Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 09 May 2017 (Tuesday) 05:14
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Feedback on the Tamron 10-24 VC

 
pknight
Goldmember
Avatar
2,693 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 128
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Flyover Country
     
May 12, 2017 10:15 |  #16

FEChariot wrote in post #18352707 (external link)
When LR does that though, doesn't it essentially have to crop the image down a bit to get everything straight? So a 10mm wide image corrected with more distortion would look more like a 11mm wide image than a 10mm wide image taken from a lens with less distortion? Do you still have both lenses where you could do a test at 10mm and then correct then in LR and see if one image looks wider?

I will do that, as long as I still have the Canon when Adobe releases the Tamron profile. The Adobe adjustments are much more consistent than what I can do, and make it more of an apples-to-apples comparison. (Who knows? Maybe Adobe has already released the Tamron profile. I have not checked.) I can post some uncorrected comparisons using a brick fireplace to see worst-case scenarios before then. I would be surprised if the corrected Tamron image looked like 11mm. There may be some cropping involved, but 1 mm at those focal lengths is a pretty large difference.


Digital EOS 90D Canon: EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, Life-Size Converter EF Tamron: SP 17-50mm f/2.8 DiII, 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 DiII VC HLD, SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2, SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD, 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 DiII VC HLD Sigma: 30mm f/1.4 DC Art Rokinon: 8mm f/3.5 AS IF UMC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
pknight
Goldmember
Avatar
2,693 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 128
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Flyover Country
     
May 15, 2017 11:07 |  #17

FEChariot wrote in post #18352707 (external link)
When LR does that though, doesn't it essentially have to crop the image down a bit to get everything straight? So a 10mm wide image corrected with more distortion would look more like a 11mm wide image than a 10mm wide image taken from a lens with less distortion? Do you still have both lenses where you could do a test at 10mm and then correct then in LR and see if one image looks wider?

OK. Here we go. The first image is an uncorrected Tamron image at 10mm. The barrel distortion is obvious.

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4174/33823465634_d4f822dcb2_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/TwS6​WA  (external link) _P3A6476.jpg (external link) by Patrick Knight (external link), on Flickr

It turns out that Adobe has released the profile for the new Tamron, so the next image is the same shot with the profile applied. As can be seen, there is a bit of cropping that happens, as with any profile adjustment.

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4184/33823469364_17263cf276_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/TwS8​3U  (external link) _P3A6476-2.jpg (external link) by Patrick Knight (external link), on Flickr

The amount of the image cropped out when applying the profile in LR, however, is very modest in my opinion. It is certainly not equivalent to taking the shot at 11mm, as shown by the next image, which is an uncorrected 11mm image from the Tamron. I left this one uncorrected, since the question was whether the corrected 10mm image would be equivalent in terms of AOV to an 11mm image. Correcting this one would only exaggerate the differences.

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4171/33823473024_29bb12a863_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/TwS9​91  (external link) _P3A6477.jpg (external link) by Patrick Knight (external link), on Flickr

The corrected 10mm image is closer to the uncorrected 10mm image than to the 11mm image.

Now, here are uncorrected and corrected images at 10mm from the Canon EF-S 10-22.

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4193/33856016813_72d4fd456e_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/TzJW​gP  (external link) _P3A6475-2.jpg (external link) by Patrick Knight (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4171/33856010703_3583d5b6c2_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/TzJU​st  (external link) _P3A6475.jpg (external link) by Patrick Knight (external link), on Flickr

As was indicated in the reviews you cited, there is less barrel distortion with the 10-22, and consequently less cropping when the LR profile is applied to this image. Comparing these two images to the corresponding Tamron 10-24 images, it is obvious that the Canon is a bit wider at its 10mm setting than is the Tamron at 10mm. Which of these lenses, if either, is closer to a true 10mm, I have no way of knowing, but in a WA lens, wider is probably better, so that is a point for the Canon.

What is not readily visible in these images is the CA distortion. While both lenses produce some CA along high contrast edges, it is much better controlled in the Tamron. The colored fringes are 2-3 times wider in the Canon images. Of course, CA is also easily controlled in LR, but the wider the CA artifacts, the more likely that the correction will leave its own artifacts. I have already mentioned the better coma control in the Tamron.

