need opinions on this lens

98olds

Hello,

i am looking for a wide angle zoom lens for my Nikon D3000 dSLR.

I am currently looking at a Tamron 10-24mm 3.5-4.5

I do not want to rule out any other lens in this price range, but this is the one im leaning towards.

I would be using it mainly for carshows, beach photography, landscapes. that kinda thing.

Is this a lens you would reccomend? or is there another one in this price range that you would reccomend?

thanks

run_kmc

Tamron makes many perfectly fine lenses. There are relatively few "bad" modern lenses.

I don't know much about this exact lens, but one thing I would look at is the minimum focusing distance. I don't shoot wide often, but when I do, I like to get close. If the minimum focusing distance is much more than similar lenses by other companies, I might think twice.

Matthew Saville

Buying Tamron definitely depends on how gentle you are with your lenses. Tamron has championed the "lightweight and compact" factor in the 3rd-party market, however this means that all their lenses are mostly plastic and you gotta be kind to them.

On the other hand for example, Tokina has championed the "built like a tank" factor, to the extent that many of their lenses are even heavier and more rugged than the comparable Canon / Nikon lenses.

If you're a hiker for example and weight & size are very important to you, even more important than a loss of sharpness, then the Tamron 10-24 is one of the best lenses out there. However, I also like the Sigma 10-20, the older version, for "lightweight and compact". Based on the MANY reviews I've seen, it's sharper and better in general... (construction, focus performance) Ken Rockwell, whether or not you trust him, downright hates the Tamron 10-24... So, if I were you I'd also consider the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6.

If you're into low-light photojournalism, there's only one clear choice, the Tokina 11-16 2.8. Not only is it f/2.8, it's razor sharp at f/2.8! Unfortunately, I'm betting that the Nikon D3000 doesn't have an AF motor, so you could be outta luck on this one. Unless a Nikon D7000 is in your near future?

All in all, I gotta give a slight nod to the Sigma 10-20, if you haven't considered it yet. The Sigma is currently $480 and the Tamron is $399 after a rebate, but I'm definitely going to say that the Sigma is worth the difference.

98olds

Ok thank you both for responding to this.

Matt. i have looked at the Sigma 10-20mm, but i think Id prefer having a larger zoom range to say 24mm. have a feeling this will be the lens that i always have on my camera.

I understand that it is mostly plastic, but does this make it a poorly built lens?
I am very gentle with my lens' and cameras'. I dont do any rough hiking.

Thanks again.

Matthew Saville

98olds wrote: »

Ok thank you both for responding to this.

Matt. i have looked at the Sigma 10-20mm, but i think Id prefer having a larger zoom range to say 24mm. have a feeling this will be the lens that i always have on my camera.

I understand that it is mostly plastic, but does this make it a poorly built lens?
I am very gentle with my lens' and cameras'. I dont do any rough hiking.

Thanks again.

If you're very gentle on your gear, the the Tamron should last you forever, or as long as you care to own it basically. You're right, just because it's plastic doesn't mean it isn't well constructed. I just prefer metal because I'm admittedly abusive in my adventure; climbing, riding, crawling, etc. Plastic lenses just don't live long in my posession, unless they're VERY tough. (I believe the Nikon 12-24 and my Sigma 50-150 have a little or a lot of plastic in them, but since there are no externally moving parts, they've lasted forever.)

However size / weight are not the only concern; you also have to be willing to endure a bit of softness before you can enjoy the Tamron 10-24. Even stopped down, it is simply not a perfect lens. However I'm sure the softness isn't going to ruin any images really, so if you're not planning on doing any 60" print gallery exhibitions any time soon, I say go for it! You will definitely enjoy the extra range...

=Matt=

jziegler

The Sigma is a good lens (that and the Nikon 35 f1.8 are the lenses I use most of the time) and most reviews I read rate it above the Tamron. If you value the 24mm end more, you might also look at the Tokina 12-24, which is also well regarded. That said, many people are very happy with the Tamron.

98olds

I do know that with some wide angles the edges of the photo when at its wides range can sometimes be distorted? I dont really know how to put this.

Have any of you heard anything about this with the Tamron? I am still doing my research, and am listening to all of the info everyone is giving me.

Thanks again!! Great Info Lots to think about.

Matthew Saville

98olds wrote: »

I do know that with some wide angles the edges of the photo when at its wides range can sometimes be distorted? I dont really know how to put this.

Have any of you heard anything about this with the Tamron? I am still doing my research, and am listening to all of the info everyone is giving me.

Thanks again!! Great Info Lots to think about.

There are two things here, distortion and perspective. Traditional distortion is simply when you compose an image with the horizon or other straight line near the edge, and it looks bent when it ought to be straight. It's completely unnoticeable if there are no straight lines in your images, but if you regularly do shoot architectural or other kinds of shots, then you'll definitely want one of the the latest processing programs such as Lightroom 3 or CS5, because the distortion will be "wobbly" with the Tamron 10-24.

PERSPECTIVE is what stretches out people's arms and bodies when you place them near the edge of the picture. Most ANY lens that goes ultra-wide, whether 17mm on full-frame or 11mm on crop, is going to warp people's appearance if you place them towards the edge. Bottom line- don't do it! Keep all arms, legs, hands and feet *inside* the composition at all times! :-P

=Matt=

98olds

Matthew Saville wrote: »

There are two things here, distortion and perspective. Traditional distortion is simply when you compose an image with the horizon or other straight line near the edge, and it looks bent when it ought to be straight. It's completely unnoticeable if there are no straight lines in your images, but if you regularly do shoot architectural or other kinds of shots, then you'll definitely want one of the the latest processing programs such as Lightroom 3 or CS5, because the distortion will be "wobbly" with the Tamron 10-24.

PERSPECTIVE is what stretches out people's arms and bodies when you place them near the edge of the picture. Most ANY lens that goes ultra-wide, whether 17mm on full-frame or 11mm on crop, is going to warp people's appearance if you place them towards the edge. Bottom line- don't do it! Keep all arms, legs, hands and feet *inside* the composition at all times! :-P

=Matt=

Great info Thanks!!

I do actually have Lightroom 3, and Photoshop CS5, I'm still learning how to do both.

I knew the perspective thing, the distortion was what i was thinking about.

Again Thanks for all the great info, and I've still got a lot to learn!

Matthew Saville

98olds wrote: »

Great info Thanks!!

I do actually have Lightroom 3, and Photoshop CS5, I'm still learning how to do both.

I knew the perspective thing, the distortion was what i was thinking about.

Again Thanks for all the great info, and I've still got a lot to learn!

Yeah if you use LR3 to process your images, any time you shoot an ultra-wide image with a horizon or architectural line near an edge, just turn on the automatic lens correction tool and it'll take care of it I think. If not, you might have to get a little more advanced with DXO optics, but I think LR3 pretty much has a correction setting for most lenses now... :-)

=Matt=