Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Xr Di

[Qwest905]

love the DOF
http://i37.tinypic.com/2ljjkgm.jpg

[dewey76]

Here is one from two weeks ago. I love this lens but wish at times I had a wide angle.;)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3013/2823769126_ba3dc16934_b.jpg

[Bobster]

#1
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/82088799.jpg
#2
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/98605057.jpg
#3
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/73506973.jpg
#4
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/55908552.jpg
#5
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/87390137.jpg
#6
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/83652826.jpg
#7
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/88484949.jpg

[Radiohead369]

I love #1, 3, and 5! Beautiful!

[ESMcBlurM3]

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/af4e5060.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/Barrington%20Shoot/51d25828.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/Newport%20RI/b1f75c71.jpg

[Qwest905]

3rd picture...how'd u get aperture 1.8?>

[ESMcBlurM3]

3rd picture...how'd u get aperture 1.8?>

Easy, you just post a pic that you took with your nifty fifty by accident...:-D

LOL - I'll go ahead and delete that...woops!

[Qwest905]

haha no worries
i really liked the pic...so i wanted to check the exif on that

still great pics!!

[ESMcBlurM3]

haha no worries
i really liked the pic...so i wanted to check the exif on that

still great pics!!

Thanks, here are a few more. I promise they were all taken with the Tammy!!:D

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/29fa3f26.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/8d2d4d2a.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/8c0b7f3c.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/Newport%20RI/c756dc74.jpg

As much as I love this lens, I'm toying the idea of trading it for the 17-50 version.

[Qwest905]

i toyed with that idea of getting the 17-50

but decided on just getting 11-16 instead....i think i'll be good with not having 17-27

[ESMcBlurM3]

i toyed with that idea of getting the 17-50

but decided on just getting 11-16 instead....i think i'll be good with not having 17-27

Well, if I could do it the way I'd want, I'd get a wide angle keep the 28-75, and then a zoom. However, I'm not sure if the wallet agrees, so I may have to limit it to 2 lens...which would leave me with a 17-50 and then either the 70-200/F4L, or the 70-300 IS. Too many damn choices

[Qwest905]

i know it's horrible..too many choices =X...puts a big hole in the wallet

[ESMcBlurM3]

I bought/used my first external flash today (430EX), and oh my!! Here are some from the backyard while testing today with the Tammy:

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/afac4f23.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/33d04852.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/2c383e25.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/d6334970.jpg

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/emcbane/03f78209.jpg

Sorry for all the pics!

[vic6string]

Nothing has improved my shooting more than getting the 430ex. Wait til you see what you can do in low light situations with the 28-75 and the 430. I usually shoot around F4 indoors with the 430 bounced off a wall or the ceiling. At f4 the Tamron is amazing, and with the 430 you can still get shutter speeds in the 1/100th range or better at ISO 800 most of the time.

Also, at f4 the depth of field is wide enough to give you a little breathing room. Alot of the time when people complain about the 28-75 not focusing consistently in low light, I think it is that they are shooting wide open and not taking into account how thin the depth of field is at f2.8.

[Qwest905]

well u have to admit with the auto assist red beam on the 430ex definitely helps on autofocusing in low light

[ESMcBlurM3]

Nothing has improved my shooting more than getting the 430ex. Wait til you see what you can do in low light situations with the 28-75 and the 430. I usually shoot around F4 indoors with the 430 bounced off a wall or the ceiling. At f4 the Tamron is amazing, and with the 430 you can still get shutter speeds in the 1/100th range or better at ISO 800 most of the time.

Also, at f4 the depth of field is wide enough to give you a little breathing room. Alot of the time when people complain about the 28-75 not focusing consistently in low light, I think it is that they are shooting wide open and not taking into account how thin the depth of field is at f2.8.

I can only imagine. These were taken in P mode - I'm looking forward to learning more, and using manual controls with the flash.

[HoosierJoe]

Well, if I could do it the way I'd want, I'd get a wide angle keep the 28-75, and then a zoom. However, I'm not sure if the wallet agrees, so I may have to limit it to 2 lens...which would leave me with a 17-50 and then either the 70-200/F4L, or the 70-300 IS. Too many damn choices

Tamron also has the 17-35 which usually goes fairly inexpensively used. Might be a good compromise and a lot of people like this lens. Personally, I considered it then realized I would probably hardly ever use it.

[HoosierJoe]

I bought/used my first external flash today (430EX), and oh my!! Here are some from the backyard while testing today with the Tammy:



Sorry for all the pics!

Don't be sorry. Very nice work. I really like the last one.

[HoosierJoe]

I have to confess. I didn't take this one. The wife did. I did a little crop on it and the background was a litltle gray so I fixed that in pp.

