TAMRON 28-75mm f/2.8

[baw5t0n]

Does anyone have this lens? I'm trying to save about $800 by getting this instead of 24-70L. I understand build quality, low-light focusing, focusing speed/ noise are all the pluses for the L, but I'm not sure that as a hobbyist, I'll really need to spend $800 for those things per se. I'd rather spend that on 85mm f/1.8 AND 35mm f/2 AND the wireless flash trigger... or put that toward 70-200mm f/2.8L, which I think provides greater advantage over any other equivalent lenses out there... any thoughts??

[ofdphoto]

I haven't used the Tammy myself but all of your thinking makes sense. Go for it! Optically the Tammy is superb. You've listed all of the disadvantages, and none of them are a big deal for a hobbyist.

You have a flash with an AF assist beam to help in low light, too ;-)

[StealthLude]

I have the Tamron 28-75... for the money, its a great lens. IMO, if you got the money for the L lens, id say go for it (assuming you are going to use it a lot), its pretty awsome lens.

I went with the Tamron since I dont use that focal length often... Im more of a wide angel 10-22 or a tele guy 70-200 + focal lengths.

Since you said the money can be better spent elsewhere, like a 70-200, id get the tamron and something else! The Tamron wont upset, + the warranty is freakin awsome at 6 years.. Cant really go wrong.

[T.D.]

Does anyone have this lens? I'm trying to save about $800 by getting this instead of 24-70L. I understand build quality, low-light focusing, focusing speed/ noise are all the pluses for the L, but I'm not sure that as a hobbyist, I'll really need to spend $800 for those things per se. I'd rather spend that on 85mm f/1.8 AND 35mm f/2 AND the wireless flash trigger... or put that toward 70-200mm f/2.8L, which I think provides greater advantage over any other equivalent lenses out there... any thoughts??

I have it. It's a great lens. There are threads on here with lots of sample photos.

[StealthLude]

AF assist beam work wonders indoors.. =)

[Xico]

This is a very good lens. Got one and i am very happy with it. The only thing i would say is on a crop sensor, 28mn is sometimes not wide enough, but that's the only thing.

[hvman]

Considered the Sigma equivalent?

[liza]

If you're a hobbyist, it's a fine zoom. A lot of people starting out in the wedding and portrait photography fields use it as well. The 17-50 is also a good lens and might be a better alternative paired with the 85mm f/1.8.

[ofdphoto]

Liza, the OP has a 5D. 17-50 would be too wide.

[baw5t0n]

thanks for the responses... i have NOT tried or looked into the sigma lenses. from what i understand, though, tamron optics are superior to most other manufacturers out there... can someone shed some light on the sigma lenses??

[zacwolf]

i just got one and absolutely love it

[baw5t0n]

Zac... tokina or tamron? your sig says tokina... how are tokina lenses??

[squashed]

I have it and love it. I personally cannot compare it to a 24-70L as I have never used one, but I think this Tamron is a wonderful lens for the money. Well worth it IMHO.

[Xico]

If you are not sure you will use it a lot, you should look for a used one. That will leave you more money for something else (70-200...) I paid mine 340$ US, very good deal . Just try it before to be sure it's a good copy. (Should be)

[Tee Why]

Built and priced like a consumer grade lens with pro level optics.
Do a search online for it. There are many many tests of this popular lens. Should be pretty nice on a 5D.

[hvman]

thanks for the responses... i have NOT tried or looked into the sigma lenses. from what i understand, though, tamron optics are superior to most other manufacturers out there... can someone shed some light on the sigma lenses??
I'm curious too :)

[zacwolf]

Zac... tokina or tamron? your sig says tokina... how are tokina lenses??
im a moron, i just changed it to tamron.

[Wilt]

Does anyone have this lens? I'm trying to save about $800 by getting this instead of 24-70L. I understand build quality, low-light focusing, focusing speed/ noise are all the pluses for the L, but I'm not sure that as a hobbyist, I'll really need to spend $800 for those things per se. I'd rather spend that on 85mm f/1.8 AND 35mm f/2 AND the wireless flash trigger... or put that toward 70-200mm f/2.8L, which I think provides greater advantage over any other equivalent lenses out there... any thoughts??

Superb logic you have. Just leave a dollar on the altar of the L god as you leave to worship in the temple of the Tamron, and the L god will be appeased and let you leave without harm!

[dan1home]

I personally did not like this lens. I had it and felt it was loud, had a very cheap build and the images weren't as sharp. If you can afford it, don't go the cheap route when it comes to lenses. All that will happen is later you will end up selling and getting the best which ultimately will cost you more (IMHO).

I haven't had the 24-70L but I did have the 24-105l and it was 10 times better than the Tamron 28-75mm in terms of image clarity and color saturation.

