3 out of 10 points and not recommendedrange, OS.Horrible color rendition, soft coner throughout the range, AF problems
I sold it , it is slow(AF speed) and heavy .reviewed July 31st, 2007 (purchased for $450)
I think I was one of these first people to order this and have had it lonest since I was in OSaka when I bought it .
I got it on June 1.
Initially linked it , excited about it like the previous guy.
But as I heard so many AF issues and saw people returning it to Siagm in Japan , I realized that there would be something serious there.
The AF issue being so famous among Japanese mags is a very weird problem:
once you use it in MF mode for more than 10 munites , it won't AF until you turn your camera off for a while(my case was longer than 10munites of turing off to re-activate the AF function).
This issue is talked about all the time on line in Japan, and the wide angle AF issue is also described clearly in a Local mag in my city .
These problems happened to me about a week a go and I decided to return it to fund for an EF100 macro.
I think it is an ok lens if you do not have the AF-MF issue , but many people already documenting it clearly and it is so soft lens , especially from 35-105 range , and this issue was discussed at photozone.de forum.
I post the link here.
I do think this lens has a serious design problem.
So make sure to read the photozone.de forum first before making any decision.
9 out of 10 points and recommendedvery sharp, very well designed, very fast and accurate AF, actually tough.lack of punchy color , flare , toy-ish feeling
This is a true flare machine , I gotta get rid of it to get the Tamorn because of the flare.reviewed July 31st, 2007 (purchased for $860)
I think most of guys here living in North America , so they may never see the problem and just rave about how sharp it is.
But I now work in Bangkok and so think it differently .
I think I know why this lens is rated so low in the UK and Japan clearly :FLARE and weak construction.
I used it for my work in Laos or Cambodia, where the living environment is harsh and filthy , the lens got alot of dust coming in and I sent it to Canon.
The Canon people clean it up very carefully , though they recommended me to use my 17-40L instead for my work because it's sealed.
It's so bad since this is the sharpest zoom in this plannet , and even sharper than most of primes , why is it so fragile and prone to flare?
Also , it is hard to use it in indoor like a department or a mall due to the internal light reflection , which causes alot of flare and ghosts on my pictures .
So what is the real use of the f2.8 combined with the IS if you can not use it indoor due to the flare problem?
I now use the Tamorn(no flare issues) , well, I am sad , I wanted to love it but could not.
This lens is sharp but the color is not deep and vibrant like that of Ls.
I think if I 'd lived in a different city(not polluted or dusty), I might have loved it ...............it is sad , though since I like its resolving power and respect it.
UP DATE:Now , I got my second copy from my mom's store in Osaka and now , I am testing it carefully in BKK ...........
Well, I just have to say the second copy is prickly sharp , maybe sharper than my EF50 f1.4 at F4 , I dont care about F2.8 sharpness since I dont need F2.8, but the IS is something I really need since it allows me to use narrow AV to get more DOF in low light.
I am hoping this lens can replace my Tmaorn and EF-S17-85IS , if it can , it is great and I think the hefty price I paid for it is like nothing.
The flare and poor build are only two big problems with it , I am trying to like it more but I dont know if I can like it as much as other reviewers here.
HAve a good one to all.
UP date 2: I dropped it last night while driving through a small local road in East Thailand called Soi , well , that was not a hard concrete ground but dropped seriously and the shock should have been a big deal , though the lens got no damge , no scratch on its surface ,I was shocked to find out how tough it actually is.
This is a well constructed lens ,indeed.
Also , my flare problem with this lens has been solved by ditching my B and W filter .
Now , I use the Hoya pro1 Digital and no vignetting , no flare issue any more .
All my problems and bad feeling for this lens were actually associated with its look and build but now, I am very happy to know it was actually my prejudice against these EF-S lenses.
The real problem is probably the B and W filter , not this lens itself.
Now , my 17-55Is takes an extremely sharp and flare-free pictures ..........................so I re-rate it.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedsharp wide open, no linear distortion , excellent color rendition , excellent flare resistancenone.
Very sharp wide open , no linear distortion detected, very vibrant color and natural rendition.reviewed July 31st, 2007 (purchased for $720)
No CA issue , no flare issue and this lens stays on 30d 90 percent of time.
I love it , if you have an EF-Scamera, you should get it , this is better than the over rated Sigma 10-20 , Tokina 12 -24 and all other UWAs, period.