When you get this screen sized or print it 8 x 10 you can really see the great detail in the outline, especially in the hair. It's very, very sharp. Should be as it was shot at f14. ISO 400, 1/600, 71mm focal. Shot from about 50 feet away.

[2112]

Love this lens! It never leaves my camera and I shoot everyday so I could post ALOT of pics! :) Here is one studio shot and a link to a natural light shot as it may not be safe for work.

http://a650.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/104/l_ee3d76f713ca50f8b4d7a933ce3d2e99.jpg

http://a620.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/117/l_8bcc889fc0ff3787e575b74858ddd0bb.jpg

[Bobster]

Nice and sharp
looks OoF or motion blur ?

[HoosierJoe]

looks OoF or motion blur ?
Check again kiddo. For about one minute I did have another picture posted but I fixed the error almost immediately. Maybe you happened on that one. Sorry.

[bad karma]

http://i36.tinypic.com/2i7b78x.jpg

[Menelaus]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2381/2408371403_fd6ac967e5_b.jpg

[Nickelodeon]

Nice and sharp

SOrry Bud.

That is NOT sharp.

Cute Kid.

[bad karma]

http://i35.tinypic.com/drfi82.jpg

[geekaleek]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/2968845376_bec07407aa.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/geekaleek/2968845376/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3280/2965562647_36037a4fc6.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/geekaleek/2965562647/)

[Transfer]

This thing is sharpness. Just got it today (used) and went out in fading light. Didn't get any great shots but so far liked the focal length, IQ wide open, and I thought focusing was fine. Both shots on 30D, ISO 1600, f/2.8, 75mm, handheld slow shutters.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3241/2987626615_85386da2e1.jpg?v=0


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/2988485174_c1303d8445.jpg?v=0

[drummerhc]

Some of my OOF has black OOF inside another OOF.
Is this normal? I found it very annoying. :confused:

[Transfer]

Some of my OOF has black OOF inside another OOF.
Is this normal? I found it very annoying. :confused:
Eww. I've never seen anything like that before. I would say it is definitely not normal. Does it happen with other lenses for you?

[taxsux]

Yeah it looks awful. Send it back

[Bobster]

Eww. I've never seen anything like that before. I would say it is definitely not normal.
better send yours back as well then...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/2988485174_c1303d8445.jpg?v=0

[mrcpix]

one of mine with my favorite lens

[Transfer]

better send yours back as well then...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/2988485174_c1303d8445.jpg?v=0

That's not the same thing. It's just blurred leaves and light overlapping. Much different than the target spots seen above. I don't have any shots with the same problem.

[drummerhc]

Eww. I've never seen anything like that before. I would say it is definitely not normal. Does it happen with other lenses for you?

No, at least not with my EF 50mm f/1.8
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a267/drummerhc/Tamron%20OOF/IMG_6485_resize.jpg

Same shot taken with Tamron 28-75mm
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a267/drummerhc/Tamron%20OOF/IMG_6503_resize.jpg

But despite the weird OOF, it is a pretty sharp lens.
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a267/drummerhc/POTN/IMG_4663.jpg


I just email Tamron with my issue, hope I can send it back.

:cry:

[bad karma]

If it makes you feel any better, I never noticed even with the red box till I actually re-read your description. Most people may not either, hopefully

[Bobster]

there's an effect there with the 50, but not as harsh as with your 28-75, are you shooting JPG or RAW?

[Livinthalife]

I started diggin through soem of my shots looking at the bokeh, I don't have that crazy stuff in it. I hope your issue get worked out.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b386/atgrzymala/IMG_6837.jpg

[drummerhc]

there's an effect there with the 50, but not as harsh as with your 28-75, are you shooting JPG or RAW?

I am shooting in JPG only. Sharpen and resave once in Picasa.

[mai_lin]

Take a look at this (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=596284)thread. There seem to be alot of people who have had problems with this lens.

After just one day I can't wait to get rid of it.



Jen D.

[jdlloyd67]

Take a look at this (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=596284)thread. There seem to be alot of people who have had problems with this lens.

After just one day I can't wait to get rid of it.

Jen D.

Sorry about your problems with this lens. My experience with it has been great with the exception of the low-light focusing issue.

[LSU]

A few shots of fish, these are shot at f/2.8 so you can see it's still decently sharp there:
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/lsuxblake/sarah11of1.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/lsuxblake/-7745.jpg

And a couple outdoor shots:
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/lsuxblake/IMG_5075b.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/lsuxblake/IMG_5081b.jpg

[usingthejohn]

taken last sunday at Third Street, Santa Monica
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z114/usingthejohn/People/counterweight.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z114/usingthejohn/People/wilinout.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z114/usingthejohn/People/handstands.jpg
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z114/usingthejohn/People/smellsomething.jpg

[dlcx]

Not a bad lens for the price!

