Mini review Tamron AF SP 28-75/2.8 XR Di LD Asf. IF MACRO mo

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

After thinking alot about the need for a replacement for my not so bad Sigma 28-105f2.8-4 I decided to take the gamble and went looking for a new lens in the f2.8 segment with a limit on my budget of € 500,00 (the sigma was € 279,00).

To be honest I decided almost immediatly for the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 EX asp. which was offered second hand for € 349,00, the lens looked really well build and a bit flashy, autofocus is reasonable faster than my 28-105, the downside was the picture quality I could not really say I was wowed by the difference, sure there was a difference but not jawdropping.

As if faith would have it's way my supplier just got the
Tamron AF SP 28-75/2.8 XR Di LD Asf. IF MACRO model A09 in the store, this was also high on my list because it's supposed to be a lens specialy made for digital SLR's and according to some sites and reviews on sharpness it bettered the Canon L version (don't flame me I only write what I know/heard :D).

We decided to attach this new wonder to my 10D, ....:D I walked out with it (after paying).

Impressions
The buildquality is good for as far as I can tell, it's smaller than the Sigma 28-105 or 28-70, the supplied lenshood helps a bit in making it a lens :D.
But it's not alway's size that matters, due to the new specs of DSLR's the lenses can be made smaller without sacrificing quality.

Autofocus appears to be fairly fast, a lot faster than my other lenses (see signature). I never worked with a USM motor so I can't tell the difference there, but for me it's very quick. When focussing really close on my hand to infinity is really within a fraction of a second.

But were it all boils down to is image quality.
I wanted a tacksharp lens, since I use the 70-210f2.8 Sigma APO I have been spoiled rotten with sharpness and lightperformance, only my Tamron 90mm Macro 1:1 gives me something as good. And now I have a third tack sharp lens, because the new Tamron is razor sharp.

This shot was made with the same camera in a timelapse of a few seconds, it's a 1:1 crop of the original RAW unprocessed so this is straight of the camera (I found out later that PS CS RAW does do a little sharpening so take that into account).
http://www.xs4all.nl/~itc/tests/TamronvsSigma.jpg

This was the difference I was looking for, the Tamron is clearly sharper but also when looking at the headlights there is a bit more detail in the lighter areas, but most of all, the Tamron gives a more "real" material look if you know what I mean, it's more not like a picture.

I have to test the lens a bit more to give a definitive result, but because there are not so many reviews on-line at the moment I thought I would write this down as a start.

Greetings,
Frank

[psk4363]

Yep! The Tamron is clearly the better of the two lenses based on the two comparitive photos you've shown. I think you've made a good choice .... but, did you actively consider the Tokina too?

Cheers,
Barry

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

I did,
But I decided for the Tamron because it was a brandnew lens which is primarly aimed at the DSLR market.

Also when comparing the 28-105 with the 28-70f2.8 I had some trouble finding out which one was sharper on my display of the camera, they were both almost the same, with the EX maybe a tack more detailed. The Tamron blew the EX away on the display and on the screen (later) so I decided to go with that one.

Also the salesperson knew the Sigma and Tokina in that series were only a noselength in difference, the Tamron they did not had much experience with, except that it sold really well due to good reviews. They are rather well informed and have alway's given me good advise in what I needed so I did not bother to test the Tokina.

Greetings,
Frank

[tony4563]

I love this lens. Sits proudly alongside my Sigma 70-200 EX and my Canon 17-40. Its compact, well made and the image quality is excellent for the money!

[ron chappel]

VERY nice!
You might find the sigma sharpens well in the digital realm but it will allways have that low contrast subtle look.The tamron is spot on and looks very similar to canons' best! A real 'lifelike' look as you say

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi Ron,

The Sigma is no bad performer at all, I used the 28-105f2.8-4 before this and it sharpens indeed very well, however if I have more sharpness to begin with, why not :D. that's alway's better.

Greetings,
Frank

[Andy_T]

... sounds like a great starting lens for either 10D or 300D users (instead of or in addition to the 18-55 kit lens),
if you want to tack sharp images and don't really need the wide angle.

