The Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8 DI III-A RXD lens ((35mm Equivalent Focal Length: 16.5 to 30mm)) is designed for FUJIFILM X-mount APS-C mirrorless cameras. It has a compact and lightweight design, making it suitable for landscape, astrophotography, and architectural photography. The lens features a constant f/2.8 aperture for consistent brightness and better depth of field control. It includes advanced elements to reduce chromatic aberrations and distortion, resulting in improved clarity and color accuracy.
The lens has a responsive autofocus motor, a minimum focusing distance of 5.9 inches for wide-angle macro shooting, and moisture-resistant construction with a fluorine coating for protection against dust and smearing. Overall, it offers versatility and performance for various photographic applications.
Tamron 11-20mm F/2.8 DI III-A Specs
- Focal Length: 11 to 20mm (35mm Equivalent Focal Length: 16.5 to 30mm)
- Maximum Aperture: f/2.8
- Minimum Aperture: f/16
- Lens Mount: FUJIFILM X
- Lens Format Coverage: APS-C
- Angle of View: 105° 20' to 71° 35'
- Minimum Focus Distance: 5.9" / 15 cm
- Maximum Magnification: 0.25x
- Macro Reproduction Ratio: 1:4
- Optical Design: 12 Elements in 10 Groups
- Diaphragm Blades: 7, Rounded
- Focus Type: Autofocus
- Image Stabilization: No
- Filter Size: 67 mm (Front)
- Dimensions (ø x L): 2.9 x 3.4" / 73 x 86.2 mm
- Weight: 11.8 oz / 335 g
jli.jon wrote:
this or the fuji 10-24? what are everyone's thoughts?
Well, the 50 grams of weight savings and the extra stop of aperture don't outweigh the extra reach at both ends and aperture control ring of my XF 10-24 WR. And I suspect the WR and OIS isn't as effective either, if it's like my Tamron 18-300.
But if I didn't own any comparable UWA, I would certainly consider it.
jli.jon wrote:
this or the fuji 10-24? what are everyone's thoughts?
I would give this Tamron a shot. Plus it's f2.8.
It's got 4.8 stars out of 5 for the Sony mount.
I was never thrilled with the 10-24 Fuji when I had it....
While I do appreciate the 10-24's wider focal range, I don't like the IQ at 23 or 24mm so it's essentially a 10-22mm for me. Having an aperture ring and internal zoom is nice and size/weight wise I think it's is just fine. Always can be a bit smaller but the internal zoom design makes it bigger.
For the tamron, seems like IQ is best at 18mm from reviews and weaker at the widest angle but not as bad as the 10-24 @ 24mm edges I suspect. Lack of aperture ring and the opposite zoom direction has bothered me on previous tamron and sigma lenses. It doesn't seem to zoom out much so that won't bother me too much I think.
I'm still willing to try it out from a place with a good return policy.
I'v been waiting for this one. I'd rather have the Tamron than the Fuji – never cared for the optics or size of the Fuji and the Tamron has been great on my A6600.
That said, I'll wait to order it rather than paying full price. The Sony version is on sale for substantially less than the Fuji version.
I wouldn't mind the f2.8 but to me, I wouldn't give up the aperture ring for that. 2 ounces and .2" diameter but losing OIS doesn't seem like a great trade. So unless it has better optics, I'm not too interested. But I really like the 10-24. My current, updated version is much better than my original one I returned. I hear the design didn't change so it must be variations between lenses, but it certainly is noticeable.
I'd much rather have another stop of light than an aperture ring, much as I'm a fan of aperture rings. One actually affects performance, the other is an ergonomic nice to have.
OIS in a wide angle lens is nice to have to me, and certainly with a body that has IBIS it's not very critical. Fuji's IBIS implementation works very well.
I certainly wouldn't swap the Fuji for the Tamron if I still had one. But I never liked the Fuji lens, personally. Perhaps because I had an earlier version, sans the coveted aperture ring, it just never clicked with me.
itai195 wrote:
I'd much rather have another stop of light than an aperture ring, much as I'm a fan of aperture rings. One actually affects performance, the other is an ergonomic nice to have..
I would agree that its not logical to place such value on the aperture ring which has no impact on your photos. But I think I would constantly be reaching for it if I had just one lens different from the others and I wouldn't like using that one oddball. I like not having to think about where things are located. To some degree, I feel the excellent IBIS allows very slow shutter speeds and offsets the slow lens. I can't say I find myself running out of light when shooting landscape, my main use for an UW.
I like these kinds of UW zooms a lot for travel, but I just think the range is a little narrow for me. I sold my Fuji 10-24 for a Tamron 20-40 f/2.8 on Sony for the time being, but I still wish I could get that range in an even smaller package on Fuji APS-C. I guess I just don't need UW zooms to be *as* UW.
