New Tamron 10-24mm - is this soft to you?

I'm afraid I wouldn't be happy with that kind of image quality. (I am very uptight about that kind of thing though!)

It just lacks detail and edge definition. Does it get any sharper if you stop down?
 
I have to say, I still think that looks pretty awful. Sorry. What do others think?

I guess it depends what you want to do with your images. I don't think you could get a decent large print out of a file like that. It would probably look fine at lower resolution on a website though.

I had the Tokina 11-16mm for a while. Very, very sharp but I found the zoom range too limiting so I'm now using the Nikon 12-24mm F4, which I'm happy with.
 
Thanks for the feedback.

I don't plan to print anything very large, so I think it will be ok.

I am going to use the lens for a little while and see if I like it. If not, I'll return it for a refund. I only paid £220 for the lens new, if I had paid RRP of £400 I think I would be sending it back.
 
It rather depends on your final usage for image quality to be honest.

If you are happy with it, then that is all that matters. If you're going to be doing some top end assignments with it, then perhaps it would be a little soft.

I would like to see an image where you have focused a little closer than what is probably infinity for that lens. My canon 17-40L lens would be a little better, however if I'd focused on the building in the front at f16, the whole image would have been sharper. I suspect this could also be the same with your lens.
 
Very interesting - I'll take some more test shots I think.
 
I just bought that lens myself, in fact it arrived today! Hope to take it out at the weekend and see what I can pull out of it. To be fair I've seen plenty sharper than your shots here but I think it's to be expected a bit of practice is needed to get anything useful from it. Bloody hope so at least:bonk:
 
Last edited:
BarryG said:
This one is at f/16 - as before, the focal point is on the right hand pillar of the bridge.

http://barrygoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/dsc_1253.jpg
Click to expand...

I've taken plenty of photos on that very spot.

I'm used to a 17-40 f/4L on full frame; I have to say I wouldn't be too happy with that.

The focus seems to wander in and out across the image. It's OK on the middle-right in both the f/5 and f/16 shots (though the center is a bit hazy, better toward the edges). However, it loses it to the far right (not so surprising for a wide) but also on the whole of the left hand side.

If the focus was on the south pier of the bridge, something's a bit odd. As mentioned above, I'd probably have chosen a closer point for focus, but it really oughtn't to make that much difference at 10mm and should be better than that. Checking DoF tables, it should be in focus from 1m to infinity with a subject distance of 150m, about what it would be to the bridge from there.

As some of it's in focus, albeit in slightly random areas, and the same thing's happening at f/5, it's clearly not a diffraction issue at f/16.

Do you have a sample at f/8 or f/11? It should be performing best about there. With it being better on one side than the other, though, I suspect some of the elements in the lens aren't precisely aligned correctly.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's too bad. Too much pixel peeping going on.
 
I tend to agree, especially with the ones from this morning.

Now I need to stop "testing" and start using.
 
The top couple of photos arent as sharp as they could be, but the newer test photos are fine, nice and sharp. you will get better results if you use the sweet spot of the lens, about f8-f11 :)
 
There's a massive difference from the previous pair there, (stating the obvious I know) can't wait to take mine out now!
 
After a couple of days testing, I am actually really happy with it.

The first shots were a bad test subject.

I just need to learn how to use it now, it's not as straight forward as I thought!!

Good to have a photography challenge though :)
 
DADDYBLINKMAN said:
Tamron can be a bit on the soft side, but are good value
Click to expand...

So can Nikon, Olympus, Canon and Sigma. It very much depends on the lens, not the manufacturer, generic statements don't really add anything useful.
 
DaveKing said:
Where did you find the lens for 220? I'd be very keen at that price!
Click to expand...

It was mis-priced on the Currys website.

I paid £280 and then got 20% off, should have been £280 after the 20% off.
 
The only small problem is they are being a pain in the arse about giving me the 20%, currently in conversation with Dixons CeO.

I am hopeful yet!

Worse case I pay £280, still a good price.
 
Looks pretty decent to me, can't believe they are quibbling over fifty or so quid, their mistake too
 
They have decided they are not going to give me the 20% off. Game on, already emailed Trading Standards.

They are really ****.
 
