Tamron 10-24mm

Gotmoose wrote in post #6679813
Hopefully this lens matches the IQ of Tamron's 17-50. It seems to look a little nicer than the 17-50

I *very much doubt* that'll happen, since it's an UWA with a fairly comprehensive FL range. If they gimped the FL to something like 10-15 (similar to what Tokina did with their 11-16), then that's plausible. Otherwise I'm expecting this new Tammy to have pretty good center sharpness (comparable to a 17-50), but the corners won't be so pleasing on the eye.

I'm on the brink of ordering this even though it isn't out yet. At $500 from Adorama I just might do it. Even though I could get it cheaper from Canada, having to worry about the import duties etc just isn't something I want to deal with.

Somebody please check my thought process here:
1. Tamron has been producing some stellar lenses lately.
2. 10-24 completes me triumverate of my 24-70 and 70-200 giving me 10-200 all in what should be quality glass because the 10-24 is supposed to be an "SP" lens, which means it's in Tamron's pro line.
3. At should beat the heck out of the Sigma 12-24 exept for the lack of full frame compatibility.

My other thoughts are this:
1. The sigma 10-20 would leave a 4mm gap in my range. I have a feeling this 4mm gap would be significant.
2. I doubt edge sharpness will be significantly different than the Sigma 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 or Canon 10-22.
3. The extra money for the Canon 10-22 I just can't justify.

Now here's the challenge - talk me out of placing the order in advance of the actual release...

I said this beofre... Tamron has never made a passable UW lens and the 11-18 is considerably more expensive than this new one. I think your comparing to Sigma/Tokina/Canon is completely unfounded, at this time.

The 11-18 was a bad lens, but Tamron wouldn't release another UWA without correcting that mistake...no one bought the 11-18 because it wasn't very good, and it was overpriced. The 10-24 is now in line pricing wise with the others from Tokina and Sigma. I have high hopes. Initial reviews look quite promising too.

Besides, I don't agree that Tamron has never produced a good UWA...the 17-35 is actually a very nice lens. It's not as good as the Canon equivalents, but it's half the cost too, and quite sharp.

I don't consider 17, at the bottom end, a UW. At least not not a crop.

The new Tamron is significantly less expensive than the Sigma, btw.

The Tamron 10-24 is less expensive than the Sigma 12-24 but more expensive than the Sigma 10-20. The only reason to get the Sigma 12-24 is to get a 12mm zoom on FF.

Sigma 10-20 - around $450 US
Tamron 10-24 - around $500 US
Sigma 12-24 - around $650 US (the only FF lens listed here)
Tokina 12-24 - around $500 US
Canon 10-22 - around $650 US
Notice this only approximate pricing.

I've heard excellent things about the Tokina 12-24 but up until now I disregarded it because it was more expensive than the Sigma 10-20 and wasn't as wide. The Sigma 12-24 stayed high on my radar because I still shoot film too but since I bought the 40D I'm thinking it will be a long time before I would buy a FF Digital so why deal with it's pitffalls now? The Canon just seemed too pricey considering it wasn't FF compatible. I'm feeling that this is the best of both worlds. Reasonable price, completes my range and I expect it to be pretty good quality.

In Canada, the Tamron is $500, the Sigma 10-20 is $600

bohdank wrote in post #6698965
I don't consider 17, at the bottom end, a UW. At least not not a crop.

The new Tamron is significantly less expensive than the Sigma, btw.

Well, no, not on a crop, but it's a full frame lens and it is an UWA. That's like saying the 16-35L isn't an UWA.

On a crop, no, imo but it's just semantics.

bohdank wrote in post #6699185
On a crop, no, imo but it's just semantics.

Not really...Designing a 16-35 for full frame and a 10-20 on a crop body are WAY closer in design than designing a 16-35 for a crop body, which is like designing a wide-normal lens instead of an ultra-wide. The point is that Tamron knows how to make UWAs.

Tamron is a world class lens manufacturer. I think they missed the mark with their 11-18 but here are some facts I grabbed from around the internet:

Tamron 11-18 release date: Spring 2005
Sigma 10-20: was announced pre-PMA 2005

This means the Tamron was available before the Sigma or right around the same time. So the two lenses were probably designed in parallel. Not having anything on the market to compete against except for the Sigma 12-24, Tamron was doing pretty well with their 11-18 considering the 18-55 that came with all the consumer SLRs. I think their thought process was generally correct but their price point missed the mark and they got beat by Sigma. Canon of course also threw it's offering in, but as always it's higher priced.

I figure that Tamron would not be bothering trying to bring another lens into this category unless it would be a winner. With the Sigma, Canon and Tokina lenses all being well established it just doesn't make sense. Tamron also did this with the relatively new 70-200 f/2.8. They looked at the market, found where the hole was an plugged it with a more affordable 70-200 f/2.8. Where it's weak points lie are where someone wanting a more affordable lens of this nature can probably live with it - in focus motor speed and noise (unless you are doing sports....)

I guess I'm just very hopeful that Tamron has hit the mark with this lens. The focal length seems right, the price fits for what they are trying to do and their most recent lenses all seem to have the right mix of features for the target audience...

Layston wrote in post #6698726
I'm on the brink of ordering this even though it isn't out yet. At $500 from Adorama I just might do it. Even though I could get it cheaper from Canada, having to worry about the import duties etc just isn't something I want to deal with.

Somebody please check my thought process here:
1. Tamron has been producing some stellar lenses lately.
2. 10-24 completes me triumverate of my 24-70 and 70-200 giving me 10-200 all in what should be quality glass because the 10-24 is supposed to be an "SP" lens, which means it's in Tamron's pro line.
3. At should beat the heck out of the Sigma 12-24 exept for the lack of full frame compatibility.

My other thoughts are this:
1. The sigma 10-20 would leave a 4mm gap in my range. I have a feeling this 4mm gap would be significant.
2. I doubt edge sharpness will be significantly different than the Sigma 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 or Canon 10-22.
3. The extra money for the Canon 10-22 I just can't justify.

Now here's the challenge - talk me out of placing the order in advance of the actual release...

I wonder if 4mm on the long end is significant. I guess if the sigma and tamron are pretty much the same price where you are from then its worth waiting for. Looks like the tamron is longer and faster. Here in Canada the sigma is $100 more.

I'm originally from a small town about 120km from Burlington. I've been in the U.S. for about 8 years now. The price difference over the last few years has made NO sense to me. When the dollars are on par, are the Canadian import duties really that different than the U.S.'s? If not, then the Canadian retailers are just reaping all the rewards they can of a strong Canadian economy. However, it may also be that you don't have retailers like B&H and Adorama competing to bring the price down. If I were you, I would buy from B&H and pay the import duties. I've bought things for my parents from B&H and had it shipped to Canada no problem and no duties....

Where is our example guy? Looks like he got his lens and left.

Mike55 wrote in post #6705397
Where is our example guy? Looks like he got his lens and left.

He's got his lens and no longer has time for the forums. Its THAT good .