These are taken with a 5D.
Photos below are straight jpegs from camera, only resized for web (no extra sharpening or pp done)

Dog (28mm f2.8 1/1600 sec)
http://users.tpg.com.au/dlcx/photos/potn/tamron28-75/dog.jpg

Guiness Sign (28mm f2.8 1/160 sec)
http://users.tpg.com.au/dlcx/photos/potn/tamron28-75/guiness.jpg

Buildings (28mm f4 1/2500 sec)
http://users.tpg.com.au/dlcx/photos/potn/tamron28-75/buildings.jpg

Louis (59mm f2.8 1/6400 sec)
http://users.tpg.com.au/dlcx/photos/potn/tamron28-75/louis.jpg

Pony (75mm f2.8 1/4000 sec)
http://users.tpg.com.au/dlcx/photos/potn/tamron28-75/pony.jpg

.

[Maureen Souza]

I took this lens to Italy last spring (the only lens I took) because it is fast and sharp. I will never part with mine.

[TheGreatDivorce]

I had this lens for a while, before I gave it to my dad. It never failed to impress me. I still use it every once in a while, and it matches up favorably to my L zooms.

[geekaleek]

i had it for a day and then returned it back to amazon.

[yogestee]

i had it for a day and then returned it back to amazon.

Why???

[geekaleek]

Why???
it had a hard time focusing indoors and i didn't really like the color rendition. It could have just been a bad copy or I might've expected too much based on the reviews, but in the end I decided to save up for the canon 24-70.

[Bobster]

bothered about colour shoot RAW..

[geekaleek]

i only shoot raw, but i'd rather have it good in camera than spend a lot of time in post process. ;)

[Bobster]

1 click of the mouse is alot of time in PP?

[yogestee]

i only shoot raw, but i'd rather have it good in camera than spend a lot of time in post process. ;)

Best advice I've read in these forums in ages..

[HoosierJoe]

SOrry Bud.

That is NOT sharp.

Cute Kid.
OK babe, you're the expert.

[HoosierJoe]

I am shooting in JPG only. Sharpen and resave once in Picasa.
There are other good and free pp programs out there much better than Picasa. Paint.net and photscape are good. I do use Picasa for my printing though, I like it far better than the HP program that came with my printer.

[HoosierJoe]

Take a look at this (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=596284)thread. There seem to be alot of people who have had problems with this lens.

After just one day I can't wait to get rid of it.



Jen D.
Try contacting an authorized Tamron repair service. The one in california available through the Tamron USA site has an online form you can send in. You may have some warranty work coming that should fix your lens up. You will be happy with it once it performs like it should, providing there is something wrong with it.

[HoosierJoe]

taken last sunday at Third Street, Santa Monica




I really think the one dancer should get some kind of award for that last shot.

[ProjektSol]

i really want this one, im stuck between this or the UWA lens
some please help me

[Livinthalife]

i really want this one, im stuck between this or the UWA lens
some please help me

Honestly your screwed :) If you go UWA now, your going to replace the kit lens later, or vice versa ;) I personally would replace the kit lens. Then get a UWA.

[yogestee]

I have to confess. I didn't take this one. The wife did. I did a little crop on it and the background was a litltle gray so I fixed that in pp.

When you get this screen sized or print it 8 x 10 you can really see the great detail in the outline, especially in the hair. It's very, very sharp. Should be as it was shot at f14. ISO 400, 1/600, 71mm focal. Shot from about 50 feet away.

Definitely not sharp..

[HoosierJoe]

Definitely not sharp..Really can you not see the strands of hair? Quite distinct. That would lead most people to say it is in focus.
But hey, thanks for the feedback.

[jdlloyd67]

I personally would replace the kit lens. Then get a UWA.

I agree 100%!!! :)

[The Outlaw]

im definatly picking up one of these as soon as i can sell my macro setup. gotta have one

[yogestee]

Really can you not see the strands of hair? Quite distinct. That would lead most people to say it is in focus.
But hey, thanks for the feedback.

Ok,, I've just had a look at your image on a 21" LCD monitor instead of my laptop.. And the bad news is,,, it's not sharp.. Actually it looks worse on a 21 LCD monitor..

[drummerhc]

Ok,, I've just had a look at your image on a 21" LCD monitor instead of my laptop.. And the bad news is,,, it's not sharp.. Actually it looks worse on a 21 LCD monitor..


Doesn't a 21" LCD exceed the printsize of the pictures?

[geekaleek]

Really can you not see the strands of hair? Quite distinct. That would lead most people to say it is in focus.
But hey, thanks for the feedback.
IMHO it might be in focus, but it's just not sharp. there is a difference. generally all lenses can focus, but the more expensive lenses produce sharper images. although the tamron can make some sharp images also.