Comparing the two corrected images (the second and the last), the Canon has a wider view, but the difference is small. For me, the better control of other distortions, and the availability of the excellent Tamron VC system for use in low-light situations (not to mention the 6-year warranty and the ability to upgrade firmware at home), the Tamron is the better choice. YMMV.

Digital EOS 90D Canon: EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, Life-Size Converter EF Tamron: SP 17-50mm f/2.8 DiII, 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 DiII VC HLD, SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2, SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD, 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 DiII VC HLD Sigma: 30mm f/1.4 DC Art Rokinon: 8mm f/3.5 AS IF UMC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Smitty2k1
Member
Avatar
224 posts
Gallery: 22 photos
Likes: 33
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Washington DC
     
May 15, 2017 14:29 as a reply to  @ pknight's post |  #18

Thanks for posting all of that.

Looks like for my use with landscapes/architectur​e the choice will come down to price (Canon, used) vs. VC/IS (Tamron).

Seeing as I just bought a condo... price is probably going to win.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Warl0rd
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,230 posts
Likes: 153
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Portugal
Post edited over 3 years ago by Warl0rd.
     
May 17, 2017 07:43 as a reply to  @ Smitty2k1's post |  #19

the-digital-picture just reviewed the lens, compared to the Canon EF-S 10-22:

With wide open apertures, I see the Canon having modestly better image quality over most of the focal length range with the two lenses becoming close to similar at the long end. Stop down to f/8 and the differences even out significantly. The Tamron has more geometric distortion and the Canon shows more vignetting, especially at wide apertures. The Canon costs noticeably more.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….5-Di-II-VC-HLD-Lens.aspx (external link)


PS: regarding the distortion correction, the review says: it is a pixel-level-destructive process.


Paulo
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/warl0rd (external link)
Canon 450D (XSi) + Grip | Canon 80D | EF-S 10-22 | EF 24-105 L IS | EF 100mm Macro | MP-E 65mm 1-5X | EF-S 18-55 IS STM | EF-S 55-250 IS | Takumar 55mm 1.8 | MT-24EX | Metz 48-AF1 | YN460 II | Kenko DG Auto ET | Kata 3N1-20 DL | Lowepro SlingShot 100 AW | Mitsai JDC195 | Manfrotto 190XPROB + 484RC2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pknight
Goldmember
Avatar
2,693 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 128
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Flyover Country
Post edited over 3 years ago by pknight.
     
May 17, 2017 07:59 |  #20

Warl0rd wrote in post #18356714 (external link)
the-digital-picture just reviewed the lens, compared to the Canon EF-S 10-22:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….5-Di-II-VC-HLD-Lens.aspx (external link)

PS: regarding the distortion correction, the review says: it is a pixel-level-destructive process.

Yes, I saw that review yesterday. I am not too worried about any pixel-level destruction along the edges of an image, regardless of the lens. I am pretty sure that the review refers to is (a) the cropping that we have already discussed, and (b) the changes needed to straighten the image, which must involve creating new pixels to maintain image dimensions. These occur at the very edges of an image, and if anyone is putting important image elements at those edges, well, there are books on composition that are readily available. What the EF-S cannot offer to accompany that modest IQ boost at wide apertures and short focal lengths is weather sealing, 4-stop VC, and a six-year warranty.

I have no problem with the quality of the images that the EF-S has given me. It's just that the Tamron images are not noticeably worse unless you pixel-peep certain areas of the images. Under anything approaching normal viewing conditions, I would challenge anyone to identify which lens a photo was taken with. The ability to shoot handheld in lower light offered by VC in particular, as well as the other features lacking in the 10-22, makes the Tamron a clear choice for me.


Digital EOS 90D Canon: EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, Life-Size Converter EF Tamron: SP 17-50mm f/2.8 DiII, 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 DiII VC HLD, SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2, SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD, 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 DiII VC HLD Sigma: 30mm f/1.4 DC Art Rokinon: 8mm f/3.5 AS IF UMC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Warl0rd
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,230 posts
Likes: 153
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Portugal
Post edited over 3 years ago by Warl0rd. (2 edits in all)
     
May 17, 2017 10:56 as a reply to  @ pknight's post |  #21

Yeah the VC (and also the weather sealing) were the main reason I was considering replacing my Canon 10-22 with this Tamron.

