Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Xr Di

[Canon_For_Life]

I just got this lense today, an I love it already!! :D

I'm puting it to the real test tonight, going to the Anaheim Ducks hockey game :D

[danieltr]

I get the lenses 2 days ago and here is one shot.

Daniel

[Tubthumper]

Nice. Does anyone know how the macro variant compares with respect to sharpness? I know this lense enjoys a good reputation for it, and am hoping to get one soon, but have seen a couple of macros on a reputable website at a very reasonable price second-hand.

[rxjohn]

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/1716/img6207jh9.jpg

[rxjohn]

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/3316/img6171cv4.jpg

[Canon_For_Life]

Does anybody know the "sweet" spots for this lense? (focal length and F stop)

[ALaS]

28mm f/3.2-3.5

[lovecolt]

Got mine yestersday. Here's my first test pic. Its just awesome :)

http://rcolt.com/pictures/random/Schweppes.jpg

[Jac]

Any sample photo 1dmark3 with tamron 28-75mm f2.8??

[bad karma]

bump, any recent pics?

[Canon_For_Life]

#1
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2075/2242606429_f3136f8157_o.jpg
#2
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2089/2242606187_d237ca1e87_o.jpg
#3
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2184/2243397668_85d02747f5_o.jpg

[David S]

Nice shots! IQ wise, this lens has always impressed me from the pics I have seen.

[bad karma]

#1

Were those manual focus? Those look great!

[Canon_For_Life]

Thanks guys :)
No, they were all on Auto Focus, the EXIF is intact, but i'll tell you the basics:
XTi
ISO 400
shutter speed was i believe 400 (thats what i shoot at most, i dk why :lol:)
auto focus
all at 75mm
F stops were: #1 3.5 #2 3.5 and #3 4.0

[bad karma]

Thanks guys :)
No, they were all on Auto Focus, the EXIF is intact, but i'll tell you the basics:
XTi
ISO 400
shutter speed was i believe 400 (thats what i shoot at most, i dk why :lol:)
auto focus
all at 75mm
F stops were: #1 3.5 #2 3.5 and #3 4.0
That is really impressive, so are the colors! Wow.

lol, I just noticed the bird in your latest flickr, what is that? It looked like God didn't know what to do so he took a bunch of leftover from other birds and stuck it together hehe!

[Canon_For_Life]

the ones with the orange head? thos are called "Cock Of The Rock" (sounds like he took left over words an put them together too :lol:

[bad karma]

the ones with the orange head? thos are called "Cock Of The Rock" (sounds like he took left over words an put them together too :lol:
Haha, that made me laugh! Oh my, I believe this is now my favorite bird of all time, I am just afraid to google it to get more images! Though if you have any more please post them :)

[Canon_For_Life]

Well, Those were actually taken with my Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro lense with my XTi...so I dont think this is the place to post them ;)
but you can go into my profile, go to "view all threads started by this user" (or somthing worded along those lines) and it should be my most recent thread, I only got a 2 good shots (the 2 in my Flickr) I got a couple that werent so good, but still showed the color an stuff.

[bad karma]

Thanks Mike :)


Hey guys, I have a serious question for all 28-85 users. Do you have guys have any dust behind the front piece of glass? Look carefully under light. Right in the lens itself? How does it get there and how can it be removed? It's an annoyance! And I just got it, is there any way to prevent this from happening? Some type of cover? I don't see where it would enter from!

[bad karma]

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs25/f/2008/039/9/8/Flow_of_Water_2_by_xxndnromeoxx.jpg

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs26/f/2008/039/f/9/Flow_of_Water_by_xxndnromeoxx.jpg

http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs25/f/2008/039/4/3/Flow_of_Water_3_by_xxndnromeoxx.jpg

[Canon_For_Life]

umm...HoosierJoe, i noticed quite a bit of noise so i looked at your EXIF data, an the second shot is with your finepix camera, and the first one is at 50mm with an F stop of 2....so im guessing that was taken with your 50 1.8

so unless the EXIF is wrong, neither of those belong here :lol: ;)

[bad karma]

This Tamron makes me feel like I upgraded to a better body. <3

[HoosierJoe]

umm...HoosierJoe, i noticed quite a bit of noise so i looked at your EXIF data, an the second shot is with your finepix camera, and the first one is at 50mm with an F stop of 2....so im guessing that was taken with your 50 1.8

so unless the EXIF is wrong, neither of those belong here :lol: ;)Ah, my mistake. I am probably the least tech type person on this board. Quite dumb of me had them in the wrong file. I'll remove them. Thanks.

[i7137]

Well, just got it, and i did some tests against the 17-55 2.8 is. The results are shocking...Both were shot at 50mm 5.6 125 sec, with mirror lock up, tripod. The first image is the 17-55, the second is the 28-75. This was center point auto focus and they are untouched except for auto levels. I did not do a corner sharpness test yet but that will come soon. The results are like this across the whole f-stop range, and focal length. I'm no pro so don't take my test as definitive results, but i tried to the best of my ability. Enjoy, i know i am!

[SoundsGood]

Like I said before, I returned the 17-55 and kept my Tameon 28-75. :)

[ALaS]

wow. I sold my tamron to get my 17-55. Never looked back. But I did have a sentimental loss. That 28-75 was the definition of bang for buck!

[kevindar]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2051/2250211484_05e33d4230_b.jpg

[ALaS]

awesome shot.

[HoosierJoe]

OK, this time I will post acurrately. This is one of the first shots I took with the lens after getting it back from repair.

