Thoughts on the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 DI

[Vegas Poboy]

I would like to know how many Canon users is using this lens and what do they really feel about the results. I have the Sigma 28-70 and I'm ready to use it for film only it's to soft for digital. The canon is not in the budget right now.

[cloudless]

I am considering the Tamron lens too, but I've heard great things about the Canon 28-135 IS. Can somebody please compare them? I want one to replace my 300D kit lens as a walkaround lens.

[IanD]

I had the Tamron for a month or so and even thought it produced good results, I returned it and picked up the 17-40L.. To my eye, (the good one) the Canon produced better images. I found that is was quite soft at 2.8 but sharpened up at 4. Thus one of the reasons to go with the Canon, very sharp at F4. If there is any way to wait a while, I would recommend it.
The 28-135 is one heck of a lens. It is my "walk-qround" lens. Remarkable images for the money.

[Wickedfn4u]

I have had the 28-135 and it was a very nice all around lens. The only problem was when I wanted to shoot indoor sports like soccer and basket ball I could not shoot fast enough. I did some looking around and read a lot on this lens and found it was a good fit and range. I think one that it has gotten me many shots that I would have missed and find the sharpness great. If someone can find fault with it at 2.8 they maybe looking to hard. If money was not an object sure L would be fine but for me dollars to count.

This link also may help to show ratings
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

[fishingjts]

I have this lens (28-75 Di) and really like it. I shoot a lot of gymanstics in terrible lighting with no flash allowed. I shoot at 2.8 with very good results. I am completely satisfied with the lens. Ok, while this is not a 2.8 shoot action shot, it is one of my favorite pics with this lens so far... :wink:

http://www.tammyandjohn.com/PhotoAlbum/Nat_Kelsey/images/Kelsey.jpg

[drisley]

I've heard this is a very good lens.
Check out pictures here:
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=23189

and here:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tamron/sp_af_2875_28_xr_di

And a comparison with the canon 24-70mm L where alot of the pictures actually favour the tamron:
http://64.42.93.248/Lubow/tamron-canon-test.htm

[Wickedfn4u]

Guess a picture is really worth a thousand post. :wink:

[CyberDyneSystems]

The comparison page is unfortunate.

To me it just looks as if the Canon shot has the subject out of focus..

Unfortunately the writer did not post the full image as taken with the Canon,. so I can not verify this,. as he did post the Tamron full image,. it makes me wonder,.. Why not post the full sized canon image.

As far as the second image,. the house and trees,. this tels us nothing.. as at f/2.8 none of what he crops in on is in focus.. Canon or Tamron.

There was a similar comparison on a Japanese website comparing the Sigma 80-400mm OS to the Canon 100-400mm IS..

In that comparison it was clear to see that the comparison was unfair as the 100-400m was indeed out of focus. So the 100% crop showed a subject area that was NOT in focus .. making the Sigma look 5 times sharper.

[drisley]

Further proof is in the lens ratings.
You can see (at Wickedfn4u's link above) that optically the canon 28-70mm f2.8L and the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 rate almost identically (4.15 vs 4.14).

That's pretty darn good for a lens that costs 1/4 the price of the canon.

Then again, on that list they rate the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 ex hsm just a hair behind the canon 70-200mm f2.8. I've seen pictures that show the sigma having pretty bad chromatic abberation at apertures f2.8-f8.0, so I'm surprised at the close rating.

[karusel]

You've seen shots of a lemon, I think...

[Cadwell]

I had the Tamron 28-75mm briefly but sent it back to the supplier last week due to bad chromatic aberration at 75mm. I'm waiting for a replacement / refund depending on whether their "tests" tell me it's faulty / normal.

It may be that the lens I received was a friday afternoon special... too early to say.

I have the Canon EF 28-135mm and really don't like it. I have found it to be too "slow" on nearly every occasion I have tried to use it. Once (if) I get a decent copy of the Tamron and the Canon 70-200mm I have on order arrives, it's going in the skip.

[samdring]

I have the Canon EF 28-135mm and really don't like it. I have found it to be too "slow" on nearly every occasion I have tried to use it. Once (if) I get a decent copy of the Tamron and the Canon 70-200mm I have on order arrives, it's going in the skip.

Interesting - you quote in another post that you are v happy with the 17-40 which at the overlapping lengths with the 28-135 is marginally slower unless you are talking about focus speed.