As I mentioned before once they had taken the money its a bit late to change the offer and that clearly said 20% subtracted at checkout"
Sure you mentioned speaking to someone who said they would refund it to your card, hard to prove though

Still not a bad lens for the money and even better if they do cough up, doesn't say much when a company of that size quibbles over fifty quid
 
to be honest you get what you pay for, i dont think for what you paid that there is much to complain about. i paid a lot more for a siggy lens( wasnt a wide angle) and your lens would quite honestly leave it standing.
But like with every lens ( especially the cheaper lenses) the more you work with what you have and learn the best conditions and sweet spot then i would be that you will achieve images you are very happy with.
I started with a kit lens ( non IS variety) which got consistently shot down in flames, but because i had nothing else i managed to get the best from it and it gave me some real cracking images.
 
Those later shots seem much better to me. Although they are smaller.

There does seem to be lots of pixel peeping on here, however, there are times when it can be constructive. From my experience with my canon 17-40 (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) focusing too far in the distance doesn't render a sharp shot. Probably much the same with your new lens. There seem to be focusing ranges with lens that gives a sharper image, go past it, you'll be disappointed.
 
natjag said:
Those later shots seem much better to me. Although they are smaller.

There does seem to be lots of pixel peeping on here, however, there are times when it can be constructive. From my experience with my canon 17-40 (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) focusing too far in the distance doesn't render a sharp shot. Probably much the same with your new lens. There seem to be focusing ranges with lens that gives a sharper image, go past it, you'll be disappointed.
Click to expand...

The later shots are of a much smaller size so its difficult to see sharpness... from the first shot I would be disappointed - I have a 11-16 Tokina and after seeing these shots I can see that the Tokina is worth the money. (it cost me an arm and a leg)

However at £280 I wouldn't be so upset! But did you consider the Samyang 14mm for that kind of price?
 
Just an update on this thread in case anyone comes across researching the lens.

I took it back today for a refund.

Although it was a really good price, I wasn't really happy with the quality of the images. I wasn't pixel peeping, just looking at the images and decided if I liked them.

Even with sharpening added in Photoshop with Sharpener Pro - they were still not that good.

To conclude, that is 2 Tamron lenses I have bought and been really unhappy with.

Lesson learnt.
 
dod said:
So can Nikon, Olympus, Canon and Sigma. It very much depends on the lens, not the manufacturer, generic statements don't really add anything useful.
Click to expand...

This, and sometimes soft images are down to focus technique, not equipment too.

Second set of images look much better.
 
I agree, they are better, a lot better. But not sharp.
 
I've read the 1st page (please excuse me if I've missed an important update) but felt compelled to reply as soon as.

Those first two images are terrible, I would send it back straight away based on those alone, awful IQ throughout.

The next set aren't too bad but still, I wouldn't be happy.

I know you haven't paid a great deal for your Tammy but honestly, you are better off getting a refund, then splashing out on the Nikon or Sigma.

Edit - Doh, I knew there would be something on page 2 which is highly relevant! Good move on the refund, that lens was 'orrible!!
 
BarryG said:
Just an update on this thread in case anyone comes across researching the lens.

I took it back today for a refund.

Although it was a really good price, I wasn't really happy with the quality of the images. I wasn't pixel peeping, just looking at the images and decided if I liked them.

Even with sharpening added in Photoshop with Sharpener Pro - they were still not that good.

To conclude, that is 2 Tamron lenses I have bought and been really unhappy with.

Lesson learnt.
Click to expand...

Oops! missed this bit, sorry! I have a 28 - 75 Tam, its good so far, I guess its luck with these lenses....:thinking:
 
I'm a bit late to the party on this as the OP has already returned the lens. I did read the thread last night, however as I was on my mobile device I couldn't really comment about the image quality. Now I'm on my desktop I can comment.

For the price of the lens I would say the results are acceptable, and perfectly usable. I've compared the first image to similar that I've taken with my Nikon 10-24, and yes the nikon is sharper, but it's also about twice the price (If WHE is anything to go by). That said I've not seen any crop format UWA that delivers anything like the sharpness you would expect from pro, or even high end consumer, normal focal length lenses. IMO the purpose of UWAs is to capture as much of the scene as possible, so if you find yourself need the ultimate pixel perfect sharpness because you need to crop then the UWA was probably the wrong lens for the task.

I too think there's way too much pixel peeping going on these days, and yes I'm guilty of as well. It's just too easy to pull up an image to 100% and say "that looks crap", when in actual fact it'll probably print at A3 without any visible problem, and still be able to produce an acceptable A2.

For the record I'm not criticising the OP's decision to return the lens. As I've always maintained, if you're not happy with a product for whatever reason then definitely return it. I must say though that when it comes to crop UWAs I consider them fit for purpose, but none really shine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top