.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I have the Tamron 10-24mm lens. It is nice for the price but I think I would have rather bit the bullet and gotten the Nikon (same size but more expensive). The Tamron has a 6 year warranty instead of the 5 year Nikon, however the Tamron tends to fisheye from about 15mm down to 10 mm and the Nikon does not. The Tamron was a little less then 2/3rds the price of the Nikon. I have noticed that when I shoot autofocus on the Tamron, I have to watch it and use the + to magnify the image and verify focus. It seems to focus a little in front of the focus point. I am including Ken Rockwell's comparison of the 2 lenses (which I found AFTER I purchased mine and he seems to have had the same focus issues)


Ken Rockwell:" (The Tamron 10-24mm used to have bragging rights that it was the broadest-ranged ultrawide (10-24mm), and that it offered autofocus on cheap Nikons, but it was way too soft.

Now that Nikon has the same range in a lens that's sharp, we can forget about the Tamron.

Yes, maybe I got a soft one, but the Tamron I borrowed came straight from Tamron's PR dept, unlike the rest of these lenses which I either had to buy myself (Nikon lenses) or was loaned by another reader (Tokina 11-16mm).

Contrary to what I thought as a kid, the most beat-up and defective gear comes from loans directly from manufacturers! Who knows how good or bad the Tamron is. I do know I always opt for the camera-brand lens when I have the chance, since it costs the least long-term. )"

Now, having said the bad stuff about the lens, I do like the coverage and use it for sunrise, sunset and landscape shots but try to remember to check the focus to make sure it is where I want. I have NOT found and not had the time to shoot a set of focus adjustments for the lens on my Nikon's. One of these days I will set up targets and do that so that the camera will automatically make the adjustments.