[Charles Richards]

Here's a couple of other shots from this lens that I Really liked:

http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/55174-6/IMG_2894.jpg

http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/55136-4/IMG_2752.jpg

[Cassie]

Morton's Aboretum 2006. I'm getting error messages when trying load an image, so I'm pasting a link instead :rolleyes:

http://thompson-photo.smugmug.com/photos/104922899_Rujy2-M.jpg

[Katzer1]

I am speechless

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2051/2250211484_05e33d4230_b.jpg

[kevindar]

thanks katzer. Its easy to be inspired once one becomes a father. Of course, my wife does not like the picture at all.

[Max F]

If she's like my wife, she probably said "OMG, my nails look awful!"

[kevindar]

If she's like my wife, she probably said "OMG, my nails look awful!"
That is exactly the first thing she said.
Next statement was it is too creepy with just the head showing. I can see her point there.

[benee]

A couple of my favorites from a recent wedding workshop class. This lens is my sharpest and gives the best color/contrast. Its the best bang for the buck I have (and that includes the nift fifty)http://www.flickr.com/photos/10910661@N02/2294436889/

[bry3]

Here's some I took over the weekend. So far so good!

http://images31.fotki.com/v1097/photos/1/1297850/5947078/IMG_1457-vi.jpg

http://images35.fotki.com/v1129/photos/1/1297850/5947078/IMG_1511-vi.jpg

http://images31.fotki.com/v1095/photos/1/1297850/5947078/IMG_1629-vi.jpg

[bad karma]

Wow I love the last one, beautiful!

[bad karma]

The sweet spot on this lens is definitely somewhere between f/6-7, pictures turn out super sharp at that range! Wide open it's very soft, but never the less, the colors are so vibrant on here, I love it.

[ashmc84@mac.com]

Is Sigma4less.com a good site to buy lens for less then?

[HoosierJoe]

The sweet spot on this lens is definitely somewhere between f/6-7, pictures turn out super sharp at that range! Wide open it's very soft, but never the less, the colors are so vibrant on here, I love it.
Sounds like you may need some adjusting. I thought the same thing about my copy until I had it serviced. It's sharp wide open now.

[bad karma]

Sounds like you may need some adjusting. I thought the same thing about my copy until I had it serviced. It's sharp wide open now.
I was wondering if you could upload a 100% of one of your shots at 2.8, I really want to compare

[underexposed]

love this lens. i'm debating if i should get the 24-70 2.8L instead, but this lens does the job just as well.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2378/2300884170_eb2c3ef0f1.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/2299834860_ebbc72255e.jpg

[SoundsGood]

Is Sigma4less.com a good site to buy lens for less then?
I'd like to know this too...

[Ash84]

Ordered mine from amazon. Should be here tomorrow! Pics coming depending on indoor lighting, and or weather :) Indiana weather...52 degrees yesterday high of 30 degrees today with snow and sleet/ice :(

[HoosierJoe]

Ordered mine from amazon. Should be here tomorrow! Pics coming depending on indoor lighting, and or weather :) Indiana weather...52 degrees yesterday high of 30 degrees today with snow and sleet/ice :(
Tell me about it!

[HoosierJoe]

Another one.

[mnez17]

Here are a couple of test shots with mine

[Welby]

Just ordered mine, thanks to this thread. Now the waiting begins :sad:

[bad karma]

Just ordered mine, thanks to this thread. Now the waiting begins :sad:
Best decision you'll ever make. Well actually I want to exchange it for a 17-50 2.8 but this one is great too, the color reproduction is unreal!

[RRitch]

Best decision you'll ever make. Well actually I want to exchange it for a 17-50 2.8 but this one is great too, the color reproduction is unreal!

Why exchange it? Do like I did, I have both :D

[bad karma]

Why exchange it? Do like I did, I have both :D
Haha no money! :( Or else I totally would, and use it as my wide angle as well :) Or just save up for a dedicate wide angle and a zoom

[Welby]

Got mine yesterday and so far very impressed with it. This one was shot wide open then a bit off pp in CS3.

http://www.users.on.net/~onexi/IMG_5609.jpg

This is a 100% crop at 3.5 with no pp.

http://www.users.on.net/~onexi/IMG_5618.jpg

[grig]

Bad A$$ (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6140982)

[egordon99]

Can I share a shot from my Pentax K10D? I LOVED the Tamron on my Pentax, and will probably buy one for Canon.

75mm, f/4.5, ISO200.
http://evangordonphotography.com/sharp/IMGP0654.jpg

[Azzure_7]

Just joined the club.
after debating w/ siggy 24-70 and ef 24-70.. .

28-75 seems a real winner to me at the moment...

glass expected to be coming nx week. . .
will report back. . .

[Jorgie]

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b70/porgers/1stRocky3.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b70/porgers/1stRocky1.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b70/porgers/4.jpg

All shot wide open with no pp. Straight from the camera. It's a great lens. EVEN wide open it takes some pretty sharp pics. Stopped down a bit and its real sharp.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b70/porgers/1-2.jpg

thats at 3.2 and 800 iso. zero pp again.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b70/porgers/Bandit2.jpg

This was taken at 5.0, pretty sharp if you ask me. again no pp done, just a crop.

[CAReefer]

My paultry offerings. New camera, new lens, no skills. But I'm taking pics and learning with each session. Having fun is what matters... right?

Wildflower in front yard (just before I mowed)
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x255/CAReefer/Photo%20Stuff/Lupine2.jpg
100% crop of same
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x255/CAReefer/Photo%20Stuff/Lupine.jpg

Neighbors "Babies"
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x255/CAReefer/Photo%20Stuff/JoeBoxer2.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x255/CAReefer/Photo%20Stuff/Zeke.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x255/CAReefer/Photo%20Stuff/JoeNZeke.jpg

And one from the 2008 March Meets at Famoso CA
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x255/CAReefer/Photo%20Stuff/Car-Show.jpg

100% crop for the pixel peeper in all of us.
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x255/CAReefer/Photo%20Stuff/Car-Show100.jpg

I really like this combo, although I really don't have much to compare it to. Beats the he11 out of the D70 I sold to get into the Canon set-up.