Regards,
Andy

[ron chappel]

I'm really glad you posted this.I have heard very little about tamron's better lenses lately and seen lots of rather bad results from their cheaper stuff, so i had pretty much given up on them as a serious alternative to canon.This gives me hope again!

I want to like sigma ,i really honestly do,but can't quite bring myself to love the look sigma gives.Sure they can be stunningly sharp at times but.....for some reason they give an effect of 'allmost perfect reality,but somthing isn't quite right'

I wish all lenses were tested online with a good digital body!!!
I'll post lots of examples if i ever get my hands on a 10D/300D

[ChrisNardone]

Waking the dead on this one...

Frank are you still happy with this lens. Anyone else out there have good/bad eperiences with it. When I go to the cupboard to pull out my f/2.8 lenses, the cupboard is bare :cry:

[TeraGram93013]

I too, have the Tamron AF SP 28-75/2.8 XR Di LD ASF and it is my primary lens. I love it to pieces. Mine isn't a macro model though. (weep)

I need a macro lens. I need to take bug pictures. (I don't know why.)

The ONLY downside to this lens that I can see is the LOCK.

I keep flipping it on and forgetting about it and then wonder why my camera isn't focusing.

[Malaxos1]

I agree, it is a great lens. I bought the Tamron 28-75mm a week after getting the D Rebel. I got the Rebel as an upgrade from my Olymus E10. The big thing about the E10 is that the f.2 lens is incredible, therefore I found myself dissapointed with the Rebel's kit lens. The Tamron has served me weel, I used it yesterday at a wedding and it performed nicely...Dean

[sparty314]

I, too, am trying to decide between these lenses. Does anyone else have any experience with both? To my amateur eye, the Sigma lens in Frank's comparison doesn't seem to be focused at the same point as the Tamron. Or, is it just that soft?

[TeraGram93013]

I too, have the Tamron AF SP 28-75/2.8 XR Di LD ASF and it is my primary lens. I love it to pieces. Mine isn't a macro model though. (weep)

As I was cleaning my lens the other day, I noticed it IS a macro lens.

Learn somethin' new everyday.

[Jerry C.]

I don't want to go against the flow of Tamron 28-75 praise, however I would like to be the first (and perhaps only) to post some caveats. I owned a Tamron 28-75 for 2 weeks and shot only two rolls of film, comparing it with another two rolls of film shot with a 50mm/1.8 and a 70-200mm/f4L. These comparisons are in contrast to the posted comparisons with a Sigma 70-200/2.8. The Sigma 28-70/2.8 isn't an adequate comparison to measure lens sharpness. A prime or an incredible zoom must be used (and the Sigma is not an incredible zoom). While I found the Tamron 28-75 to be "pretty good", I could still see a noticeable degradation in sharpness compared to my 50mm or my L zoom ..... IN 4x6 PRINTS! My girlfriend could also see a visible difference. The Sigma and the Tamron may be pretty good, but they are not as good as L zooms, which for the most part are a tad lower optically than the primes. Still, all things considered, the Tamron is a very good value. Just don't get carried away in expectations or praise.

Jerry C.

[Olegis]

I own the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 too and I'm very happy with it. It's reasonably sharp at f/2.8 and VERY sharp at f/5.6 and above. As a matter of fact its optical performance is very similar to that of my Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L at f/5.6 and above.
This lens minimum focussing distance is about 30cm - not very nice for real macro shots, but still very acceptable for occasional flower shots (examples (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/flowers&page=all)).

[scott stokes]

where can i find the micro version of this lens ,i will be buying this lens in the next few weeks. thanks scott

[RDKirk]

My Tamron tests considerably better at f2.8 than my Tokina 28-80 ATX Pro. CONSIDERABLY. The Tokina was okay in its day, but it's been eclipsed significantly.

In fact, my Tamron is easily as good as my Canon f1.8 85mm prime lens. All it gives up to the prime lens is a bit of contrast in very high flare tests (studio flash directly into the lens). It's not quite as good as the Canon 50mm f1.8 Mark I, but it's too close to quibble much about.

Image-wise, the Tamron gives up nothing much to any of Canon's lenses. This should not be a surprise--there is nothing arcane about computer-design of lenses.