PS. I think many guys here are confused the linear distortion with perspective distortion and the perspective distortion is a good thing and the linear distoriton is the real problem associated with super wide , and this one has almost no linear distortion.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedsharp at center throughout the range , excellent AF , excellent colorpronounced barrel distortion at 17mm.
always think about get rid of it , but always come back to it .reviewed July 31st, 2007 (purchased for $540)
I think I will never ditch it , it is the best compromise , all its issues (CA, distortion, small apereture) are not serious when you know how to use photoshop or something similar .
The IQ is superb , very sharp and excellent flare performance , with vibrant color.
The AF is so fast , the IS is very powerful.
I think it is a good lens , at lest suites into my style very well .
I am mostly shooting real people in a city so I have no time swapping many lenses or can not miss focus , I dont need f2.8 either since I need deep DOF .
So if you shoot action or into street photography , there is no better lens than this , the 17-55IS is too short and too prone to flare , it is only good in low light .
I expected to replace this with the EF-S17-55, though, I now realize how nice this 17-85 actually is, it is not much less sharp than the overly worshipped EF-S17-55IS and a bit sharper than the 17-40L at least my copy .........
I bought the second 17-85IS in this June , and how can I say , it is the best lens ever made IMHO and my second 17-85IS is a bit of improvement over my 2 years old first 17-85IS , I think Canon fixed the distortion issue and CA issue at the 17mm without announcing anything about it.
Any way , I highly recommend it with the EF-S10-22 , which covers very nicely the weak range of this lens from 17-20.
This lens is truly sharp from 35 to 85 so when it is combined with the excellent EF-S10-22 , it works great.
I think if you are thinking of getting the 17-55IS to replace it , you would better get the 10-22 in additon to this excellent 17-85IS .....most of people never need F2.8 and IS in the same lens.....
Think about this when you need IS , you also need DEEP DOF not shallow DOF , so you dont need the F2.8 and the IS in the same lens.
When you really need fast SS in low light, you'd need more than f2.8 , dont waste your money on those silly f 2.8 third party zooms like Sigma 18-50 , which is actually designed for Nikon 1.5 crop factor models , we , Canon users , need 17mm wide end to get 28 or 17mm , so the 18-something(actually , the Sigma 18-50 is even not a true 18mm lens, is in fact 19.3mm lens according to Pop photo) is pretty much useless on Rebels and x0D series Canon bodies.
The Tamron 17-50 is ok , but not great , sharp but not as sharp as my 17-55 IS wide open and not as fast focusing as my Canon 17-55IS and 17-85IS .
So if you are into action photgraphy or street photography , get a Canon .
Tokina , Sigma and Tamorn are all junks , and they have severe CA problem.
Also, their re-sale value is so so so bad.
You can get a third party but you will regret in the long run.......and lose some money by returing or re-saling it .
2 out of 10 points and recommendedcenter sharpnessurine color , AF speed and accuracy, old and stupid design
Bad color , bad design , very gaudy taste of body.reviewed July 31st, 2007
The gold line is so funny, I got it free from my dad and used it and returned it to my dad.
The color is horrible and the AF is super slow .
But its center resolution is nothing short of amazing.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedvery resistant to flare , very sharp , very good color rendition, very good AF accuracyfocus ring rotates , no FTM , no IS
I've had the Canon EF_S17-55Is but ditch it and now use this Tamron.reviewed August 1st, 2007 (purchased for $320)
the reason : the flare issue of the Canon , it is really serious.
Now, testing my seventh copy of the Cnaon EF-S17-55IS and found it excellent in term of optical quality, though its build quality IMHO is worse than this Tmaorn which is 900US cheaper than the Cnaon.
Note : none of my tested copy of the Tmaorn or Canon was bad at all , I just wanted the best so tested 7 Tmaorns and 7 Canons.
The Cnaon is a bit sharper at f2.8 than this Tamorn , though as you stop both down to f5.6 , I think they are about equal and onward , the Tmaorn is sharper at f8 than the Canon at f8.
The Tamorn peaks at f8 , while the Canon peaks at f6.3 IMHO.
I'd tell you there is no day-and-night kind of difference in terms of optical quality and build quality between them , and both are great lens.
The Tmaorn is not just a good lens , is a great lens in absolute term not for the money.
I truely believe it is a much better lens than the Cnaon17-40L or 24-105L, I have had all and I am sure all of my lenses are decently sharp at least .....if not extremely sharp(I chose them very carefully and never just buy a lens but at least couple of them and choose the better one), I still say I'd give the edge to the Tamorn.