[Livinthalife]

A couple more samples from me. I still LOVE this lens, even after other purchases and rentals.

F8 No sharpening
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b386/atgrzymala/IMG_3670.jpg

F9 No Sharpening again
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b386/atgrzymala/IMG_3682.jpg

I think it's quite sharp wide open as well.

[gregjp48]

Just got mine.
I'm enjoying the colors of this lens, they're amazing!
My copy is a bit soft at f/2.8, but stopped down even 1/3 of a stop, and it's tack sharp.

here's some of my first shots with it, no pp:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2080/2362184501_c2cda361ed.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregjp48/2362184501/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2102/2362194959_6e67ca0fe2.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregjp48/2362194959/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2333/2363021904_99e3a95afe.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregjp48/2363021904/)

[Jorgie]

They're all a bit soft at 2.8. But they get mighty sharp stopped down!

[Presley_j]

Here are a few I really like this lens

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u168/sheandg/IMG_5119-1.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u168/sheandg/IMG_5126.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u168/sheandg/IMG_5134-1.jpg

[bad karma]

I love my tamron

[HoosierJoe]

Can't help but post another. I was setting up for a close up detail of one of the flowers and the cat wouldn't leave me alone.

Does anyone know what I can do about the dredded red box with the X. I can't view half the pictures on this board any more. Started happening about a week ago.

[Charles Richards]

^^ cool photo!

Here's a couple muay thai kickboxing photos I took with the tamron 28-75

http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/61232-2/IMG_3711.jpg

http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/61271-2/IMG_3933.jpg

[Ash84]

Posted in people section but oh well, Shot with the tamron 28-75
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/2373600087_84dd1178c8_b.jpg

[Cicarius]

That is such a good shot.

I just ordered the lens. Will post some pics when i get it.

Thanks everyone for helping me empty my wallet :)

[vaswoman]

No post processing. Just wanted to throw one up here! BTW, this is at 2.8 .


http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k218/vaswoman/IMG_7623.jpghttp://http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k218/vaswoman/IMG_7623.jpg

[Katzer1]

FANTASTIC Capture, simply superb, well done!

Posted in people section but oh well, Shot with the tamron 28-75
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/2373600087_84dd1178c8_b.jpg

[Katzer1]

I am using the tamron more and more with an extension tube and if the light is there, it is quite a capable lens.

http://www.pbase.com/katzer/image/95317367/large.jpg
click here for full size,
http://www.pbase.com/katzer/image/95317367/original
very sharp, picture is jpeg straight out of the camera with standard settings.

[Mark1]

I just got home with the 28-75!

[Maxed Out]

It's really a great lens......It can be a little soft at 2.8 sometimes though, but its not a big problem for me:

All Handheld
http://maxed-out.smugmug.com/photos/283567861_7NmdF-M.jpg

http://maxed-out.smugmug.com/photos/283576548_2MhcR-M.jpg

http://maxed-out.smugmug.com/photos/213124312_cCCoV-M.jpg

http://maxed-out.smugmug.com/photos/213126164_ru2BT-M.jpg

http://maxed-out.smugmug.com/photos/283664803_42PGE-M.jpg

http://maxed-out.smugmug.com/photos/283672876_ynbSV-M.jpg

http://maxed-out.smugmug.com/photos/284958429_hSHn9-M.jpg

[rxjohn]

My 8 year old daughter.

[Mark1]

Great series rxjohn! the light seems a bit to flat to me. But I think they are perfect otherwise!

[WhoisDAN]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2119/2469824385_0185df2b59.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3003/2470647142_4731d68e0f.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2181/2470663996_52d418f8e1.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/2470647230_ecd61d5221.jpg

[Charles Richards]

I was really suprised that this lens really didn't show alot of problems or flare when shooting directly at the sun haha

http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/61577-2/IMG_5973.jpg

And here's a B&W portrait taken with the lens at a kickboxing event:
http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/61346-4/IMG_5956.jpg

[camaronut502]

I got this lens back for christmas, just now getting aroudn to using it.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c34/camaronut502/barbers.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c34/camaronut502/viper-7.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c34/camaronut502/viper.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c34/camaronut502/Cruise%20In/impala-2.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c34/camaronut502/Cruise%20In/silver.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c34/camaronut502/relay%204%20life/CATHY_filtered.jpg

[Ogreenlee]

got mine yesterday.. pretty happy with the results so far.

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x274/olivegreenlee/1058a.jpg

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x274/olivegreenlee/1076a-1.jpg

[HoosierJoe]

Ogreenlee, the Tam beats that kit lens all to heck doesn't it? I like your pictures keep them coming.





My addition: the wife likes it. Shot in jpeg using P and AWB, ISO 400, 1/200, f4.0, EC +1/3, at 75mm, icreased contrast and saturation with Canon Digital Professional.

[HoosierJoe]

ISO 400, 1/125, f4.5, EC +1/3, contrast and saturation in pp, shot in JPG.

[Cicarius]

The amazing shot in this post helped me decide to buy this lens and I'm really glad I did.

Here are a couple i have taken.

1. BlueBottle Jellyfish
http://martwils.smugmug.com/photos/298388151_HE9Wg-XL.jpg

2. Beach Long exposure
http://martwils.smugmug.com/photos/298387793_NDWhJ-XL.jpg

3. Shipwreck at sunrise
http://martwils.smugmug.com/photos/293849695_qyWgn-XL.jpg

4. An egg (I think)
http://martwils.smugmug.com/photos/298388011_8GoFi-XL.jpg

There a few others here (all taken with 28-75) (http://martwils.smugmug.com/keyword/tamron2875)


Anyone thinking about getting this lens, get IT. Personally I love it. My new everyday lens.