But the price here in EU is very high (~650€ =~ $700), even selling the canon, I would have to pay a few hundred dollars for the switch... If it had those two feature AND a better IQ, it would be more easy for me to jump in....

$500 on US seems a lot more reasonable, I would probably switch for that price...


Paulo
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/warl0rd (external link)
Canon 450D (XSi) + Grip | Canon 80D | EF-S 10-22 | EF 24-105 L IS | EF 100mm Macro | MP-E 65mm 1-5X | EF-S 18-55 IS STM | EF-S 55-250 IS | Takumar 55mm 1.8 | MT-24EX | Metz 48-AF1 | YN460 II | Kenko DG Auto ET | Kata 3N1-20 DL | Lowepro SlingShot 100 AW | Mitsai JDC195 | Manfrotto 190XPROB + 484RC2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dochollidayda
Goldmember
1,129 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2077
Joined Aug 2012
     
May 17, 2017 12:25 |  #22

Maybe its just me, but I find that the value proposition is quickly disappearing. I mean Tamron and Sigma used to offer decent value compared to OEM, but it seems they are now hell bend on making a quasi-superior product and pricing it similar or higher (in some cases) compared to Canon/Nikon.

Take this for example, it offers nothing on top of 10 year old 10-22 and is priced the same. Its built better and has weather sealing? Truthfully speaking, most serious landscape guys aren't shooting crop to begin with.


flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,426 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 346
Joined Sep 2011
     
May 17, 2017 13:05 |  #23

dochollidayda wrote in post #18356902 (external link)
Maybe its just me, but I find that the value proposition is quickly disappearing. I mean Tamron and Sigma used to offer decent value compared to OEM, but it seems they are now hell bend on making a quasi-superior product and pricing it similar or higher (in some cases) compared to Canon/Nikon.

Take this for example, it offers nothing on top of 10 year old 10-22 and is priced the same. Its built better and has weather sealing? Truthfully speaking, most serious landscape guys aren't shooting crop to begin with.

It adds weather sealing and stabilization so how do you figure that it adds nothing? Besides, I am in the potential market for this lens and I am not a serious landscape guy. This is a $500 lens. The serious guys have big dollar options like the 17 TS, 16-35s and 11-24.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dochollidayda
Goldmember
1,129 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2077
Joined Aug 2012
     
May 17, 2017 13:12 |  #24

FEChariot wrote in post #18356936 (external link)
It adds weather sealing and stabilization so how do you figure that it adds nothing? Besides, I am in the potential market for this lens and I am not a serious landscape guy. This is a $500 lens. The serious guys have big dollar options like the 17 TS, 16-35s and 11-24.

I guess you are right. I personally consider sharpness to be the ultimate spec when it comes to UWA. IS while handy isn't that crucial. Just seems like a lot of money for a third party crop sensor only lens that might not even work with a newer Canon body.

Then again, if its there someone will pick it. :D


flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,426 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 346
Joined Sep 2011
     
May 17, 2017 14:04 |  #25

dochollidayda wrote in post #18356942 (external link)
I guess you are right. I personally consider sharpness to be the ultimate spec when it comes to UWA. IS while handy isn't that crucial. Just seems like a lot of money for a third party crop sensor only lens that might not even work with a newer Canon body.

Then again, if its there someone will pick it. :D

Looking at the shots from pknight above, I am not really seeing a noticeable IQ difference between these although reviews are saying there is a difference. I would bet there just is a normal copy variation difference. Some 10-22's are sharper and maybe some are not. As far as IS goes, if you also want to use the lens for video, that is a big plus but if you are a serious landscaper using a proper tripod then not at all. Like I said I am not the serious guy, but I would use it for the occasional video grab stuff.

And as far as future compatibility, Tamron and Sigma really have almost all but put that issue to bed with the use of their pucks that can take firware updates on the fly from the owner and not have to be shipped off any more.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dochollidayda
Goldmember
1,129 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2077
Joined Aug 2012
     
May 17, 2017 19:40 as a reply to  @ FEChariot's post |  #26

Yes but the 10-22 is also a decade old. Tamron isn't quite setting the stage on fire by matching its performance.