[yogestee]

Doesn't a 21" LCD exceed the printsize of the pictures?


Meaning??

[yogestee]

IMHO it might be in focus, but it's just not sharp. there is a difference. generally all lenses can focus, but the more expensive lenses produce sharper images. although the tamron can make some sharp images also.

With the Tamron if you nail the focus at 1/600 sec @ F/14 it will be sharp as a pin unless the lens itself is faulty..

Believe me,, I have owned this lens for 2 years and it's tack sharp even wide open..

[dissembled]

How's the AF guys? Outdoors,indoors, low light?

Also, how does the Tamron 17-50mm compare in terms of AF speed and optics?

[richardsc0]

IMO, the AF is pretty good. I take night shots sometimes and have not encountered any horribly AF lock problems.

As long as you've got *some* contrasting points within your frame to focus on, you should have no issues, and the f/2.8 helps alot at night / in dark shots.

As for the comparison to the 17-50, the optics are pretty similar, and most reviews I've read say basically it comes down to which focal length will work best for you.

For me, I bought the 28-75 before the 17-50 was out and I love it, but there's been plenty of occasions where I wish I could go "wider", and not too many where the extra 25mm of the 28-75 has been something I *needed*

[yogestee]

IMO, the AF is pretty good. I take night shots sometimes and have not encountered any horribly AF lock problems.

As long as you've got *some* contrasting points within your frame to focus on, you should have no issues, and the f/2.8 helps alot at night / in dark shots.

As for the comparison to the 17-50, the optics are pretty similar, and most reviews I've read say basically it comes down to which focal length will work best for you.

For me, I bought the 28-75 before the 17-50 was out and I love it, but there's been plenty of occasions where I wish I could go "wider", and not too many where the extra 25mm of the 28-75 has been something I *needed*

The same goes with me,, but now I find I use the 17-50 more than the 28-75mm..

[usingthejohn]

one more taken wide-open, under artificial store lights. not sure of the settings, although EXIF should be intact
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z114/usingthejohn/hourglass.jpg

[dissembled]

My copy of the 28-70L (bought used) was soft at 70mm at 2.8 so when I tested the 28-75 (it was a used one) I was impressed by the superior sharpness and I bought it. I was happy for the reduced weight as well. The problem was that I tested the lens only at short-medium distance, and it was perfect, with no front or back focus. But when I shot it at infinity I discovered that the lens focused correctly only 50% of the time.



Does anyone else experience this with this lens?

[SoundsGood]

There are times when I wish the 28-75 went wider... but I use 50-75 way more than I use 28-50.

Edit: Too bad Tamron doesn't make an 18-75 f/2.8 lens. That would be the ticket. :)

[Livinthalife]

Edit: Too bad Tamron doesn't make an 18-75 f/2.8 lens. That would be the ticket. :)

I think EVERYONE is waiting on that lens ;) Don't forget to add IS :cool:

[bad karma]

I have a tamron 10-100 f/1 Is Di If Xr Abcd

Boo ya!

[Livinthalife]

I have a tamron 10-100 f/1 Is Di If Xr Abcd

Boo ya!

LOL

Look something like this? (Canon version though)

322394

[SoundsGood]

I think EVERYONE is waiting on that lens ;) Don't forget to add IS :cool:
I'd gladly take it *without* IS. :)

Is there anything out there these days even CLOSE to an 18-75 F/2.8?

[Livinthalife]

I'd gladly take it *without* IS. :)

Is there anything out there these days even CLOSE to an 18-75 F/2.8?

17-50
24-70....That's it


Soooo far ;)

[SoundsGood]

17-50
24-70....That's it


Soooo far ;)
Actually, if Tamron's 18-270 were as sharp as the 28-75, I'd be a happy camper -- even without the f/2.8.

Ahhh, maybe someday... :)

[boostisbest]

Shot with the Tammy....


http://lh6.ggpht.com/_XFJXV1TGFzY/SSu-lYXxVAI/AAAAAAAAEhQ/eXwprcnOS7k/s720/20081108_0528.jpg

[iceman1]

It this lens the obvious alternative to the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L? Also, how does this Tamron compare to the 450D kit lens (18-55mm IS f3.5-5.6) optically? If I would get this Tamron, or something similar, it would likely be used in place of my kit lens, despite it being a bit less wide.

[SoundsGood]

It this lens the obvious alternative to the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L?
This one will depend on who you ask... :)

Also, how does this Tamron compare to the 450D kit lens (18-55mm IS f3.5-5.6) optically? If I would get this Tamron, or something similar, it would likely be used in place of my kit lens, despite it being a bit less wide.
but this one is clear... Go with the Tamron. Either this or the 18-50, depending on if you prefer wider or longer. I prefer longer, so I use the 28-75.