Marty

[Charles Richards]

The amazing shot in this post helped me decide to buy this lens and I'm really glad I did.

Here are a couple i have taken.

1. BlueBottle Jellyfish


2. Beach Long exposure


3. Shipwreck at sunrise


4. An egg (I think)


There a few others here (all taken with 28-75) (http://martwils.smugmug.com/keyword/tamron2875)


Anyone thinking about getting this lens, get IT. Personally I love it. My new everyday lens.

Marty

GREAT shots!:D

[Mark1]

One of mine. Still trying to learn this lens. Seems kinda particular to me.
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/6356/1113rc2.jpg

[Gerry Dawes]

My first attempts and uploading and posting, here's one from Barcelona.

[Charles Richards]

This lens always suprises me and is sharp as a tack at f/4 (which I usually use for auto photos like these!)

Here's a few photos of my car after some detailing and work

http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/88274-3/IMG_6550.jpg

http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/88226-7/IMG_6495.jpg

http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/88223-7/IMG_6494.jpg

[ceegee]

I got this lens a couple of weeks ago and am very happy with it. Here are some recent shots:

[bad karma]

http://modelmayhm-6.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/080531/00/4840d67621b97.jpg

Wow! Under 40mm and this lens is so sharp, it took me 3 months to realize this lol.
I always used to use the long end, but never again, 28-40 it is :D, it makes a HUGE difference in sharpness! I also find that f/4 is amazing, and f/6.3 (I think it is) it the sweet spot, it's ungodly sharp when you pixel peep!

Forget the L lens, I don't need it anymore =P

[marc515]

There are some really nice close up shots in the thread from the Tamron 28-75MM F/2.8.

How I can't get close-up's like these from come my old plastic mount Canon 28-80; If I try to get close-up's like these, the main object comes out with a blur if I get too close. I also find it impossible to take a picture and intentionally blur out the background. I know it's me, but can't I pin some of this on the lens? (LOL)

Please note: I started a new thread on this.

[jdlloyd67]

Ok, i've been reading & re-reading this thread for days now beacuase I was to excited waiting for my new Tammy 28-75 to get here. It arrived yesterday and I just had to try it out. Although the weather outside was your typical FL afternoon/evening thunderstorms I did manage to get in a little camera time. My neighbor had just gotten a new RC airplane and was trying it out. Perfect chance for me to put the new lens to work. Here's some shots...cropped with minor post-processing.

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/images/misc/rc_airplane1_lg.jpg

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/images/misc/rc_airplane2_lg.jpg

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/images/misc/rc_airplane3_lg.jpg

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/blog_images/rc_airplane4_lg.jpg

So far....I'm lovin' it!!! :D

[jdlloyd67]

Ok...here are two more sample shots taken with my new Tammy 28-75...

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/images/family-n-friends/Folly1.jpg

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/images/family-n-friends/Folly2.jpg

This lens is sharp, sharp, sharp! I'm loving it more and more every time I attach it to my camera.

[KingoftheHill]

How does this stack up to an 17-40L, IQ wise?

[ceegee]

Taken at the pool. I really love the colour rendition of this lens.

[Charles Richards]

I'm not sure if I posted this in here already ... this lens also seems pretty resistant to flare...

This is a heavy crop of a pot-shot pointed right at the sun.

http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/61577-7/IMG_5973.jpg

[bohdank]

I haven't seen many shots at 2.8. This is the reason I am interested in this lens, If it can't do 2.8 with any decent IQ, I'll look elsewhere.

[Charles Richards]

Mine's sharp at f/2.8 ... it's even sharper at f/4

f/2.8 examples:

focus point was set right between the two headlight lenses.
http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/52064-31/IMG_0677.jpg

focus point was the "e" in the graffiti.
http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/52076-27/IMG_0055_2.jpg

focus was on the dogs nose. Used center AF point only and tracked the dog running down my yard.
http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/52746-8/IMG_1153.JPG

[Mark1]

Here is a few more...
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/7175/kirs2mq2.jpg

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3927/54063460qy1.jpg

[Canon_For_Life]

Im still absolutly loving this lense :D

Not sure if I ever posted any of these in this thread, but I do know I posted them in one of my own threads, but these were some of my favorites :)

#1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2394222261_c358d7d760.jpg?v=0
#2
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2015/2390948565_536750b292.jpg?v=0
#3
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3110/2390946269_5035467932.jpg?v=0
#4
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2006/2390946941_512471997e.jpg?v=0

[vixeh]

Im still absolutly loving this lense :D

Not sure if I ever posted any of these in this thread, but I do know I posted them in one of my own threads, but these were some of my favorites :)

#3
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3110/2390946269_5035467932.jpg?v=0


What an amazing paint job!

[Canon_For_Life]

thanks,I like it to because it is so simple, but looks great.

BTW, I entered that photo in the Photography Competition in the Orange County Fair this year, and got a blue ribbon for it :D I couldnt believe it, my first photography competition and BOTH photos I entered won a blue ribbon! :D

Here is a link to the other photo I got a blue ribbon for (not posting the actuall picture because it wasnt taken with my Tamron lense)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2047/2210527053_8270788e6c.jpg?v=0

[underexposed]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3075/2589681594_5987e744ea_b.jpg

my most used lens =P

[jdlloyd67]

This lens just keeps on delivering... :)

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/images/misc/sunset_062508.jpg

Some PP...+15 on the main saturation.

