Tuesday, 18 November 2008

Tamron 10-24 3.5-4.5, day 2..

Got some more shots done today, all posted in original size, shoot on D300 NEF, exported from Lightroom to tiff and saved as JPG in Photoshop CS3, quality setting 10. Size are from 2.5 - 5.5MB, so bare that in mind while downloading.

I'm not a fan of those "lab test" shots, so I didn't make them. You're not going to use the lens in a lab, are?!? Yes, ok, ok, 0.00000000001% of you probably are, for the rest of us, it's the real life shots that count.

Overall I'm still happy with this lens. There appears to be less CA then with Sigma 10-20, which was my main concern. Even that can be mostly fixed in post process. Same with all the distortions, Photoshop makes that an easy fix. Compared to Nikons.. well, let's not go there.
My widest lens that I used on a day-to-day basis was 14mm, so this 10mm is a BIG difference. It's a lot "harder" to frame a shot and does take some time to get used to. Corner sharpness is not that great wide open, but what did you expect at 10mm?

10mm @ f3,5
Shrani.si

10mm @ f4,5
Shrani.si

10mm @ f5,6
Shrani.si

10mm @ f8
Shrani.si

10mm @ f11
Shrani.si

Set 2

10mm @ f4,5
Shrani.si

10mm @ f5,6
Shrani.si

10mm @ f8
Shrani.si

10mm @ f11
Shrani.si

10mm @ f16
Shrani.si


Some closeup shots and bokeh preview.. kinda..
All shot from around 30cm (1 feet) distance, central focus point.

10mm @ f3,5
Shrani.si

10mm @ f4,5
Shrani.si

10mm @ f5,6
Shrani.si

10mm @ f8
Shrani.si

24mm @ f4,5
Shrani.si

24mm @ f5,6
Shrani.si

24mm @ f8
Shrani.si

24mm @ f11
Shrani.si


I have lots more shots, might upload a few more during the day. If not, tomorrow's another day.


Update #1
Some random shots:

14mm, f7.1, 1/640, ISO200
Shrani.si

21mm, f8, 1/320, ISO200
Shrani.si

10mm, f3,5, 1/40, ISO800
Shrani.si


Update #2:

Some 1200px images.

10mm, f4,5, 1/200, ISO200
Shrani.si

10mm, f4, 1/50, ISO500
Shrani.si

10mm, f4,5, 1/160, ISO200
Shrani.si

10mm, f5,6, 1/320, ISO200
Shrani.si

6 comments:

Daniel said...

Hello, guy (i couldn't find your name while snooping around so i'll call you guy).
My dilemma is this: i'm torn between the sigma 10-20 and the tammy 10-24. Ignoring the aperture on the tammy what are in your opinion its advantages over the sigma; which one would you recommend ? (also what is your experience with the sigma ?)
Thanks, guy!

Kiboutou said...

I found your blog doing a search for the Tamron 10-24mm & I'm glad I did.

Thank you very much Virtualentity for sharing your beautiful pictures & the things you like: interesting reflections, quotes & movies. I especially like: "The more opinions you have the less you see".- Wim Wenders.

After some detective work I saw that your photos are hosted on a .si domain so I guess your are from Slovenia which I had the chance to visit 15 years ago.

I know you are a Virtualentity but it would be nice to maybe have a page with some details about yourself with a link in your blogs (P.S. found some in your 2007 blogs).

Also mentioning the places were the photos were taken (Ljubljana is my guess for the 10-24 so far). OTH I would understand if you would want to keep it a Virtualentity. :-)

Thinking about replacing my Sigma 10-20 because it's dark (f/4-5.6), strong vignetting & blurry corners (unless stopping down) the alternatives for me are this Tamron 10-24 or the Tokina 11-16mm. I also have a D300.

Your pretty photos & compositions, especially the different series from the same spot at different apertures are very useful. Pretty clever that you test for bokeh, distortions, CA, etc.

