[netuser]

When will Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 DI-II LD IF be available ?

Price seems to be less +/- 150 € then pentax DA 12-24.

[RobA_Oz]

That obviously depends where you are in the world. It's been advertised here in Australia since November 2008.

There seems to be an as-yet unresolved issue of quality variability with this lens (which some people suggest may be the norm with Tamron, and Sigma, though I can't say personally), and the Pentax 12-24 seems to be a re-badged Tokina, though I could be mis-remembering that, and anyway, it isn't necessarily an adverse thing.

Have you read this blog, which compares the Tamron with the Sigma 10-20?
VirtualEntity: Tamron 10-24 compared to Sigma 10-20

There's been no follow-up test with another copy of the Tamron, as far as I can find.

[netuser]

That obviously depends where you are in the world. It's been advertised here in Australia since November 2008.

There seems to be an as-yet unresolved issue of quality variability with this lens (which some people suggest may be the norm with Tamron, and Sigma, though I can't say personally), and the Pentax 12-24 seems to be a re-badged Tokina, though I could be mis-remembering that, and anyway, it isn't necessarily an adverse thing.

Have you read this blog, which compares the Tamron with the Sigma 10-20?
VirtualEntity: Tamron 10-24 compared to Sigma 10-20

There's been no follow-up test with another copy of the Tamron, as far as I can find.

Can get it from Portugal and/or Germany.
Nice reading you point me to.
So your advice is get the DA

[RobA_Oz]

Not having any direct experience with any of the lenses quoted, I couldn't say which might be better for you. I looked at all of them before I concluded I would probably be better off for my purposes with the Pentax DA14 prime, which I'm just getting to know.

Your criteria may be different, but the thing that decided me was the better quality inherent in primes, as compared with zooms, and the fact that an ultra-wide-angle rectilinear lens greatly distorts objects at the extremes. Unless the individual photographer has a narrow range of subjects (which I'm not decrying), this limits the usefulness of the lens, or at least suggests it should be used with great care.

The 14 has a diagonal field of view of around 92 degrees, whereas a 12 has 100 degrees and a 10 has 110 degrees. The question you have to answer for yourself is: "How important is that extra 5-18 degrees to the quality of my pictures?"

My thinking was in more practical terms: I could stand in the corner of a room and photograph just about everything with a 14, plus I determined that I wasn't comfortable with the perspective alteration that occurred beyond that. If I need panoramic, I'm more comfortable with a longer focal length prime and a stitching program. I'm not really interested in the "fisheye" effect that other wide-angle lenses have, either.

So, I'm not really advocating one solution over another, as you will have gathered. I'm pleased with my initial results from the DA14, but partially that's just validation of my decision-making process.

What I'm really saying in all this, is that I'd advise anyone looking at wide-angles of any type to consider what they actually want to achieve with it, and talk to people about their experiences (such as on this forum) with the different types, before you make a decision, especially if you can't actually get to try them yourself.

A long post, I'm sorry, but I hope it's helped with your thought processes, and hopefully you'll have others participating. Best of luck.