[No786]

I'm quite satisfied with this lens:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3124/2553173859_273e25c81c.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3102/2553966914_f4cfdcd49c.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3077/2554276732_31cef5b2ba.jpg

[Livinthalife]

Great picture "underexposed"!

[aferr1973]

I love my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 I've had my lens for almost 5 years now! I just shot this one a few days a go with my 20D still on our vacation @ F/2.8. No post processing.


http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd232/aferr1973/IMG_3673.jpgt

[j2hdwd]

Hi All,

I'm interested with this lens as well after seeing all the pics! great pics!
Just wondering on anyone's thoughts on Canon 24-105L IQ and sharpness after comparing with this lens?
I can see that at f2.8 is a bit soft and it has no Image stabilizer, and although the canon 24-105L has IS it's still a slower lens on f4.
So, if some of you are saying that the tamron is very very sharp on f4, meaning that if most of you are taking pics on f4, I might as well get the canon because I get extra IS on it.
any thoughts?

[aferr1973]

Hi All,

I'm interested with this lens as well after seeing all the pics! great pics!
Just wondering on anyone's thoughts on Canon 24-105L IQ and sharpness after comparing with this lens?
I can see that at f2.8 is a bit soft and it has no Image stabilizer, and although the canon 24-105L has IS it's still a slower lens on f4.
So, if some of you are saying that the tamron is very very sharp on f4, meaning that if most of you are taking pics on f4, I might as well get the canon because I get extra IS on it.
any thoughts?

If you can swing the $1000+ for the Canon 24-105 F/4L then I would suggest you go for it. The Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 is a heck of a lens for mid $300. Depending on what you shoot you could always get a Tamron 28-75 and a Canon 85 F/1.8 and still have $400 left over. As far as being soft at 2.8 keep in mind my shot was not post processed at all. A little USM and those 2.8 shots will look very sharp ;)

[Canon_For_Life]

A little USM

hate to sound like a noob, but what is that?:lol::o

[j2hdwd]

If you can swing the $1000+ for the Canon 24-105 F/4L then I would suggest you go for it. The Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 is a heck of a lens for mid $300. Depending on what you shoot you could always get a Tamron 28-75 and a Canon 85 F/1.8 and still have $400 left over. As far as being soft at 2.8 keep in mind my shot was not post processed at all. A little USM and those 2.8 shots will look very sharp ;)

yeah true. thanks aferr!
I forgot to mention that I also have tamron 17-50mm. And I'm reading mixed messages that some people say awesome and some dont.
From my personal experience, it's not sharp and quite slow for my use.
I've set the fast iso and at least 1/200 shutter speed and still getting not sharp pics (not blurr, just not as sharp as I like'd it to be). and it's quite noisy too. Does anyone has any problem with the AF noise on the tammy 28-75mm?
by the way, I was also looking at 28-135mm canon, but at the end, i'm getting more bad wrap about it, I've pulled off from it...

The reason why I'm looking for these range is because I'm looking for a walkaround lens that hopefully has some sort of IS on it.
I also did borrow sigma 18-200 OS which I found it's not very sharp on anything above 150mm and it's also quite slow...so I've also pulled away from it.....

That topic aside, do you think canon 85 f1.8 is sharper than 24-105L? at 85mm on both I mean.
I mean at the end of the day, I think prime will always produce much better pics, but this is a comparison between L and nonL....


I'm very confused now...because I've sold my 75-300mm canon and thinking of selling 17-50mm tammy, so need a lens replacement fast!!!
Please help! cheers!

[aferr1973]

hate to sound like a noob, but what is that?:lol::o

USM = Unsharp Mask a technique used in photo editing software to add sharpness to a picture.

[aferr1973]

yeah true. thanks aferr!
I forgot to mention that I also have tamron 17-50mm. And I'm reading mixed messages that some people say awesome and some dont.
From my personal experience, it's not sharp and quite slow for my use.
I've set the fast iso and at least 1/200 shutter speed and still getting not sharp pics (not blurr, just not as sharp as I like'd it to be). and it's quite noisy too. Does anyone has any problem with the AF noise on the tammy 28-75mm?
by the way, I was also looking at 28-135mm canon, but at the end, i'm getting more bad wrap about it, I've pulled off from it...

The reason why I'm looking for these range is because I'm looking for a walkaround lens that hopefully has some sort of IS on it.
I also did borrow sigma 18-200 OS which I found it's not very sharp on anything above 150mm and it's also quite slow...so I've also pulled away from it.....

That topic aside, do you think canon 85 f1.8 is sharper than 24-105L? at 85mm on both I mean.
I mean at the end of the day, I think prime will always produce much better pics, but this is a comparison between L and nonL....


I'm very confused now...because I've sold my 75-300mm canon and thinking of selling 17-50mm tammy, so need a lens replacement fast!!!
Please help! cheers!

I can't speak for the Tammy 17-50 since I only own the Tammy 28-75. About 5 years ago I was thinking of buying the Canon 24-70 F/2.8L which was $1300. I couldn't bring myself to fork out all that money so I went with the Tammy 28-75. I have been very happy with the Tammy 28-75, but of course it is not a Canon L quality lens. I've heard mixed reviews about the Canon 24-105 F/4L regarding bad copies, but maybe that was when the lens first came out. As for the Canon 85 1.8 it is truly a gem for a non L lens and it produces amazing results for the cost. I would recommend the Tammy 28-75 and the Canon 85 1.8 to anyone, but if you can swing the $1000 check out the Canon 24-105 F/4L it probably is an amazing lens and has great range.

[Charles Richards]

Hi All,

...
I can see that at f2.8 is a bit soft and it has no Image stabilizer, and although the canon 24-105L has IS it's still a slower lens on f4.
So, if some of you are saying that the tamron is very very sharp on f4, meaning that if most of you are taking pics on f4, I might as well get the canon because I get extra IS on it.
any thoughts?