Do yourself a favor and rent any lens you are thinking of getting. Try it out for yourself and see if its worth it to you.

[Wilt]

Liza, the OP has a 5D. 17-50 would be too wide.

...not to mention, it would not cover the frame!

[Kadman]

I love the 28-75. Excellent bang for the buck. Check out the sample photos and you will see some razor sharp sample shots. Definitely a keeper for me.

[ed rader]

i've owned both and optically the tamron is a gem. the canon is a better lens but you'd expect that since it costs 3x as much.

let me get this straight....you own the 5d and you are trying to save money :D ?

for me 28mm is a deal killer. on a crop camera a standard zoom that starts at 28mm had me swapping lenses too frequently.

on FF 24mm is as wide as i want but i want 24mm and would not settle for 28mm..so the 24-70L or 24-105L are really the only two choices i would consider, and i've used both of them and chose the 24-70L.

i see you have the 17-35 so this may not be an issue for you.

the 24-70L is an awesome lens on the 5d and i imagine the tamron would be great too.

ed rader

[Dorman]

There's no debate in my mind that feature for feature the 24-70L is the champ in it's class followed by the 3rd party offerings.

That being said, while the Tamron may pale in comparison in certain areas IQ and optics are not one of them. There are countless fantastic shots from happy users on this forum to attest to it. I just took delivery of this lens about a week ago and so far I'm really pleased with the results. It's not a range that I've typically ever used (never had before really) so I couldn't justify the L yet. It's performed well in low-light and wide open the other night at a party. While all my other lenses have usm and are dead silent, I don't find the focus motor too loud at all on the 28-75 and while not L build quality I certainly wouldn't say that it's poorly built.

In summation, I don't think you can go wrong with the Tamron (or even the Sigma 24-70 EX), but if it's going to be your most used range and you're demanding on your gear, spring for the L.

[ed rader]

There's no debate in my mind that feature for feature the 24-70L is the champ in it's class followed by the 3rd party offerings.

That being said, while the Tamron may pale in comparison in certain areas IQ and optics are not one of them. There are countless fantastic shots from happy users on this forum to attest to it. I just took delivery of this lens about a week ago and so far I'm really pleased with the results. It's not a range that I've typically ever used (never had before really) so I couldn't justify the L yet. It's performed well in low-light and wide open the other night at a party. While all my other lenses have usm and are dead silent, I don't find the focus motor too loud at all on the 28-75 and while not L build quality I certainly wouldn't say that it's poorly built.

In summation, I don't think you can go wrong with the Tamron (or even the Sigma 24-70 EX), but if it's going to be your most used range and you're demanding on your gear, spring for the L.


man this makes so much sense. my other zooms are f4 IS because i don't need faster and i don't want extra cost or weight.

the 24-70L is my most used lens so it's f2.8 and comes with a substantial size and weight penalty.

ed rader

[Dorman]

my other zooms are f4 IS because i don't need faster and i don't want extra cost or weight.

ed rader

Truer words have never been spoken, imagine if we didn't have internet forums to obsess over gear at, more people would think this way and have gear that really suits their needs rather than what everyone else seems to pick up as the best.

[hvman]

Brad, What are your views on the Sigma compared to the Tamron optics wise?

[Big Hands]

Sounds like you have a good understanding of the Tamron's limitations and you can live with them. If that is the case, I think you'll find the Tamron to be outstanding when working within it's own unique set of limitations (of which every lens ever made has as well).

Mine was very sharp at f/2.8 and tack sharp by f/3.5.

Regards,
Jeff

[Dorman]

Brad, What are your views on the Sigma compared to the Tamron optics wise?

I've never had the opportunity to use the Sigma to compare but have read lots of favorable reviews. Lightrules on this forum did a head-to-head review and overall he slightly prefered the Sigma over the Tamron. IIRC the Sigma has an odd clutch AF/MF system and I do know it's quite a bit larger and heavier. From what I've seen both are excellent optically.

[airbutchie]

I personally love my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8... Here are a few sample shot I took last weekend:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/airbutchie/Photography/ROSEHILLS_011406_0076.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/airbutchie/Photography/ROSEHILLS_011406_0029.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/airbutchie/Photography/ROSEHILLS_011406_0070.jpg

No tripod used (all hand held shots)... Exif's are attached to the images if you need details on the composition... Nonetheless, add one more to the "thumbs up" on this lense!!!

- airbutchie :D

[TLovern]

I also have the lens and love it. I would recommend it without hesitation.

[taramcg]

I had this lens and sent it back. I think maybe I had a bad copy. It was not fast to focus and inconsistent when it did focus. I waited, saved, and bought the 24-70L. It was worth the wait. I do primarily portraits so I wanted the sharpest zoom I could get. I am very pleased with my purchase, even though it weighs a ton!

HTH!