[littledrawe]

Tamron 10-24 that I bought used from adorama on my K2000. I have heard about corner and edge softness but I thought I would gamble on this one, what do you think?

Attached Images

         

---

Last edited by littledrawe; 04-06-2011 at 05:09 PM. Reason: more descriptive

[v5planet]

If your concern is the corner softness, these images may not be the best type to make an assessment off of. The reason is that with the exception of the first, the corners are all way out of the depth of field, i.e. you're focused on something close and the objects in the corners are further away. They're already out of focus so you can't make a great assessment on how sharp the corners are. You need to make sure they are inside the depth of field first.

[littledrawe]

I was just trying to get some stuff to test so maybe I need to go out again with it and get some different images.

[RioRico]

v5planet is quite right. To test the corners and edges, shoot perpendicular to something flat, like a brick wall. Your targets need to have stuff with details at corners and edges -- blank concrete won't do! It you're serious, use a tripod with level, or a test bench.

--Rio(I haven't had a chance to rigorously test my 10-24 yet either)Rico

[PGillin]

All of the images in your first post have strong composition, they're all good pictures and they look good.
What does this mean? You're making the lens work with you and fit your shooting style.
The verdict: Keep it. Worry about corner sharpness later if it becomes noticeable or problematic.

[littledrawe]

first one is at f3.5, second one is at f5.6, third one is at f8.0, fourth one is at f11, fifth one is at f13. seems to me that it is quite soft on the upper border and corners and only gets usable after f11. but I am wondering what other peoples opinions are.
this test was done with a tripod, 2 second delay shutter release and manual focus set to infinity at 10mm focal length throughout the series.

[ddsg]

I have the impression you're not perpendicular to the wall but at a slight angle... the left corners seem to be slightly out of focus on the wider aperture shots.

[qtopplings]

I returned two Tamron 10-24's due to ridiculously awful softness in the corners. I could have just had bad luck, but I was not happy with mine at all. RioRico, I can't believe you still haven't tested yours? What if it's a bad copy? Isn't it too late to return now?

Anyway. Try shooting indoors. Test some shots of your kitchen, with good overhead light. Does it look soft in the corners? Those brick wall shots look a bit soft, but not nearly as bad as mine came out.

[feilb]

Ultimately, if you are happy with the results, it shouldn't matter if the lens is technically perfect. That being said, I thought the first set of pics you posted looked great. Stopped down It definitely looked sharp.

[Pentaxor]

if you are unhappy with it's performance at wider openings, get the Pentax DA12-24.

[Eruditass]

Make sure to account for focus field curvature..

Probably accounts for most peoples' complaints of corner softness. When comparing corners, you need to manual focus to get the corners in focus without recomposing. Liveview can help.

[Jewelltrail]

I have seen copies which are very, very poor in the corners--disgraceful actually---but those are obvious. This one is not bad. Shooting perfectly flat subjects is silly & proves nothing: reality is not two-dimensional, yet forum member after member continue to judge their lens based on non-reality.

Moreover, some lenses are very sharp to the corners, but have field curvatures--this means shots of perfectly flat subjects will make the lens look bad, even though lens is good. A field curvature often has no bearing on real life shots. Shooting reality is about 3 dimensions, so this is where you take test shots. Photozone goes as far as to say that probably no lens is technically perfect, that they all have a centering problem to one degree or another. People are hung up on perfection, though God knows why because none of us are perfect.

As others have said, take real life shots, and ask yourself if you are happy--you spend the money--you are the judge. If you bought from a good dealer, exchanging for another will not be a problem. Worst thing you can do, is be unhappy with the lens & hang onto it out of uncertainty: make a decision which makes you happy. Either try another lens, or return for your money back.

EDIT:

Pentaxor: if you are unhappy with it's performance at wider openings, get the Pentax DA12-24.

The Sigma Ultra wide angle choices are also excellent, should you decide the Tamron is not what you want. Lots of pics in the Sigma 10-20 & 8-16 Clubs if you need them. Good luck!

[tibbitts]

There seems to be a lot of sample variation in these somewhat extreme lenses; I've experienced the same with Pentax and Sigma lenses. It's almost true that the sample you have is more important than the model or brand you have.

Having said that, I think most sample problems show up as variation across the field. If the center is sharp and all the corners fuzzy, particularly wide open, that may just be what the lens does. But if one side or corner is much different from others, that's probably a sample variation issue. So that's really what you want to be looking for. If you see no variations but aren't happy, I'd be tempted to try a different make or model lens, not just another of the same.

With my 10-20mm sigma (old version), I found it is not much use to test at close distances, because with the angle being so wide, the edges are at a much different distance than the center. Instead I tried more distant subjects. I've used distant traffic or building signs. Also at least with the Sigma, neither of my bodies can focus reliably at 10mm, so I use manual focus (which is also not reliable, but is at least consistent shot-to-shot, if you don't touch the lens.)

Paul

[Pentaxor]

this is exactly the reason why the Tamron 10-24 is not highly recommended among the UW options. it just fails in both consistency and IQ rendering and preference.

[tibbitts]

Overall it does seem that the Tamron is not the most favored of lenses, whereas the Sigma (old variable aperture) seems to be hit or miss depending on the particular lens you get. A number of posts seem to express disappointment in the Tamron, despite it being a somewhat more modern lens, and with the family having an overall good reputation. There are probably not enough samples of the 8-16 Sigma to draw any conclusions, but it is in a somewhat different category. The 12mm Pentax/Tokina is also in a different category, in that there is such a huge difference between 10mm and 12mm. Everyone seems to wish that Pentax would just sell the 11-16 Tokina, but that seems not to be happening.

Paul