[iceman1]

Thanks SoundsGood. Many times when using my 18-55 @ 55mm I think "Come on, just a closer!" so I'm leaning towards the 28-75. :)

[SoundsGood]

Thanks SoundsGood. Many times when using my 18-55 @ 55mm I think "Come on, just a closer!" so I'm leaning towards the 28-75. :)
Yep... a lot of my shots are between 50 & 75mm.

[Brennan.M]

I love this lens, it replaced my 18-55 kit lens
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i187/OldSchoolChevy/CalculusClass.jpg

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i187/OldSchoolChevy/gallardo2_resize_final.jpg

[bad karma]

LOL

Look something like this? (Canon version though)

322394
LMAO! It probably would! Imagine. f/1 at 100

[Ogrt48]

Nothing amazing but I just got my 40D today and just took a shot before I had to actually charge the battery... love this lense.
http://i380.photobucket.com/albums/oo247/shadowhorrow/IMG_0010sm.jpg

[Bee0224]

Just browsed through this whole thread, great pics guys. Sniped a used mint tammy 28-75 for 160 shipped on ebay. Looking forward to the lens.

[shniks]

Here's a couple of my kids, both taken at F4.
I find F2.8 to be a little soft, but anything above 3.5 looks tack sharp. And I really like the 28-75 range for portraits.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/shniks/CRW_9635-copyss.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/shniks/CRW_9640.jpg

[iceman1]

Could anyone say their copy is just as sharp at f/2.8 as f/4.0? I know mine is not, but maybe I'm just a picky pixel peeper.

[Livinthalife]

I don't know if mine is equally as sharp, but certainly at 100%, still VERY sharp. I will do some shots later today and compare. These won't be test shots, but just some everyday shots. I buy my lens and just use it, screw all that testing ;) unless something seems wrong.

[yogestee]

Could anyone say their copy is just as sharp at f/2.8 as f/4.0? I know mine is not, but maybe I'm just a picky pixel peeper.

iceman,, most lenses aren't at their best wide open even the topshelf offerings from Canon and Nikon.. The important thing is that at full aperture the image is still very useable..

[SoundsGood]

Could anyone say their copy is just as sharp at f/2.8 as f/4.0? I know mine is not, but maybe I'm just a picky pixel peeper.
Just as sharp? I doubt it. But it is certainly sharp. Call me crazy, but some of my 28-75 shots are sharper than my 70-200 f/4 IS shots (although I have no idea why that is).

I received my new Canon 24-105mm last night, so I will soon be seeing if I prefer it to the Tamron 28-75 -- or not.

[iceman1]

Thanks for the replies. I think I've been a bit too critical of my copy lately.

ISO100, 75mm, f/3.2, 1/60
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f183/j0rdan1/tamron28-75/IMG_5408.jpg

crop:
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f183/j0rdan1/tamron28-75/IMG_5408-2.jpg

ISO 200, 75mm, f/2.8, 1/100
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f183/j0rdan1/tamron28-75/IMG_5426.jpg

crop:
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f183/j0rdan1/tamron28-75/IMG_5426-2.jpg

[Bobster]

your lens doesn't look healthy..

just shot this - 1/100s f/2.8 at 63.0mm iso400
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/107208150.jpg

[iceman1]

your lens doesn't look healthy..


Uh oh...well, maybe those were just my bad. Here are some more. No sharpening.

ISO 200, 60mm, f/2.8, 1/640
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f183/j0rdan1/tamron28-75/IMG_5471.jpg

ISO 200, 28mm, f/2.8, 1/640
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f183/j0rdan1/tamron28-75/IMG_5476.jpg

ISO 200, 56mm, f/2.8, 1/2000
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f183/j0rdan1/tamron28-75/IMG_5492.jpg

ISO 200, 28mm, f/2.8, 1/2500
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f183/j0rdan1/tamron28-75/IMG_5497.jpg

[ProjektSol]

why are mine so grainy?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3232/3121954682_14f74c79e5_b.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3121125775_19f9532af7_b.jpg

[iceman1]

ProjektSol-high iso? I thought most noise issues were due to the body.


http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f183/j0rdan1/Fall08/IMG_5566.jpg

[Bobster]

long exposures bring out the noise..

[richardsc0]

ProjektSol-high iso? I thought most noise issues were due to the body.



correct, noise is brought on by a high ISO setting.

Different camera body models, (IE 20D, 5D, 1DSMKIII) have sensors that can deal with high ISO differently.


long exposures bring out the noise..

only at high ISO or with improper exposure settings for your given shot. Metering is important, even in the dark!