The Tamorn is a sharp lens , no doubt about it , it is purely sharp and I love its color rendition and a bit warmer but clean color , in fact , I think this Tmaorn has much better color than that of my Canon EF-S17-55IS, I am not saying the Canon has bad color , its color is also excellent(just I prefer the Tamorn color since it is more vibrant).
If you do not need the ultimate wide open sharpness of the Canon 17-55f2.8 IS, then get this Tmaorn and save your money.
The Tmaorn is able to do semi-macro like stuff and it is light and durable ............so you can abuse it.
Because it is so cheap , you can abuse it , if you damage it , who cares ? you will always be able to repalce it easily , hey man , it is priced 300US ......
I think it is a no-brainer .........considering of these price differentials among all f2.8 lenses, this Tmaorn is the best and is always or will be unbeatable for a long time.
I know many owners of this lens wondering how much better the Canon really is or if they spend a grand on the EF-S, would be able to get a much better lens than this Tamorn with expectation to see day-and-night kinda difference .
I'd guarantee you, you would not see any difference in IQ between them other than different color tones and casts, if you say you saw it and the Canon was much better , you are lying.
Unless use the DXO test tool , you wont see it , I used it and printed some pics out up to 19 inch ,still I did not see any difference except the Tamorn color was a bit more saturated than that of the Cnaon EF_S17-55IS.
After using the DXO tool , I saw some differences but they are hard to detect by naked eyes.
That said , Ilove both and Iuse both differently.
I use my Canon 17-55IS for low light and in door portrait (own a stupid studio for portrait ) and architectural stuff .
I use my Tamorn for day light landscapes and travel photography or hiking since its got better close-up focusing stuff.
If some one say the Cnaon is much better than this Tmaorn , he is lying or brain-washed by photozone.de .
I do not say it just after testing a couple of the Canon and a couple of the Tmaorn , but I tested 7 copies of both lenses ........
And both are excellent lenses.
Finally here are pros and cons of both lenses.
The Canon EF-S17-55f2.8 IS:
pros: super fast AF, esp on the 40D, the IS, the lesser barrel distortion at 17mm(it is important when you shoot buildings or stock photos like I do) , wide open sharpness(important for a portrait photographer), lesser CA issue to deal with than with the Tamorn.
cons : weight , size , a bit more prone to flares,more vignetting than the Tamorn wide open.
The Tamorn SP-AF17-50f2.8
pros: vibrant color (great for landscapes), really sharp optics, more resistant to flares(good for out door shootings) , less vignetting,better close-up focusing(good for flowers , semi-macros), weight and size, its 17mm is noticeably wider than that of the Canon17-55IS, although the 17-85 IS is even wider..
cons: more serious CA issue to deal with than with the Canon, more pronounced barrel distortion than the Canon, no IS , no USM although I do not see any problem with its AF (it is fast at least mine is).
If you get this excellent Tmaorn , just think you 've got the best not the second best since you can not say which is really better.
Seriously , it is a great lens , hope Tamorn makes a similar quality UWA to this one ..............
I decided to keep all my 3 17-xx lenses: the EF-S17-55IS , the 17-85IS and the Tamorn 17-50.
All are excellent and have different uses.
Hope this helps.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedMuch better build than that of the EF-S17-55IS, Super fast AF , color and contrastNone.
I ditched the highly over rated EF-S , and got this lens, I could be happier.reviewed August 12th, 2007 (purchased for $720)
The 17-40L has much better build , much better focus accuracy than the EF-S.
Some times, F4 is not fast enough but I have many primes to cover that, also if the f4 is not fast enough, the f2.8 of the EF-S is not much better either.
I believe this lens is optically much better than the EF-S17-55IS , which has produced a lot of dull pictures with less contrast .
Also , it is built to last , less vignetting , less ghosting than the EF-S ,dust-collector.
I highly recommend it , this has 1 super UD and 3 aspherical elements , while the EF-S got 2 UD and 3 aspherical elements , these 2 UD are inferior to the Super UD in this one.
So many claim that the EF-S is optically an L is wrong, all Canon's true L has the super UD not UDs.
