Let's be straight about one thing -- the Tokina is a better lens. It is faster and it is sharper
30 August 2015
Summary: I have both this Tamron (in its Promaster Digital rebranded alter-ego) and the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX II lens. Let's be straight about one thing -- the Tokina is a better lens. It is faster and it is sharper. It produces better photos. (It costs more, too.
Summary: I've had the lens for a month now and have shot about 2,000 frames with it for architectural interior work. The lens has significant optical distortion, its sharpness is pretty good, and at f4.5 it's very slow. I use DXO Optics pro's profile for the lens to fix the distortion in post.
Summary: This lens is a decent alternative to the more expensive Canon and Nikon Equivalents, but at a price. Sharpness is only average and exposure accuracy is variable when you zoom. Edges are ok. This is no L or Ed lens by any means, but as long as you don't enlarge the image too much it will do fine.
Summary: On the used market this lens seems to be lower priced than the Sigma 10-20mm.I got mine for $275, unable to find the Sigma for less than $350-400, or for that matter the much praised Tokinas, either 12-24mm or 11-16mm. So it all depends on how much you paid for it.
Summary: This lens sits on my camera for architectural work all the time - get yourself a good spirit level, distortion if the camera isn't leveled is spectacular, but that's the angle, not the lens. I'm very happy with the product - it's responsible for about half the photos on <...
Summary: I've had this lens for about 3 years and have ended up using it MUCH more than I thought I ever would. It's a fun range to play around with and create some visual interest, especially in all the small environments I seem to find myself in.