This lens is extremely sharp at f/4. I'd directly compare the sharpness to the 70-200 f/4 @ f/4. I do alot of automotive photography, so that's sort of a "Sweet spot" aperture for me, as I can usually get a whole car in focus that way, while keeping the BG slightly blurred.

As for the f/2.8 softness - yes, the lens is softer at f/2.8 than f/4. I think alot of people (not you particularly) confuse the shallow depth of field created by an aperture of 2.8 as "softness" .. while they are merely not focusing on the right area of an image, or they are not using the right AF points. I use only the center AF point most of the time, and for example, in a car photo, focused on the grille of the car, at f/2.8 ... the rear half of the car will be "soft" ... but that's due to the DOF of using a 2.8 aperture, not a fault of the lens.

As was already stated, if you use photoshop, do a slight unsharp mask on your photos at f/2.8, and they'll look tack sharp. If you use Lightroom, bump the sharpening up to say 45-50 (this is what *I* do, it may or may not be correct in any way :p)

Have a look back at some of my recent posts in this thread, I posted a number of f/2.8 shots that were not sharpened, just levelled out in Lightroom.

Now, on to your debate over the 24-105 vs the Tamron. I've got no idea :eek:
If you think you'll be doing photography where you will want a 2.8 aperture available (low light, certain portraiture, macro, etc) ... get the tamron. If you are going to take the lens out hiking and other misc. "Walk Around" stuff, the 24-105 IS is also a great choice. The dealbreaker for me was price, and I went with the Tamron to save some money.

I'm a big fan of IS, but at 100mm (or 75 on the Tamron), I'm not sure how badly you need it. How steady are your hands? Can you take a 1/30th shutter speed photo without shaking the camera? then you probably don't need IS. If you need 1/8000 shutter speed to eliminate your shaky hands ... then maybe you do want IS.

[No786]

Few more:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3246/2610725272_674338968b.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/2609884395_502baf08cf.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3157/2609674762_2a594518db.jpg?v=0

[Welby]

Just trying mine out on the new 40D so thought i'd pop a couple of samples up. Very good lens for the money.

100% crop unsharpened.
http://www.users.on.net/~onexi/crop100.jpg


resized and sharpened
http://www.users.on.net/~onexi/crop2.jpg

[j2hdwd]

Now, on to your debate over the 24-105 vs the Tamron. I've got no idea :eek:
If you think you'll be doing photography where you will want a 2.8 aperture available (low light, certain portraiture, macro, etc) ... get the tamron. If you are going to take the lens out hiking and other misc. "Walk Around" stuff, the 24-105 IS is also a great choice. The dealbreaker for me was price, and I went with the Tamron to save some money.

I'm a big fan of IS, but at 100mm (or 75 on the Tamron), I'm not sure how badly you need it. How steady are your hands? Can you take a 1/30th shutter speed photo without shaking the camera? then you probably don't need IS. If you need 1/8000 shutter speed to eliminate your shaky hands ... then maybe you do want IS.

Hi Charles, thanks for your reply/question.
I think I can do 1/30th shutter, but not any slower.... :P
But that also depends on how many pints I had b4 :lol:

Lenses that I have now are Tammy 17-50mm and Canon 10-22mm (which is a great great glass for landscape!)
I sold my 70-300mm canon and I'm thinking of selling my 17-50mm F2.8 as well. I'm not too happy with the sharpness and contrast..and I don't like doing a lot of tweaking on CS3 as much as well....

Anyhoo, I have been looking at a few lenses for a while for this so called "walk around" lens.
The contenders are:
1. Tammy 28-75mm
2. EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
3. EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

But if I also want 200mm range which I think produces nice BOKEH for potraits, hence I'm also looking at Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

At one time I was looking at EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM but it is too huge and heavy to carry around, and plus I heard and seen that 70-200mm version is better.

So here's my whinging....
Canon 24-70mm is a great lens, but no IS and range is not long enough
24-105mm is a great lens, but F4 instead and range is also not long enough
70-200mm F4 is a great lens, and I think it's a better lens for money compared to the F2.8 version, but again, I need the missing range 20ish to 70ish if I buy that.
And instead of buying 2 more lenses, I prefer having just 1 lens replacement for travelling purposes...

Bottom line is now and I'm still not sure which to get and IF only IF Canon makes 24-200mm F2.8 L IS USM, I will buy it without thinking twice...BUT Ofcourse such lens does not exist!

So if anyone has any suggestions, it'll be muchly appreciated.
I'm just so confused now and I dont even know which one anymore..
I'm just scared that the Tammy 28-75mm will be as sharp as my current 17-
50mm which I'm not too impressed about...
Although, I'm leaning towards 70-200mm F4 L IS USM....then again, I will have to buy another lens for that missing range...
does anyone heard any rumors or know any news about new lens that
Canon might do?

Anyway, enough of my whinging...suggestion is welcome!
Cheers

[Gerry Dawes]

"As for the f/2.8 softness - yes, the lens is softer at f/2.8 than f/4. I think alot of people (not you particularly) confuse the shallow depth of field created by an aperture of 2.8 as "softness" .. while they are merely not focusing on the right area of an image, or they are not using the right AF points. I use only the center AF point most of the time, and for example, in a car photo, focused on the grille of the car, at f/2.8 ... the rear half of the car will be "soft" ... but that's due to the DOF of using a 2.8 aperture, not a fault of the lens."