8 out of 10 points and not recommendedsharp , cheap, good image qualityslow AF , less effective IS comapred to the one on my DO and EF70-200f4LIS
The IQ is one of the best among non-L lenses , though I prefer my DO since it produces more smooth color rendering .reviewed September 11th, 2007 (purchased for $560)
Too many people are just obsessed with 100percent crop sharpness that I call the tripod or lab sharpness not realife sharpness.
I think the DO is a much better lens , faster , better build , better IS and much mcuh more reliable AF with full time manual.
So I returned it and got the DO and EF70-200f4L IS , well both of them are much more expensive than this lens , but they are worth the money at least I think so.
5 out of 10 points and not recommendedgood center sharpness, good close-up peformance.horrible urine color , slow Af, very bad build ,deplorable edge sharpness.
it is cheap in Thailand now, much cheaper than the Tmaorn and much less popular than the Tamorn.reviewed August 15th, 2007 (purchased for $340)
Well, I have the reasons why :
1 it is so slow lens , I am talking about its AF.
2 horrible edge and corner performance.
3 prone to flare.
4 horrible Sigma color cast.
I hoped this can be my back-up lens for an event work , though I had to ditch it in a couple of days of free trial period.
So I lost nothing , but now knowing that I will never touch any Sigma lens, period.
I think this lens is mechanically horrible , the zoom ring is very stiff and hard to turn.
The focus ring is so so hard to turn.
The build is so bad , just using it for a couple of days changes its body color , the nasty distinctive touch of Sigma paint is almost gone by just playing around with it for an hour.
I am sure the Canon EF-S17-55IS is a hundred times better lens than this, even after I dropped it on a hard ground , was fine , no damage , no scratch on it .
You get what you pay for , indeed.
If you are willing to pay to get the best , go for the Canon , if you need a bargain model , go for the optically excellent Tmaorn, though you will lose mechanical features of the amazing Canon lens; the IS, the USM , the FTM , the durable body.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedvery compact, very well built , very fast AF, very effective IS , excellent rangea bit prone to flare.
a very unique and cool lens, love it very much replaced my moronic white lens that is too bold to get too much staring .reviewed August 16th, 2007 (purchased for $1,200)
I think this lens can capture real smiles of peole very naturally since it is very inconspicuous.
it is very important to capture the real and natural facial expression exotic people , I was missing that because the white lens scares people a way .
no matter how sharp the Ef70-200f4L IS is , it is too short and too obtrusive , I need this DO.
I was 2 times arrested in burma because of the stupid white lens.
UPDATE: this lens is the fastest AF-ing lens for sure , much faster than all my lenses , even faster than the EF-85 f1.8.
Also, its IS is SUPER effective , much more powerful than the IS on my 17-55IS.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedsharpest lens ever seen , fast focus speed (when working in infinity)excellent colornot a as good macro as the 100(I use it as a normal portrait and candid photography lens)
As a candid photography lens , maybe this is a great lens , though as a macro , it is too short.reviewed August 16th, 2007 (purchased for $300)
However , I am not interested in bugs or tiny creatures , so for my kind of macro works (product, flower) , it is a fine macro.
It is so sharp , blow my 17-55IS and 50 F1.4 out of water.
I rarely use it for portrait work now as it is too sharp for people shots.
Highly recommended , easy to hand-hold and prickly sharp as review here says.
7 out of 10 points and recommendedcheap,the VR works as well as my Canon IS, excellent value , SWMNothing as considering the price .
I bought my D40X for traveling to China as I broke my Canon EOS XTI and had to send it in for repair service.reviewed August 21st, 2007 (purchased for $200)
I thought buying one more 400D but I got a great deal with this D40X kit with 2 lenses(18-55 and 55-200VR) for about 700 US, I bought it and gave it a try.
I think this Nikon cheap zoom is nice ,with decent IQ but poorly constructed and my lens worn out , the plastic mount torn now.
The VR does not work or much less effective than the IS on my Canon lenses.
It is slow to focus , nothing like my super fast Canon EOS 40D and EF-70-300DOIS combo, so I sold all my Nikon silly stuff as my XTI came back from Canon.
But I know it is silly comparing this cheapo with the Ef70-200f4L IS.
But only tele zooms I have used are LS and my DO............so I have to compare this lens against my Ls and DO.
The color is good very cool , a bit too cold for my taste , though.
The contrast is not like my Ls but ok.
I was shocked at how sharp it is considering the price , it is amazing but can not AF so I say its potential Lab IQ is good but in real life IQ bad.