[Scott111184]

Mine is on its way! :)

I have went through all 48 pages and have to say this lens seems very sharp. Looking forward to getting my hand on it. I will be sure to post some results. :)

[TheGreatDivorce]

only at high ISO or with improper exposure settings for your given shot. Metering is important, even in the dark!

not really. long exposures always have more noise than a "normal" length exposure, due to the sensor heating up. same reason why your long exposures will generally have a bit less noise when it's colder outside, and vice versa.

[Livinthalife]

Couple more from Nikko Japan. This lens has been on my camera for 2 years. Still can't justify the price difference of the 24-70 2.8L. This lens ROCKS!!!

http://atgphotos.com/photos/440918078_e2tiV-X3.jpg
Low light, focus isn't always perfect, but meets my needs. I don't shoot football in the dark anyways ;)
http://atgphotos.com/photos/440921355_BwUGA-X3.jpg

http://atgphotos.com/photos/440918420_NZpV2-X3.jpg

[J.Bat]

I am wanting this lens bad.

[Scott111184]

I just picked one of these up from a POTN member and am amazed at the sharpness of this thing! f/2.8 focused on eye...

http://scotthalfordphotography.smugmug.com/photos/452429857_xYQkz-L.jpg

[Brennan.M]

Couple more from Nikko Japan. This lens has been on my camera for 2 years. Still can't justify the price difference of the 24-70 2.8L. This lens ROCKS!!!


http://atgphotos.com/photos/440918420_NZpV2-X3.jpg

I LOVE that shot. Nice work man

[Livinthalife]

Thanks dude

[jdlloyd67]

Two taken with this lens during the Christmas holidays...
http://www.dldigitalimages.com/images/family-n-friends/Lexi_Christmas2008_small.jpg

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

[Photon Phil]

Nice warm shots and pretty good contract as well.

[Drozz119]

I just picked up this lens.. seems very sharp
75mm f3.2 1/25 ISO 400
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9334/img1399lh9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/img1399lh9.jpg/1/w800.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img246/img1399lh9.jpg/1/)

100% Crop
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3189/img1399cropri9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/img1399cropri9.jpg/1/w800.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img297/img1399cropri9.jpg/1/)

[rockportag03]

Thinking this may be my next lens.

[Scott111184]

Thinking this may be my next lens.

It has its pros and cons but for the price you cannot beat the IQ!

[BLUEONION]

This will be my next lens. ...Whats the going rate for a used one?

[Gerry Dawes]

After two trips back for re-calibration and ample phone conversations with a nice tech man from Tamron in New York, the lens still came back unsharp. I think I got a really bad copy. If any, I mean any of my photos came out anywhere near as good as the photo of that lovely little girl, I would have kept it, because after what I had seen on this board, I was psyched for the lens. Fortunately B&H (the best) in New York took it back and give me a credit which went towards the purchase of the Canon 70-200mmL f.4 (non-IS) and a 50D body. More to the point, I got very unsatisfactory results (unsharp and bad focusing), on a trip to Barcelona. When I tried to get Tamron to fix it during a three-week turnaround before I went back to Barcelona, they tried to charge me a $50 "rush" fee for something that was their fault. I also paid to send it back the first time, so I was out time, money and some 500 substandard photos from the first trip. Subsequently, I have sworn off Tamron completely and even sold my older 90mm Macro to B&H. I have a Tokina 12-24mm f.4, the Sigma 17-70mm, the Canon 70-200mm, a Canon 50mm f1.4 and a Canon Macro 50mm f2.5 and I am contemplating the Canon 17-40mm, the Canon 24-105mmL f.4 and a Tokina 100mm macro, but there are no Tamron lenses in my future.

[C.S.I.]

After two trips back for re-calibration and ample phone conversations with a nice tech man from Tamron in New York, the lens still came back unsharp. I think I got a really bad copy. If any, I mean any of my photos came out anywhere near as good as the photo of that lovely little girl, I would have kept it, because after what I had seen on this board, I was psyched for the lens. Fortunately B&H (the best) in New York took it back and give me a credit which went towards the purchase of the Canon 70-200mmL f.4 (non-IS) and a 50D body. More to the point, I got very unsatisfactory results (unsharp and bad focusing), on a trip to Barcelona. When I tried to get Tamron to fix it during a three-week turnaround before I went back to Barcelona, they tried to charge me a $50 "rush" fee for something that was their fault. I also paid to send it back the first time, so I was out time, money and some 500 substandard photos from the first trip. Subsequently, I have sworn off Tamron completely and even sold my older 90mm Macro to B&H. I have a Tokina 12-24mm f.4, the Sigma 17-70mm, the Canon 70-200mm, a Canon 50mm f1.4 and a Canon Macro 50mm f2.5 and I am contemplating the Canon 17-40mm, the Canon 24-105mmL f.4 and a Tokina 100mm macro, but there are no Tamron lenses in my future.


