Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

My review title might seem like a knock on this lens. On the contrary, it's more a testament to how good competitive lenses are. I have owned the Nikon 14-24, Nikon 18-35G, and Tokina 16-28mm. The 14-24 is tremendous and unequaled from 14-20mm, but someone offered me a good price, and I foolishly decided to give it up. I still have the 18-35 and the Tokina. Both lenses are amazing in their own ways but have flaws. The "cheap" Nikon has amazingly consistent across-the-frame IQ but doesn't go wide enough, whereas the Tokina is wide enough, but has weak corners. Both lenses are superb by f/8. In short, the Tamron is better than both...just. Ergonomically, this lens is a beast. It is heavy and huge--bigger in fact than both the Nikon 14-24 and Tokina. Not long ago, I would have rejected it due to its size alone. However, it balances nicely at the end of my D800E, and both the zoom and focus rings, though somewhat stiff, move smoothly and precisely. The lens has markings for 15, 18, 20, 24, and 30mm, so it's easy to dial in your desired focal length. Impressively, the EXIF data is consistent with the external markings, so there's no need to hunt (unlike with the 18-35 or the Sigma 24-105) for a specific FL. Interestingly, the fields of view (FOV) for given focal lengths were very close between the three tested lenses. None of the lenses were extra wide or extra long for a given focal length. I found this reassuring. I did not test the vibration control (VC). All shutter speeds were kept high enough not to make a difference. All shots taken were handheld. As stated before, the IQ is very close between the lenses. I really had to pixel peep to see differences, but there were indeed differences. The Tamron did dominate in the area of chromatic aberration. It was much better controlled than either of the other two lenses. The Tamron also seems to handle distortion better (some barrel distortion at 15mm), although my distortion test was hardly rigorous. For IQ, the Tamron is much better than the Tokina at f/2.8. The Tamron has very good sharpness and contrast wide open and gets better stopped down. The Tokina is weak wide open but gets real sharp and contrasty stopped down. Arguably, the Tokina is sharper in the center at f/4 and f/5.6 under 24mm, but there's hardly a sheet of paper between the two lenses. However, the Tokina's advantage/similarity dissipates rapidly away from the center where the Tamron is much better. The Tokina is just soft near the edges, and the Tamron is better here. By f/8, the Tokina has acceptable edges, but the Tamron is still better. This pattern is true throughout the FL range. However, the Tokina's center IQ falls off noticeably at 24 and above. It's not bad, but again the Tamron is better. The Nikon 18-35 is much more competitive on the IQ front, but has the 3mm disadvantage at the wide end (hugely significant), and the variable max apertures are non-starters for many (this deficiency does not bother me much). The Nikon has strong edges and corners and wide open is better in the corners than the Tamron. However, the Tamron catches up in the corners when stopped down to f/4 (at FLs of 18-24mm) and is marginally sharper in the center. Note, that due to field curvature and other optical anomalies, the Nikon was sharper in some parts of the image and especially in (some) of the far corners. The Nikon is just that good. But the Tamron over all was sharper especially at and near the center. At 30mm the Tamron is at its weakest. Wide open, the Nikon is much better. However, the Nikon is f/4.5 wide open at 30mm to the Tamron's f/2.8. Stopping the Tamron down to f/4.5 pulls it even with the Nikon. I frankly could not tell the difference in the center, and other parts of the image were mixed. All-in-all the Tamron won the competition, but it did break a sweat. It's a keeper because I shoot in low light, and it will be great having a usable f/2.8 (I do not consider that aperture usable on the Tokina for anything other than emergencies), and its better CA handling is welcome. The improvement in edge/corner performance relative to the Tokina is also welcome. However, if you are on a budget, and don't really need a strong f/2.8, 15mm and/or VC, the Nikon 18-35mm is a very compelling alternative. You really don't give up much at all in IQ. If you need at least 16mm and/or f/2.8 and can't afford the Tamron, then the Tokina won't disappoint you. However, if you want the best sub-$1500 UWA lens, even if you'll rarely see the difference, then by all means get the Tamron.