I sold it with the D40X most silly SLR camara ever made and 70-300VR to fund for my new 40D.
The 40D is great , now all my lenses focus much faster.
8 out of 10 points and not recommendedFast AF, IF design, BQ , color and corner sharpness.lots of CA compared to my Canon EF70-200F4L IS.
Better than any thing else in this category in this price range , but if you compare it against the Canon EF70-200F4L IS or Nikon AF-S VR 70-200F2.8, it is not as sharp .reviewed September 3rd, 2007 (purchased for $500)
But , hey it costs only 500US and there is nothing else like it , the Canon EF70-300IS has annoying rotating filter thread and quite slow focusing motor sold at around 600US, so you can see how great this Nikon is.
Update: I sold it initially excited though, it is not as good as I thought.
I think the VR is not as effective as Canon IS.
I will only buy Canon gear , no more trying out any other brand , Nikon , on paper , is truly amaizng but in real life use Canon is better , BTW, I think Nikon manu system sucks and the D40X is a real silly camera what a shocking surprise is it?
I thought Nikon is a serious camera brand but it crippled the D40X , as to make it as cheap as it is to lure those naive consumers who do not even know the Camera can not AF with most of Nikkor primes.
Rebels at least AF with all great Canon primes and when will it be that Nikon finally decide to put USM on all its primes?
The VR 2 is not as effective as Nikon says .
4 out of 10 points and not recommendedthe excellent build , excellent color .the slower AF than the EF85 f1.8 , over priced.
I got it from my dad and I tried it on and test with my new 40D.reviewed September 3rd, 2007
This is a good lens but not excellent as you might expect from its price.
this lens is so slow , always miss a shot , I think the cheap EF85 f1.8 is a tad sharper than this over priced lens.
I do not like the lens at all , if I bought it myself , I would sell it to get something elese but I did not buy it myself and so I would not have that kind of freedom with it , so this lens's got be lucky still in my room collecting dust.
Dont waste your money on this kind of lens , you can do all things this heavy, bulky lens can do with the cheap EF85F1.8.
I think the EF85 and EF135L are both much better lenses than this heavy weight lens.
9 out of 10 points and recommendedsharpest lens in the world , AF ok when not using in macro rangebuild is not as good as that of the EF-S60 , it extends itself while focusing
As for serious macro work , it is unbeatable but I prefer the EF-S60 since I mostly use them for street photography , I need super fast AF of the Canon.......reviewed September 15th, 2007 (purchased for $400)
But, as I said ,for most of others , it is the best macro lens , sharper than all others , I was shcoked to see this lens actually was sharper than my EF-S60 ,EF100 macro , Sigma 150 EX and Tamorn 90 ............you have to know those are all super sharp lenses and non of them are bad choice at all , though this Sigma 70 is a scary , really painfully sharp , insanely sharp .........
With that said, if I had to choose one lens over all other macros I have had , I'd choose the EF-S60 ; it is a great lens , very sharp (a bit sharper than my 100 macro and 150 EX) , it produces perfect color , it has no distortion and focuses super fast , especially when I use it as a walk around lens on my XTI , I put my 17-55IS on my 40D and the 60 on my XTI .............
But we are lucky that we do not have to choose one lens over all others , we can have all , so I use this Sigma along with my EF-S60 and Tamorn 90 macro , I think I will sell the 100 macro and Sigma 150 , since I do not really like them , the Sigma is too long for me and the Canon 100 is not as sharp as my 60 and this 70 , and I prefer the Tamorn 90 as for portrait because of the beautiful Tmaorn bokeh.
Any way , this Sigma is , in my humble opinion , one of the best Sigma lenses you can buy now.
If this lens had had the USM AF , would have been an almost perfect lens , I dont know why Sigma missed it .
10 out of 10 points and recommendedVEry sharp as Dave says , fantastic coverage , amaizng color like my Ls.build quality is not as good as my AF-S12-24, the plastic mount.
Well , I bought it with a D40X for travel light , I sold my old D40 because of its primitive AF.reviewed September 18th, 2007 (purchased for $290)
But after a few weeks spending time without D40, I missed it so much and I bought a D40X again with this 18-135 .............as Dave says , it is sharp throughout focal range , though as he says , it also vignettes a lot.
But I think for my needs,the positive characteristics of the lens, the exceptional sharpness and its weight outweigh the those negative characteristics of this lens such as BQ , vignetting and distorion that are easily corrected in PP.