Some questions about the Tamron 10-24mm: do you feel you can comfortably use it wide open or it needs to be stopped down? Does the focus ring rotates like the Tamron 17-50 when using AF?

Looking for information about the maximum aperture through the zoom range for the Tamron at these FL; my Sigma 10-20mm: 10mm F/4, 11mm f/4.2, 14mm f/4.8, 16mm f/5, 20mm f/5.6.

The sharpness & max aperture of the Tokina 11-16mm vs. the practical zoom range of the Tamron 10-24mm & slower aperture? Decisions, decisions...

Mat said...

@ Daniel
Posts are signed with "Mat", so there's a clue for you ;)

I view lenses this wide as a fun lenses, not commercial or something like that. If someone is planning to make stock photos with a wide lens, it's probably best to get the Nikon 14-24 2.8 or other brand equivalent.

I first got the Sigma 10-20 a year or so ago and to be honest, never liked it. The finish on the lens, the lens cap and most importantly, the images it produced. Lots of CA and not that great sharpness overall. True, it could have been a bad copy, that's the reason I usually don't like comparing lenses, it always differs from one copy to another.

Yesterday I received a new copy of Sigma 10-20 and am planning to make a comparison with Tamron (weather permitting), so will be able to write more about it. Check back in a day or two.

Personally, I kinda prefer Tamron so far. It's a bit brighter, has longer range, is lighter and cheaper as well.

Mat said...

@ Kiboutou

To be honest, I never noticed the basic info is not up, not that I have a problem with that. My blogs are mostly for my own "archive", I'm not really into this mass-blogging thing :)

Yes, I'm from Slovenia, the capital Ljubljana to be exact and all shot were made here. I do use a local source for full size images, Blogger no longer supports full sizes unfortunately.

As posted in the comment above, I so far prefer the Tamron. Tokina is no contender for me to be honest, 11-16mm? How useful is that? If I'm going wide I want it wide, so 10mm it is.
As you can see on the images, Tamron produced almost no vignette. I have no problems using it wide open, the corner sharpness in not great, but the center is totally ok for my needs. I plan to use this lens for landscape and fun images, so it's going to be closed down most of the time, I'm thinking f8. All posted images are unaltered, so everyone can make up their own mind.
As for the focusing, yes and no, it does focus similar to 17-50, but it's faster. While 17-50 could take up to 2 seconds for fine tuning in bad light, 10-24 does it faster.
Apertures are: 10mm f3.5, 11.5mm f3.8, 13mm f4, 16mm f4.2, 19mm f4.5.
Hope it helps.
Check back for Sigma comparison.

Kiboutou said...

Thank you Matic for the apertures info. Can't wait for your comments about Tamron vs. Sigma.

As you know, everything in photography is some kind of compromise and Tokina traded some zoom range for optical quality. I was impressed by the overall sharpness of my friend's copy compared to my Sigma, especially in the corners, even @ f/2.8 vs. f/4.2.

Also a f/2.8 can make a difference like in your fence bokeh shots for example or at dawn/dusk. As per your data, @ 11mm it's a bit more than 2/3 stop advantage but by 16mm it's more than 1 stop.

The difference between 10 & 11mm is not much, a few steps can fix that, what bothers me is the 17-20 or 17-24mm. That's why I am interested in your Tamron photos & tests.

My basics: multiply your age by two, subtract six. I live in Costa Rica which I would rate 10 for nature & 2 for architecture. - Jacques

Mat said...

Tokina is sharp if you get a good copy, that's true, but it's range isn't to my liking. I know 10mm vs 11mm is a few steps, but when you're backed to the wall at a press conference or an event, you often don't have a few steps ;) Could then also say the same for 11mm vs 12mm, and you have Nikon 12-24 on the table as well. Have to draw the line somewhere, 10mm is mine. :)
Anyhow, processing images from Sigma as I type this. Will post soon.