As far as the hockey pucks ago, I know many find a viable solution. For someone like me, its hard to find time to shoot, let alone fiddling with another apparatus to ensure something works properly. I understand some are more invested, to each their own I guess.


flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pknight
Goldmember
Avatar
2,693 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 128
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Flyover Country
     
May 18, 2017 09:05 |  #27

dochollidayda wrote in post #18357221 (external link)
Yes but the 10-22 is also a decade old. Tamron isn't quite setting the stage on fire by matching its performance.

As far as the hockey pucks ago, I know many find a viable solution. For someone like me, its hard to find time to shoot, let alone fiddling with another apparatus to ensure something works properly. I understand some are more invested, to each their own I guess.

You are correct. To each their own. For somebody just shopping for a crop-sensor UWA, the Tamron offers equivalent IQ (see above) with weather sealing, VC, and a six-year US warranty (five-years, I believe, in the EU). This for 30% less in MSRP, at least in the US. I think it will be a popular choice.

The consoles for the Tamron and Sigma lenses (I have both) make it possible to upgrade lens firmware in less than a minute, and the process only involves a click or two. Compatibility has been about the only serious concern that I have had with third-party lenses, and this has been essentially taken of the table for these two brands going forward. (Unless Canon decides to dramatically change the EF system, which would be suicide.) They also allow you to "fiddle" to your heart's content with focus and stabilization settings, but you don't have to.

Canon has acknowledged the need to AMFA lenses by making what now seem like rudimentary adjustments possible in its camera bodies. Sigma and Tamron have shown that, for those who want or need it, much more sophisticated adjustments are possible. I wonder how long before Canon and Nikon will follow suit?


Digital EOS 90D Canon: EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, Life-Size Converter EF Tamron: SP 17-50mm f/2.8 DiII, 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 DiII VC HLD, SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2, SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD, 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 DiII VC HLD Sigma: 30mm f/1.4 DC Art Rokinon: 8mm f/3.5 AS IF UMC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Warl0rd
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,230 posts
Likes: 153
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Portugal
     
May 19, 2017 04:24 |  #28

pknight wrote in post #18357540 (external link)
You are correct. To each their own. For somebody just shopping for a crop-sensor UWA, the Tamron offers equivalent IQ (see above) with weather sealing, VC, and a six-year US warranty (five-years, I believe, in the EU). This for 30% less in MSRP, at least in the US. I think it will be a popular choice.

Here in Portugal:

Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD Canon
€629,00

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
€569,00


Paulo
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/warl0rd (external link)
Canon 450D (XSi) + Grip | Canon 80D | EF-S 10-22 | EF 24-105 L IS | EF 100mm Macro | MP-E 65mm 1-5X | EF-S 18-55 IS STM | EF-S 55-250 IS | Takumar 55mm 1.8 | MT-24EX | Metz 48-AF1 | YN460 II | Kenko DG Auto ET | Kata 3N1-20 DL | Lowepro SlingShot 100 AW | Mitsai JDC195 | Manfrotto 190XPROB + 484RC2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pknight
Goldmember
Avatar
2,693 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 128
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Flyover Country
Post edited over 3 years ago by pknight.
     
May 19, 2017 06:33 |  #29

Warl0rd wrote in post #18358234 (external link)
Here in Portugal:

Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD Canon
€629,00

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
€569,00

At this morning's exchange rate, your EF-S 10-22 price is just slightly below the MSRP in the US (although there is an instant savings at B&H right now that makes the US price equivalent to €538). The US equivalent to your Tamron 10-24 price is $701, 40% higher than in the US. This makes it an entirely different decision.


Digital EOS 90D Canon: EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, Life-Size Converter EF Tamron: SP 17-50mm f/2.8 DiII, 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 DiII VC HLD, SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2, SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD, 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 DiII VC HLD Sigma: 30mm f/1.4 DC Art Rokinon: 8mm f/3.5 AS IF UMC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,917 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2385
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited over 3 years ago by Left Handed Brisket. (2 edits in all)
     
May 19, 2017 08:07 |  #30

Seems like the tamron 17-55 non-vc was 150-200 less than the vc version. Seems a pretty easy decision, if you think you need VC, pay a bit more... if coma isn't a big problem for your style of shooting.

Why isnt the canon 10-18 in this discussion? Too slow? I am not very familiar with what is available.

I'm considering something in this range for my SL1. Are there any cheap EFS primes in 10-14 range?


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

14,864 views & 3 likes for this thread
Feedback on the Tamron 10-24 VC
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Brik
706 guests, 296 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.