In May, after seeing all the tack sharp photos, like the one at the top of page 38, I purchased the Tamron 28-75mm f 2.8 and took it on a trip to Barcelona. I shot a slew of photographs, one of which is the last post on page 36. I was not happy with the results, but fess up to the fact that it could have be me and that I was not using the right shutter speed, did not have the camera (Canon 450D) set to center focus, etc., but after reading that many people have problems with "bad copies" of lenses, last week, after running several more test shots, I was still not happy with the results and I wrote Tamron a letter about the problem (saying that it might be me, but that I wanted to be sure), packaged the lens up in the original box, filled out the warranty sheet, put plenty of padding, etc., included a USB key with several of the photographs, took the post office and shipped it back insured. Cost: over $11.00, no big deal. One hour plus to prepare the package, etc., and go downtown to the P. Office, big enough deal. In the letter, I told them I would be going back to Barcelona on July 10 and could they please check it and get it back to me before then. Yesterday, I get a call for a nice employee at Tamron telling me that if I want the lense "rushed," I have to pay them another $50!

If the lense is indeed a bad copy and I had to go through all these hoops for a new lense that should have been tested and good out of the gate and if I don't get that lense back on-time, I will simply sell it when I get back from Spain, sell the 90mm Tamron Macro and never buy another Tamron product again. End of my Tamron story. One very unhappy camper.

[jdlloyd67]

I wanted to post this picture that I took yesterday with my Tammy 28-75. The sharpness is outstanding with this lens...

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/images/madison/2008/Madison1_070508_small.jpg

[ALaS]

My copy of the 28-75 was as sharp if not sharper than my 17-55 IS

[cricketboy75]

I wanted to post this picture that I took yesterday with my Tammy 28-75. The sharpness is outstanding with this lens...

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/misc/Madison1_070508_small.jpg
wow, that looks incredibly sharp!

[2112]

Anyone interested in swapping their 28-75 for my new 28-135 IS?

[darkninja67]

I wanted to post this picture that I took yesterday with my Tammy 28-75. The sharpness is outstanding with this lens...

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/misc/Madison1_070508_small.jpg
What PP was applied if any? I want this lens but I feel it will overlap a bit too much with my 17-50mm. I owned it once before and loved it.

Nice shots everyone/

[jdlloyd67]

My standard PP is adding about +10 on the saturation and depending on the light in the image increasing or descreasing the exposure using levels. I compressed this image down from a full-sized RAW image to the image you see here which then required a very minor Unsharp Mask to be applied to it. Uncompressed image needed no sharpening. It's a very nice lens!!!

[jdlloyd67]

Anyone interested in swapping their 28-75 for my new 28-135 IS?
I sold my 28-135 on eBay to pay for my 28-75. I actually made $12 on the deal after it was all said and done. :cool:

[darkninja67]

It's a very nice lens!!!
You're preaching to the choir. I will own it again soon.

[2112]

Mine will be here Wed!! :grin:

[usingthejohn]

Just got mine today (early bday gift from the wife!)

Some sample shots:
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z114/usingthejohn/RAW%20shots/shoes.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z114/usingthejohn/RAW%20shots/bottles.jpg
our goddaughter
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z114/usingthejohn/RAW%20shots/babyberry.jpg
cropped:
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z114/usingthejohn/RAW%20shots/barrycropped.jpg

[jdlloyd67]

Here's two shots from a recent shoot I did using the Tammy 28-75 lens.

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/images/misc/brianne17_071308_small.jpg

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/images/misc/brianne16_071308_small.jpg

[Mark1]

This lens is quite particular. Im not getting consistant with it yet. But when it is on, its really on!

Full shot.....
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/9558/kirstenrq1.jpg

100% crop of an eye. Notice the texture of the skin under the eye. No sharpening, the only thing I have done is color balance, and quick removal of a few hairs. Oh, and does this count as a self portrait?
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/4020/keyepf7.jpg

[yogestee]

This lens is quite particular. Im not getting consistant with it yet. But when it is on, its really on!

Full shot.....


100% crop of an eye. Notice the texture of the skin under the eye. No sharpening, the only thing I have done is color balance, and quick removal of a few hairs. Oh, and does this count as a self portrait?
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/4020/keyepf7.jpg


Interesting shot Mark..

[yogestee]

"As for the f/2.8 softness - yes, the lens is softer at f/2.8 than f/4. I think alot of people (not you particularly) confuse the shallow depth of field created by an aperture of 2.8 as "softness" .. while they are merely not focusing on the right area of an image, or they are not using the right AF points. I use only the center AF point most of the time, and for example, in a car photo, focused on the grille of the car, at f/2.8 ... the rear half of the car will be "soft" ... but that's due to the DOF of using a 2.8 aperture, not a fault of the lens."

Well said Gerry.. Most complaints about image quality can be attributed to user error.. Lenses are never at their best wide open but that should never stop you using full aperture.. If focusing is critical for me or I'm shooting at full aperture I always manually focus..

BTW,,I love my Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 along with its little sister the 17-50mm F/2.8..

[vic6string]

I couldn't agree more. The more I read here, and the more I learn about taking pictures, the more I figure out that most if not all of my bad pics are my fault. At first i thought my 28-75 was a little inconsistent, but in reality the problem was that I love shooting wide open to isolate the subject, and if you miss focus by just a little it can blur out your whole subject.

When you nail the exposure, hit the right focus point, and have a steady enough hand for the required shutter speed, this lens at 2.8 is sharper than most other consumer lenses are stopped down. And once you get to about f4, it will give you fantastic results.

[Mark1]

The DOF on this lens at 2.8 has to be about 1/8 of an inch. Look at my last post above. The eye is ever so slightly back focused, but by the time you get to the eye brow its already OOF. It was taken at 2.8. And if you look at the skin under the eye, its tack sharp.