Wow.....TWO times back and still unresolved? Thats not good. I had mine since 10/2007. I didnt really take too many pics with it, perhaps a couple hundred. I found some pics were extremelly sharp, others were terribly front and-or back focused. I just thought it was me, and put it in the bag. Then I went on a cruise in 10/08. I brought my 40D, the Tamron and my Sigma 10-20. 95% of the 10-20 were focused, and like 15% of the Tamron were desireable. I was distraught.....when I got home, I found with a lens focus chart that I was having a front focusing issue. Tamron last week accepted the repair with a 3 week repair time, so Im hoping I dont end up like you did (sorry)......I hope they address my issue.......BTW.....what did you get for the lens at B+H (in case its not up to par when I get it back)?

[yogestee]

After two trips back for re-calibration and ample phone conversations with a nice tech man from Tamron in New York, the lens still came back unsharp. I think I got a really bad copy. If any, I mean any of my photos came out anywhere near as good as the photo of that lovely little girl, I would have kept it, because after what I had seen on this board, I was psyched for the lens. Fortunately B&H (the best) in New York took it back and give me a credit which went towards the purchase of the Canon 70-200mmL f.4 (non-IS) and a 50D body. More to the point, I got very unsatisfactory results (unsharp and bad focusing), on a trip to Barcelona. When I tried to get Tamron to fix it during a three-week turnaround before I went back to Barcelona, they tried to charge me a $50 "rush" fee for something that was their fault. I also paid to send it back the first time, so I was out time, money and some 500 substandard photos from the first trip. Subsequently, I have sworn off Tamron completely and even sold my older 90mm Macro to B&H. I have a Tokina 12-24mm f.4, the Sigma 17-70mm, the Canon 70-200mm, a Canon 50mm f1.4 and a Canon Macro 50mm f2.5 and I am contemplating the Canon 17-40mm, the Canon 24-105mmL f.4 and a Tokina 100mm macro, but there are no Tamron lenses in my future.

For interest sake,, how was the Tamron's image quality when you focused manually??

[richardsc0]

This lens still continues to impress me:

RAZOR sharp at f/4:
http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/89994-4/IMG_8591.jpg

f/9, 1/80th - very easy to hand-hold and pan with this lens:
http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/89966-4/IMG_8499.jpg

[Bobster]

f/9, 1/80th - very easy to hand-hold and pan with this lens:
http://images.charlesrichards.net/d/89966-4/IMG_8499.jpg
so you got some @ 1/40 or below right? ;)

[richardsc0]

so you got some @ 1/40 or below right? ;)

I wish ... it was really sunny and I left my NDx4 filter at home :(

that said, I've done some panning shots down around 1/30th @ 60-75mm that came out pretty well.

Of course, it's not going to be as nice as, say, the 17-55IS, since my hands are not gyroscopically stabilized :p

[jdlloyd67]

Here's two from D-World taken last weekend. Looks like they lost some sharpness due to compression.

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/images/misc/013109_0009.jpg

http://www.dldigitalimages.com/images/misc/013109_0007.jpg

[cherrymoon]

Does someone tryed this lens on a 5Dmk2 ?

[Bobster]

you can't use it on a FF camera, its designed for Crop bodies only..

[dissembled]

I believe it's Di-II lenses that will vignette on full frame. This lens should work fine on FF cameras.

Am I wrong?

[Bobster]

I believe it's Di-II lenses that will vignette on full frame. This lens should work fine on FF cameras.

Am I wrong?
ah yes, my bad, thought Di and Di II were the same..

[jdlloyd67]

This lens continues to impress, even in the hands of the less experienced. Here's a shot my wife took yesterday while we were out at Disney's Hollywood Studios...
http://www.dldigitalimages.com/images/misc/Finch_small.jpg

[Gerry Dawes]

For interest sake,, how was the Tamron's image quality when you focused manually??

I have to admit that I did not try to manual focus anything. I returned it to B&H and, because I have bought a lot there and was intending to buy more, they took the lens back and gave me a credit for it. I was one happy camper, but the experience with Tamron caused me to swear off those lenses. The fact that they did not offer to replace it after two trips back to the lab in New York and all those substandard photos--said they had tested it and it was fine--really threw me off of them. I also didn't like the fact that they wanted to charge me a $50 rush fee when I was on a three-week turnaround from trips to Barcelona, which was another big no-no. I am going to all Canon glass except for a couple of carefully researched buys of lenses from Tokina and Sigma.