Where the Tamron runs behind is in not having environmental sealing or the superfast, superquiet USM focusing. That's what the consumer has to weigh on the balance. But (the faith of True Believers of the Holy Canon nontwithstanding) the Tamron quality is there.

[HJMinard]

RDKirk wrote:

Image-wise, the Tamron gives up nothing much to any of Canon's lenses. This should not be a surprise--there is nothing arcane about computer-design of lenses.

Where the Tamron runs behind is in not having environmental sealing or the superfast, superquiet USM focusing. That's what the consumer has to weigh on the balance. But (the faith of True Believers of the Holy Canon nontwithstanding) the Tamron quality is there.

I completely agree. My Tamron's sharpness is consistently as good or better than my 70-200/4L (and I've been extremely happy with that lens, as well). There is no comparison with regard to build quality/materials, but that reflects in the price ...

[Adam Hicks]

Yeah I think it's a simple fact... if you need a 28-75 that's well built but not too heavy, and costs less than $400... I don't think you'll find anything sharper (maybe even up into the $700+ range.) I think it's a fantastic lens, and it's rarely off my camera. As far as Macro I use the 100mm Canon 2.8 and together they get me through anything that doesn't need 101mm :-)

Adam

[coffeeguy415]

Hi All,

I have noob questions.

1. Is it true that Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 is loud during auto focus?
2. How is the performance at F2.8?
3. Will Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 compatible to Canon XTI 400D?

thank you

mishika

[JasonW]

Wow, resurrected a really old thread.... To answer your questions:
1) The autofocus is audible but it is not that loud. It is louder than a USM lens but quieter than the Sigma 24-70 which is the other alternate lens for this focal range and speed.
2) My 28-70 is really good at f2.8. I think it is at least as good as my 70-200f2.8L
3) The 28-75 will work fine on the 40D however its effective focal length will be 44.8-120mm due to the crop factor.

Hope this helps.
Jason.

[billayyy]

Hi everyone,

I'm looking at reviews for this lens and I have a few questions that I can't seem to find:

1) To make sure, this lens will focus on the newer Nikon entry cameras such as D40/D40x/D60?
2) What is the exact difference between the MACRO and non MACRO version? (if there is any?)
3) I see myself shooting at wider angles much closer to the 28mm range and are the pictures sharper than the sigma counterpart @ F2.8 or low lighting?

Thanks all, as i'm new to the forum :)
-billy

[cc10d]

Well your question about the Nikon compatibility I cannot answer with experience, this is a Canon forum after all. But I can say that the Tamron you ask about works very well with my 20D, 30D, 40D cameras. It is optically quite good. I have put it in my backup bag for now as I use the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS s lens now. But the Tammy served me very well and is good in its range and feature set.

[Double Negative]

...Tamron AF SP 28-75/2.8 XR Di LD Asf. IF MACRO model A09...

Gesundheit! :D

Holy crap... Are those Tamron names getting longer and longer, or am I just imaging things?!

[Canon Soldier]

[quote=Jerry C.;272159]it with another two rolls of film shot with a 50mm/1.8 and a 70-200mm/f4L
quote]

Ah, but it is made for digital, so your results were note on par with the OPs.

[Canon Soldier]

Hi everyone,

I'm looking at reviews for this lens and I have a few questions that I can't seem to find:

1) To make sure, this lens will focus on the newer Nikon entry cameras such as D40/D40x/D60?
2) What is the exact difference between the MACRO and non MACRO version? (if there is any?)
3) I see myself shooting at wider angles much closer to the 28mm range and are the pictures sharper than the sigma counterpart @ F2.8 or low lighting?

Thanks all, as i'm new to the forum :)
-billy

To your first question: will not focus on 40 or 40x, as those don't have motors, and need Nikon Af lenses. i don't know about the d60 though. If it has a motor it will work.

To your second: I don't think there is a designated macro and a non macro one. I think all tamron 28-75 di ld xr blah blah blah's are created equal.

To your third: well, if you see yourself shooting at much wider angles than 28mm, go ahead. The sigma is shown to not have as good optical performance, but it is no slacker at all.