[gawan]

Here, if not already posted, I did not see this here yet

Just posted! Tamron 10-24mm lens review: Digital Photography Review

[Jasvox]

hmm, after reading that, I'd still choose the Sigma 10-20 over the Tamron.

Jason

[AndrewShirley]

Yeah, as I said on DPReview, the lens looks like a dog.

- Andrew

[gawan]

Yes, I bought a Sigma 10-20 a year ago, cause I did not want to wait for this. Was a little worried this might turn out a superb lens and I would regret the 10-20, but now I don't

---

Last edited by gawan; 02-12-2009 at 07:02 AM. Reason: typos

[kenyee]

Glad I didn't wait as well. Happy w/ my Sigma 10-20 as well

[Gooshin]

almost forgot about this lens being in production.

[Jewelltrail]

Well, this review reads nothing like the one in Popular Photography (March, I believe). I read that review of the Tammy lens a couple of weeks ago and came away thinking the lens was a big thumbs up.

Reading the DPreview, I had to do a double-check to be sure I was reading the correct review. Another one of those things which makes one go Hmmmmm.

[AndrewShirley]

I suppose its possible DPReview got a bad copy. I guess we should all keep an even keel until more reviews come out (myself included) although, I don't know if anyone would dare buy a copy to lend to Klaus

- Andrew

[Rush2112]

Well, this review reads nothing like the one in Popular Photography (March, I believe). I read that review of the Tammy lens a couple of weeks ago and came away thinking the lens was a big thumbs up.

Reading the DPreview, I had to do a double-check to be sure I was reading the correct review. Another one of those things which makes one go Hmmmmm.

I'm sure if it was a Canon/Nikon lens review it would have had much higher marks, even with the same optical performance.

I'd wait for the Photozone.de review of it, I prefer Klauses reviews more since that is his area of expertise.

Slrgear.com is pretty good too.

C

[gokenin]

I know it may just be me but what is the reason for taking something at 10mm and showing a 100% crop on a building to show its soft? Do people take a picture with a lens like this at 10mm and make a print of a single building in it at 100% crop ?
I may just be simple but if the picture looks clear with a normal view on the monitor I would assume that the average person would have no problem with it on a standard size print. These reviews to me are written for the pixel peepers who I think will never be happy until there is a lens that will be able to take a picture perfectly on every single pixel on the sensor. I could be wrong but to me the non cropped pictures in the review look fine.

[Miserere]

Ken Rockwell hated it.

[Buddha Jones]

Pentax DA*11-16mm? Why Pentax, why?!?!?!

If Tokina made it in a Pentax mount, I would prolly have to buy it. From what I have read, it destroys the competition.

[jeffrey r]

Considering their excellent track record lately, with the 17-50, 90mm macro, etc., it is surprising they would put out a lens that could be a slam dunk but which has output as bad as is being described. Maybe they'll halt production to figure out what went wrong, because this won't sell well in any mount at this rate.

[mutedphotos]

I'm sure if it was a Canon/Nikon lens review it would have had much higher marks, even with the same optical performance.

I'd wait for the Photozone.de review of it, I prefer Klauses reviews more since that is his area of expertise.

Slrgear.com is pretty good too.

C

Did you read the conclusion? They were actually pretty positive about the lens. The test results are what they are, and you can't blame DPReview for taking off points for the poor performance there, but they still consider the lens as "worthy of a place on the shortlist for anyone looking to buy an ultrawide DX zoom."

I actually thought they went pretty easy on the lens in the conclusion, still praising it and implying that the softness wide-open was not really a big deal (and in real life terms, it probably isn't).

[netuser]

Happy with my new DA 12-24