[kennys350d]

Ive been lurking on this thread for about 2 years off and on.. Now that Im back on the canon side (studio reasons) I need to start fresh.. Been thinking about the new 18-50 Marco from Sigma, and the Tammy 17-50.. And theres this.. The 28-75... For the price of this lens..(330 new) I think it is a good deal, therefore making me purchasing this lens.. Then combing this lens up with the Canon EFS 10-22mm or the Sigma 10-20.. I hope I did the right thing... Btw, this lens does come with a hood correct..? All I can say is that I hope I get a good copy..Hahah..!

[yogestee]

Ive been lurking on this thread for about 2 years off and on.. Now that Im back on the canon side (studio reasons) I need to start fresh.. Been thinking about the new 18-50 Marco from Sigma, and the Tammy 17-50.. And theres this.. The 28-75... For the price of this lens..(330 new) I think it is a good deal, therefore making me purchasing this lens.. Then combing this lens up with the Canon EFS 10-22mm or the Sigma 10-20.. I hope I did the right thing... Btw, this lens does come with a hood correct..? All I can say is that I hope I get a good copy..Hahah..!

Yep,,sure does..

[bad karma]

http://i44.tinypic.com/t9a45c.jpg

Lunch!

[misty66]

This lens still makes me happy :D.

[paparios]

Great lens with the 50d

Example, with 100% crop at ISO160, f4, 1/800, 75mm.

Miguel

[Bobster]

paparios turn off the intermediate stops in the ISO, you'll get much cleaner images if you use the real ISO stops.. only the 5 and 1 series bodies have actual hardware intermediate stops

[paparios]

paparios turn off the intermediate stops in the ISO, you'll get much cleaner images if you use the real ISO stops.. only the 5 and 1 series bodies have actual hardware intermediate stops

On the 50d, at least, ISO160 is the cleanest ISO, as you can check in several sites that have measured the S/N of each step of that camera. Also ISO640 is cleaner than ISO800 and is almost as clean as ISO400.

Miguel

[Bobster]

links?

[pridash]

On the 50d, at least, ISO160 is the cleanest ISO, as you can check in several sites that have measured the S/N of each step of that camera. Also ISO640 is cleaner than ISO800 and is almost as clean as ISO400.

Miguel

links?


Yes, I read exactly the same thing. Ever since then I've always chosen 160 over 100. There was a thread on here somewhere pointing to the link. Must try and find it.

Edit: Found it: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=19721647

[Bobster]

the 50 is basically a steady diagonal line from 100-800, so infact using ISO100 over 160 is better on the 50
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS50D/Samples/ISO/chroma-graph.png

[pridash]

the 50 is basically a steady diagonal line from 100-800, so infact using ISO100 over 160 is better on the 50
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS50D/Samples/ISO/chroma-graph.png

Maybe it's different on the 30D (and possibly the 40D) and below?

[paparios]

the 50 is basically a steady diagonal line from 100-800, so infact using ISO100 over 160 is better on the 50
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS50D/Samples/ISO/chroma-graph.png

Note, however, that this graph only considers full stop ISOs (100-200-400-800-1600 and 3200) and not the intermediate ISOs, like 160.

Miguel

[Bobster]

so why bother putting the intermediates on the graph?

ahhh, just read the whole of that thread, and if i understand it correctly that it only counts if you shoot JPEG..

[paparios]

so why bother putting the intermediates on the graph?

ahhh, just read the whole of that thread, and if i understand it correctly that it only counts if you shoot JPEG..

If you look on the graph of the 30d below, ISO160 is derived from ISO200, as ISO250 is (that is the reason of the straight line between ISO160 and ISO250). So the order from best to worst is:

160-320-100-200-400-125-640-250-500-800-1250-1000

Miguel

[Bobster]

yeah the above is for if you shoot JPG, so i'll ignore it because i shoot RAW

[catalanus]

Maybe I should first read the whole thread, but I have a quick question: how performs this lens in (indoor) concert (live music etc.) settings?

[sheckells27]

http://chanwahyaoh.smugmug.com/photos/54214928-L.jpg

Great capture.

[The Outlaw]

paparios turn off the intermediate stops in the ISO, you'll get much cleaner images if you use the real ISO stops.. only the 5 and 1 series bodies have actual hardware intermediate stopshow do i do this on a 30d?

[yogestee]

how do i do this on a 30d?

I don't think you can Outlaw..

[The Outlaw]

hmm i thought it was selected in a menu or something because i got all the extra settings instead of just the normal 100,200,400,800, and so on

[habenero]

50d/tamron 28-75 - Shot in raw then converted to jpeg - no processing. Doesn't seem as sharp as I thought it would be...Focus on her left eye.

[C.S.I.]

50d/tamron 28-75 - Shot in raw then converted to jpeg - no processing. Doesn't seem as sharp as I thought it would be...Focus on her left eye.



still a nice, clear shot........what mode, etc?

[umphotography]

what f stop are you at with that shot