I just wished it had had the metal mount , I am afraid to swap lenses over and over now because of the plastic mount of this lens .
But the camera is my travel light kit so I seldom change lenses , and most of time, this lens stays on it.
I am thinking of getting another D40X and put the 12 -24 permanently ...............and carry two bodies with 2 lenses to cover all focal range I need.
I do this with my Canon sytem : my XTI with the 10-22 , my 40D with my 17-55IS and my another XTI with EF-S60 or 100 macro.
I have a XT also and I put my EF70-300DO on it and never ever borther changing it , so no dust or anything getting in my camera body and my lenses are all clean.
So I never swap lenses over.
I highly recommend getting 2 or 3 bodies, with 3 lenses , for a Nikon , I recommend a D40X with 18-135 or 18-200VR depends on your needs, a D40 with 12-24 AF-S or 70-300VR depends on your needs.
For a Canon , I definitely recommend a 40D with the 17-55IS and an XTI with 10-22 set up.
If you can get another body with another lens , then get a 60 macro for a Canon , 105VR for a Nikon.
I have all of them and I love my 105VR and EF-S60.
My AF-S105VR is always on my D80.
Finally, if you decide to buy it , buy as a kit with a D40X , you will save lots , I got it as a part of my D40X kit and saved about 120 US ......
10 out of 10 points and recommendedgreat IQ, the resolution , the AF , the color all fine.the white colored body.
As a lens, it is almost as perfect as it gets, though I can not be inconspicuous with this one , get too much attention , and when I point it at any person , he or she stops smiling or gets nervous ...........reviewed September 20th, 2007 (purchased for $1,100)
So as I am a travel photographer for a mag , I now , use the 70-300DO instead and now , nobody gets scared of me shooting them and I can get natural real smile of people.
It does not matter how sharp it is if no body smiles at it .
That said , if I am shooting an animal or landscape (which I do not like to shoot ,boring to me),it is the best lens to go out with.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedexcellent resolution figures and excellent contrst details, excellent color renditiona bit severe distortion compared to my Canon eF-S10-22.
At the new BKK airport , I was not careful enough , guess , and one of 2 my camera bags was stolen , I lost my most used lens the 10-22 Canon.reviewed September 28th, 2007 (purchased for $450)
I tried to replace it with the same lens but as my in Bangkok did not have it at the time , I treid the Sigma as he suggested since it was 270 US cheaper than the Canon.
I was shocked the Sigma is sharp , nice, a little lens.
The Distortion is as Ken Rockwell says a bit complicated and tough to correct even with the DXO or PT lens, but I seldom shoot indoor or stock stuff so , it is ok for my needs.
The 10-22 Canon is a bit better lens over all for sure , better color rendition , better CA control , better distortion figure and better size , oh most importantly the Canon is very resistant to flare , but the Sigma is good enough.........
As for pure resolution , I think the Sigma is sharper through all focal range , I also have had the Nikon 12-24 on my Nikon D40x (my travel light camera), the Sigma beats the both Nikon and Canon in resolution test .
So if you are looking for a sharp HSM UWA lens , then it is a good choice as long as you do not shoot in door or architectural stuff , buildings or like that.
I highly recommend it but I will buy the 10-22 again because of its lesser distortion at 10mm and its flare performance.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedlight , compact, excellent color and contrast , very good resolutionCA,no USM.
As I got stolen my EF-S10-22, I am testing all UWA lenses for my 40D .reviewed September 28th, 2007 (purchased for $650)
This one was tested this moring and I tested many things in a little city area of Bangkok.
The resolution is great , its peak is at about 13mm f8.
The lens is a bit sharper than my Sigma 12-24 , but a bit less sharp than the Sigma 10-20 at center , though at borders and edges the Tamorn beats these 2 Sigmas.
The Tmaorn 's biggest con is the CA and a bit more complicated shape of barrel distortion than that of my Canon EF-S10-22.
Also , it is more prone to flare than my Cnaon lens .
But it is so small and sharp with vibrant L-like color , I may keep it for a long time , for a short vacation.
I will buy the Cnaon 10-22 again but I may also keep this Tmaorn , I like this Tmaorn color and its resolution figures much better than that of the Sigma 10-20Ex , which I also tested.
I may but the Tokina ,but not sure if the 12mm end of the Tokina is wide enough for me.
It is expensive(in BKK, it is more expenisve than the Canon 10-22) , though I highly recommend it .