Canon EF-S 10-22mm VS Tamron 10-24mm

[nitrous]

Hello all,

I would like your advise on these two lenses as I am about to spend some cash on a new UWA lens.

I read some reviews and watched a couple of videos regarding both lenses along with the Sigma but I excluded that one after a lot of people complaint on image quality while wide open and so on.

Canon is much more expensive BUT most of the reviews state that is overpriced and you pay more of what you actually get out of this lens; great image/build quality ofcourse but more expensive than it should. On the other hand Tamron is cheaper and delivers some decent results for the price and a lot of people actually recommend the Tamron over the Canon and vice versa.
Price wise I would prefer the Tamron but I could wait some time and save up for the Canon one if its actually worth it.

So I thought I should better ask here if anyone owns any one of them your opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

 

[travellingcello]

I think you should think hard before you buy the Tamron- I compared the UWA's for a long time before I went for eventually the Tokina 11-16 2.8.

I ruled out the Tamron almost immediately because its picture quality frankly is way off its competition....

Here's the comparison with sample crops. Mouse over to see the difference and play with aperture settings. I think you will see why you shouldn't buy the Tamron!


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=714&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=271&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Consider:

Sigma 10-20, the older version (better value for money and supposedly sharper)
Tokina 11-16
Tokina 12-24
Samyang 14mm (cheapest but best performing... only £250 new. However you need to know what you are doing here!)

Compare on the link I gave you - the Canon probably performs the best overall, although the price reflects that.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

To put it to simpler terms, Tamron 10-24 IQ is very poor (worse than 18-55 non-IS). Even Sigma 10-20 is much better but still not even close to Canon.

The only worthy alternatives are both Tokina's.

 

[travellingcello]

To put it to simpler terms, Tamron 10-24 IQ is very poor (worse than 18-55 non-IS). Even Sigma 10-20 is much better but still not even close to Canon.

The only worthy alternatives are both Tokina's.

Well the Samyang is a very worthy alternative but I suppose its not a 'use everywhere' type lens as it is completely manual.

But if you want the best image quality at the best price then its rather good!

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Well the Samyang is a very worthy alternative but I suppose its not a 'use everywhere' type lens as it is completely manual.

But if you want the best image quality at the best price then its rather good!

I've not used one, and given its fixed 14mm focal length, it seems to be mainly designed for FF cameras (14L II is not very affordable). I would be interested to try, but fail to see the point of one on crop.

 

[woof woof]

To put it to simpler terms, Tamron 10-24 IQ is very poor (worse than 18-55 non-IS). Even Sigma 10-20 is much better but still not even close to Canon.

The only worthy alternatives are both Tokina's.

The Canon is overrated IMVHO. Maybe I just had a Monday morning copy but some reviews seem to tally with my experience of distortion, vignetting and a little softness.

 

[SixToes]

The Canon is overrated IMVHO. Maybe I just had a Monday morning copy but some reviews seem to tally with my experience of distortion, vignetting and a little softness.

I agree, when I tested the Canon against the older Sigma the principle advantage the Canon had was better distortion. There wasn't anything in it in terms of sharpness.