Tamron 10-24mm or Canon 10-22?

rexehuk

rexehuk

rexehuk

Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
4,240
Location
My own head
I'm on the market for a wide angle for my Canon 400D, I've rented the Canon 10-22mm before and I fell in love with it.

I'd like to get some views from professionals on here, on whether it's worth stretching for the extra money to get the official Canon 10-22 or whether the Tamron alternative is as good

Tamron 10-24 mm is £300, while the Canon is £500, has anyone got some really good comparisons of the lenses?

This lens will mostly be used for landscape photography.

I also want to replace my standard 400D lens with a Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Lens (anyone got views on if this is a good EDC lens?)
 
Last edited:
Out of these two I would have to say the Canon, however I think you are missing a really strong contender which fits nicely in the middle! The Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6, its a great lens and reviews and a lot of peoples opinions are that it is the best budget UWA for crops.

If you like check out the results I get from it on my Flickr, all my light-painting was done with it. I managed to get mine mint in box second hand for £275 from Talkphotography forums.


Village Bay - St Kilda by M+M Morrison, on Flickr


Light Painting on the Beach by M+M Morrison, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I would personally take the Sigma 10-20 over the Tamron at that price but that's because I had one for a long time and it was excellent.

the 17-85 is pretty poor, slow and soft. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 would be a better alternative. Despite the noisy AF I've been impressed optically with mine.
 
2 shots taken with th2 Tamron, I think its a great lens.

6856316275

6856316275



20120131-IMG_1463.JPG by Mangobreeder, on Flickr


20120131-IMG_1451.JPG by Mangobreeder, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
olv said:
the 17-85 is pretty poor, slow and soft. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 would be a better alternative. Despite the noisy AF I've been impressed optically with mine.
Click to expand...

I have to say I agree with this. I have this lens and I wouldn't say I was disappointed but I certainly wasn't blown away. I have a Tamron that was half the price (70-300) that takes sharper pictures.

Also interested to hear more advice regarding 10mm+ lenses. Been meaning to buy one for ages now.
 
I purchased my Sigma 10-20 4.5-5.6 long before there were many other choices, except the Nikon 12-24 f/4.0 which I knew was better but 2.5x the price. I sigma is actually very sharp when it is stopped down to f/11 less or so which is about the only aperture I ever use a wide angle at (usually combined with hyper-focal focusing).


If I was to replace it I might consider the Sigma 8-16mm to get something truely wide for unique perspectives. I heard it is also exceedingly sharp with moderately well controlled distortions. Otherwise on Canon i would choose the canon 10-24, especially if you want to use the lens wide open.
 
Thank you for all of the responses.

I'm somewhat "cautious" about buying a second hand lens with no warranty of fallback... Especially when it could arrive smashed and someone keeping the money (maybe I'm cynical).

Seeing as some people here seem to say Sigmas break I would probably want to spend the extra and get the Canon.

What about replacement lenses for the default 18-55mm 400D lens? I do have a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III, but haven't really got good use out of it yet.
 
Last edited:
I'm on my second Sigma, the first one I sold for financial reasons then managed to pick a new one up 6 months later for a similar price. Been perfectly happy with both, including the sharpness, didn't have to micro adjust either on my 5dII.
 
olv said:
the 17-85 is pretty poor, slow and soft. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 would be a better alternative. Despite the noisy AF I've been impressed optically with mine.
Click to expand...

Ben Cole said:
I have to say I agree with this. I have this lens and I wouldn't say I was disappointed but I certainly wasn't blown away. I have a Tamron that was half the price (70-300) that takes sharper pictures.
Click to expand...

+1 for the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC. Noisy AF and hunts in very low light, but very decent price for £200 second-hand and very sharp.

@Ben Cole: Sounds like you may have had a soft copy, or your 70-300mm is unusually sharp! Because my 17-50mm was easily sharper than my 55-250mm and the 55-250mm is regarded as a sharper lens than the Tamron 70-300mm.
 
I've taken the plunge and acquired a 10-22mm Canon from a member on here :rolleyes:.

Assuming he is not George Agdgdgwngo I can't wait to have it again.

Next step is acquiring a replacement stock OR telephoto lens.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom