Good, bad or the underestimated lens?

[voytek]

Tamron SP Adaptall2 3.5/17 model 51B.
I really don't know how to rated this lens. I have Flektogons 2.4/35 and 4.0/20. I don't think that Tamron is much worse then Flektogons. All photos below were taken with Tamron @3.5
What do you think?
#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

[F16SUNSHINE]

The last one is unreal. I love it!
I can not comment on the lens based on these.
It looks like an average 3rd party UW.

[Laurence]

I think that the "better" lenses are so close that it makes minimal difference, especially when looking at these fine images "alone" without a direct comparison.

The skill of the photographer seems to me to be a bigger "cause" of good imagery, rather than sharpness, color, bokeh, accutance, microcontrast, etc. In this case, the images are VERY interesting on their own composition, so I naturally give the Tamron a "good grade".

I frankly love your consistency of skill and the interesting threads you put out, Voytek. Your "eye" for some of the previous semi-macro shots of faucets, decorations, etc. in the home interior, is a special element that you possess.

I think that that skill brings a LOT of lenses closer together in overall feel.

[Orio]

The lens seems (for what is possible to read at this enlargement level) to deliver very good detail, as in the Tamron tradition.

However, I see quite noticeable barrel distortion in the pictures. Some people do not mind about it. I personally value geometrical rendering more important than detail in superwide lenses. Therefore, I personally prefer the Fleks.

[Puplet]

I see the barrel distortion too. Nice pictures though.