[scorpio_e]

I sold my 28-135 on eBay to pay for my 28-75. I actually made $12 on the deal after it was all said and done. :cool:

I did the same :)

[vic6string]

The DOF on this lens at 2.8 has to be about 1/8 of an inch. Look at my last post above. The eye is ever so slightly back focused, but by the time you get to the eye brow its already OOF. It was taken at 2.8. And if you look at the skin under the eye, its tack sharp.

Actually, what I have found is that the depth of field relies not only on the aperture, but the focal length and the distance to the subject. I love getting extreme close up head shots of my kids. Doing that gives a tiny depth of field (like the eye in focus, and the ears already soft). But if I take a full body shot and they are a few feet away, I can actually get both of them within the depth of field, even if one is slightly in front of the other.

Depth of field is a tough concept to grasp for many people, which is why so many people get their first SLR and decent lens, and complain about soft or out of focus pictures. You have to see how thin the depth of field is shooting close ups at f1.8 with the nifty 50! If you focus on the tip of the nose, the eyes are soft and the ears are blurry! Once you get a feel for it, though, it is awesome!

[Mark1]

DOF is not a hard concept. The hard part is for people to know WHERE to focus. Most that have problems come from a P&S where everything is in focus. They then go to a system that has selective focus and they have no idea how to control it. Sure we harp "focus on the eyes" but we can only help the ones that know enough to come and ask. More than we think im sure give up and go back to a P&S.

[vic6string]

DOF is not a hard concept. The hard part is for people to know WHERE to focus. Most that have problems come from a P&S where everything is in focus. They then go to a system that has selective focus and they have no idea how to control it. Sure we harp "focus on the eyes" but we can only help the ones that know enough to come and ask. More than we think im sure give up and go back to a P&S.

That is exactly why it is a tough concept for people. Most of the people buying DSLRs now are P&S converts, and have let the camera do all the work for them up until now. They can pick up a camera, aim at the subject, and not even look through the viewfinder (if the camera even has one, most new ones don't) The depth of field on those is insane.

One of the reasons I bought a DSLR and actually attempted to learn a bit about photography is because I wanted to take shots like this one. It is a throw-away shot, just clicking away to kill some time. The background was a street and hospital (not exactly your first choice for nice pics) But by zooming in close and shooting at f4.5, I could get my subject (cute, ain't he?) in sharp focus and blur out the background enough to actually make a decent shot. Try doing this with a point and shoot! (exif: f4.5, 1/400, ISO 100, 75mm, using Canon 430ex for fill/catchlights... only postprocessing is resize and drop image quality to 9 in Canon DPP for posting size requirements)

[Gerry Dawes]

This from Tamron after they supposedly fixed it, then sent it back to me. (I found the lense on my porch after they had failed to get it back to me in time for a second trip to Spain.

"From what I can see all the images look out or a little soft. I would recommend sending the lens in so we can evaluate it, confirm the issues and then repair as needed."

Tamron USA

My reply to their e-mail:


Many thanks for getting back to me.* What I can't understand is that they did not catch this when it 1) before it left the factory; 2) after I had used it on a trip to Barcelona and came back with substandard photos; 3) after I pleaded with Tamron to get it back repaired before a second trip to Barcelona; 4) before I spent an hour packaging the lens back up, taking it to the Post Office and spending nearly $12 to send it back for evaluation; 5) not providing anything more than a perfunctory, generic*description of what they had done; 6) sending it back in the same condition as when it left.*
**
What can we do here?* I am getting very disillusioned with Tamron and will be very leery of any future purchases.
*
What I would really like to get my money back and go buy a lens I can trust.* The difference between this lens, my Sigma 17-70 mm and my Canon lenses is like daylight and dark.*

[usingthejohn]

One shot from today:
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z114/usingthejohn/wildlife/lines.jpg

[Canon_For_Life]

A few of mine:

#1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/2715348596_f77cd4d6c6.jpg?v=0
#2
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3086/2714899021_09f2895d30.jpg?v=0
#3
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3071/2715700692_1a9a6353a9.jpg?v=0

[thatkatmat]

First shot with the Tammy.....I had zero expectations for this lens...but...I like the IQ:)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3066/2726175757_612886f425_b.jpg

[muscleflex]

^^ pretty funky shot! :-) what was the aperture on that?

[thatkatmat]

2.8

[jdlloyd67]

I know, I know...Disney shots are so over-done...but I couldn't resist posting these after how well they turned out. These were shot around noon with the very harsh Florida sun beating down. This lens delivers time and time again!!! :D

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/images/misc/Disney_080308_0024_small.jpg

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/images/misc/MagicKingdom1_small.jpg

[HoosierJoe]

The post and chain in the background are a little distracting but that is not the lenses fault but the photographers! I gave it a shot at pp ing it out of there but I am not real good at that sort of thing. Someone can give it a try if they are so inclinded.

[TSmith8779]

Perhaps the best value lens, at least it has been for me.

[Qwest905]

probably too much PP on this picture
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3218/2805174186_b78e410aac.jpg

not long enough =X
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3013/2805208650_fbc5421875.jpg

[mnez17]

Here are my two contributions

[bad karma]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3202/2812439810_cdca5e187f_o.jpg

[borism]

these are great pictures!

I've been considering this lens to replace my 18-55IS kit lens on my XSI for some time now
Would you guys consider the Tamron a big Upgrade lens in quality? or just a marginal improvement?

please let me know your thoughts?

(mostly I love the quality of the color and the contrast!)

thank you so much
:)

[Qwest905]

sold my kit lens for my XSI...and i haven't looked back =)
some pics i took with this awesome lens this weekend

http://i35.tinypic.com/21oa7hg.jpg

sorry i was messing with PP for this shot
http://i36.tinypic.com/5uk8ew.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/2818218506_e1702b9026.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3180/2817385757_915e1cb5bb.jpg

[borism]

Nice indeed
;)