Why No Love for Tamron 11-18 Wide Angle?

I'm curious as to why there seem to be ZERO interest on this lens either on this forum on on ebay. I'm searching for a wide-angle for my 30d, and I don't want to spend too much money, so that narrow my choices to either sigma 10-22 or tamron 11-18. I've seen enogh great photo on Sigma 10-20 to know that its a good lens. However, I have yet to see any photo coming from the Tamron. Considering how good Tamron makes their 28-75 f/2.8 + 17-50 f/2.8 lens, I'm surprise no one care to talk about this lens here.
-----
FANBOY(i)sm is a NEUROSIS, Get Help!

I think part of the problem is the value.

Of the Third party ultrawides for cropped sensors, Tamron is the most expensive while it's not the fastest, widest, longest.

It has no USM AF, while Sigma does, and Tokina has constant f4. Both also cost less too. Tamron shot themselves in the foot with this lens. I think if it sells for $399, it would sell a lot better, but right now, even with the falling prices of just above $500 or so, it's too expensive in my view.
--
Commander-in-Chimp
http://www.tomyi.smugmug.com
Forum for Los Angeles Shooter to Shoot Together
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LAShooters/

I love tamron Di lenses. But the 11-18 is:

1. just up to 18mm while my 10-22 is up to 22. Even sigma is 20mm
2. 11mm, not wide enough.
3. Too slow. f4.5-5.6
4. too expensive. Points 1,2,3 then at their price?

Optically, its there with the ef-s 10-22. But points 1-4 are all against me getting one.

--
--------------------

• Caterpillar

'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tamron/1118.htm

I did not consider this lens due to small zoom range and build quality- the canon is not that much more expensive and a good copy of the sigma is better built and slightly wider AND cheaper. Dismissed the tokina as it is only 12-13mm at the wide end.

+weird wavelike distortions.
--
Lens reviews from users with full size examples: http://www.yourlensreview.net

I bought one. It's nice, but I do not use it as much as I thought.

Check this:

http://tr-photo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/wide-angle-zoom-lens-selection-for.html

Regards

Usually, I'd prefer Tamron over Tokina, Sigma or Canon, due to:

1 - past experiences (both 28-75 and 90 macro are excellent lenses)
2 - best prices
3 - overall quality

but this lens was a very bad move because:

1 - weird and too small range (Sigma and Canon are wider and longer; Tokina is almost as wide but considerably longer);

2 - in spite of #1, it is rather slow (as slow as sigma, but much slower than Canon and Tokina);
3 - in spite of #1 and #2, it is the most expensive third party UWA;

4 - in spite of #1, #2 and #3, the lens does not offer an exceptional image quality or anything to write home about - it's just good;

5 - it was released when there were already two well established lenses (Canon and Tokina) and the Sigma was just released and had a few advantages over the Tamron (better range, more competitive price).

IMHO, it's the most uninteresting lens Tamron has presented in the last few years.

--
Pedro Claro
Marinha Grande - Portugal

Photozone tested it and didn't consider it to be a worthwhile choice considering the competition: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1118_4556/index.htm

Good points about being the slowest, offering the least range, yet cost more than Sigma. Oh well, I guess I should be shopping for a Sigma instead. I wonder if Tamron realized their mistakes and is coming out with an improve version. I would love to see a 10-28mm lens or a 14-50mm lens from somebody.
------
FANBOY(i)sm is a NEUROSIS, Get Help!

007peter said:

Good points about being the slowest, offering the least range, yet
cost more than Sigma. Oh well, I guess I should be shopping for a
Sigma instead. I wonder if Tamron realized their mistakes and is
coming out with an improve version. I would love to see a 10-28mm
lens or a 14-50mm lens from somebody.
------
FANBOY(i)sm is a NEUROSIS, Get Help!

Click to expand...

Historically, Tamron doesn't, and to my knowledge, hasn't done a mark II yet. Once a model is out, that's it. They haven't done variations of the same thing either, unlike Sigma. You can find 3 or so 24-70s with sigma, not to mention hybrids of 24-60, and some 2-3 variations of 28-70. You can't tell the difference unless you list down the full name (e.g. EX, EX DG, non-EX, etc). Tamron's Di vs Di-2 is not a remake, but the Di-2 indicates it is for cropped sensors, as compared to Di, w/c is suited for 35mm FF as well.

If you decide to get a Sigma, just be sure to check your copy very well as there are more copy variations with sigma. I didn't had that problem because I got the ef-s 10-22 ;-)

--
--------------------

• Caterpillar

'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

The new Tokina 10-17mm might even sharper than Canon 10-22mm. It's a fisheye, but you can defish it. If you can find a copy, worth to try.
http://www.photo96.com/blog/?cat=11
--
Yongbo
Photo Gallery: http://www.photo96.com/

007peter said:

Good points about being the slowest, offering the least range, yet
cost more than Sigma. Oh well, I guess I should be shopping for a
Sigma instead.

Click to expand...

Test thoroughly at all zoom settings for de-centered elements giving soft right or left hand sides- 2 copies I tried has this flaw- otherwise the sigma is an excellent lens (good copy)

after reading a review of the Tamron on photozone(dot)de. The Canon and Tokina both distort much less and are sharp lenses that take good pictures.

--
Seven_toes

... the 11-18 is one I skipped.

I have their 17-35 f/2.8-4 (fabulous!) and their 28-75 f/2.8 (love it!) but the 11-18 just wasn't on my radar. The 10-22 offers more range, is slightly faster, and while more expensive, really was a better pairing with my 28-75. I can now do with 2 lenses what would have taken me 3 going Tamron-only.

Yup, my 17-35 is now redundant and I really should sell it, but I just can't part with it!

Amy
--



Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
http://www.DangRabbit.com ~ http://www.PetSnapshots.com

caterpillar said:

They haven't done variations of the same thing either, unlike Sigma.

Click to expand...

It is slightly off topic, but Tamron has done three versions of 28-200.

I would seriously looked at a Tamron if they had done 11-24 or 11-28. Would be a nice pairing with the 28-75.

Amy
--



Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.
http://www.DangRabbit.com ~ http://www.PetSnapshots.com