I have both and am v happy with 28-135 - I wonder if this is another example of some copies being better than others?

[Cadwell]

Interesting - you quote in another post that you are v happy with the 17-40 which at the overlapping lengths with the 28-135 is marginally slower unless you are talking about focus speed.

I have both and am v happy with 28-135 - I wonder if this is another example of some copies being better than others?

I use the lenses for different purposes. With the 17-40L I am in situations where I can use flash if necessary. In the circumstances that I use the 28-135 that isn't possible and I'm more often than not at the telephoto end of the lens where it's f/5.6...

I have no doubt that the 28-135mm is a fine lens, it's just not right for me.

[dds]

Hey,
just received the 28/75 2.8. Up to now I did not play with it because of lack of time :cry:
Will try to do some test, but I'm not that expert to do that then be patient........

DDS

[dds]

Ok!
I tried to do something.
Indoor setting, natural light, Camera (300D) on a tripod, subject about 1.5 mt apart.
The all experiment was run only at 50 mm.
I tried Canon EF 50/1.4 at 1.4-2.8-5.6-11
Canon EF-S 18-55 at 5.6 and 11
Tamron 28-75/2.8 at 2.8, 5.6 and 11

ISO 100, AWB, AV priority. Single point focus (actually the area I cropped). All pictures are 100% crops of the images as shot.

All pictures taken a few seconds apart.
I did not have time to compare it at 70 mm with EF 70-100. If you are interested in that I can do it later.

Canon EF 50 --> 1.4

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3492391&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Canon EF 50 --> 2.8

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3492393&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Tamron --> 2.8

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3492390&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Canon EF 50 --> 5.6

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3492389&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Tamron --> 5.6

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3492394&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Canon EF-S --> 5.6

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3492392&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Canon EF 50 --> 11

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3492387&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Tamron --> 11

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3492386&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Canon EF-S --> 11

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3492388&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=

Unfortunately I don't have an L or L-like wide angle so I can't compare the 28 with anything SURELY good.

Hopefully this is not too incorrect from a technical point of view and may be helpful. :wink:

Please comment (I can't do that and I don't know if comparing a prime with a zoom is a worth comparison.....).

DDS

[Scotty G]

Just upgraded from a Canon 28-85mm 3.5-4.? to the tamron DI.
So far this lens takes sharp clear photos. Focus is slightly slower and very slightly noiser than the canon usm but NOT an issue. The additional aperture to 2.8 is very handy and produces a nice backround blur.

Shot some photos today while on a walk with my wife and dog. Overcast clouds / sun provided very nice light and I am very happy with the results. Overall I would say that considering the relatively low price of the lens it is well worth purchasing.

Hope this makes everyones purchase decision a bit easier.

Scotty

[Vegas Poboy]

Thanks everyone for your input, Hopefully I'll have it in my bag soon, if I don't change my mind

[karusel]

Actually what I really hoped to hear was: the Canon 24-70 L is better than Tamron 28-75, but just by a little bit... yup, that would make the decision much easier! :)

[Motorsports Photo]

I'll muck things up a bit by adding that I like my Tokina 287 Pro SV.

Good solid build. Seems to focus as fast as other canon lenses I have, and I havent seen any pic that had any sort of "error" to it.

My only gripe is the focal length ring works opposite of the canon lenses so I'm always zooming out instead of in!

-Pete

[Tom W]

OK, to further muddy the waters, how about the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5?

http://home.comcast.net/~trwilk3/Images/Bailey_750.jpg

[nosquare2003]

I have had the 28-135 and it was a very nice all around lens. The only problem was when I wanted to shoot indoor sports like soccer and basket ball I could not shoot fast enough. I did some looking around and read a lot on this lens and found it was a good fit and range. I think one that it has gotten me many shots that I would have missed and find the sharpness great. If someone can find fault with it at 2.8 they maybe looking to hard. If money was not an object sure L would be fine but for me dollars to count.

This link also may help to show ratings
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm


From the link, the lens rating of Tamron 28-75/2.8 is 4.14 (just a little bit lower than the Canon L). It is higher than all prime lens from 24mm to 35mm (all brands). And from the rating the Canon prime lens for the same focal lengths of Tamron's are:

28/2.8 = 3.86
35/2 = 3.5
35/1.4L = 3.61
50/1L = 3.64
50/1.4 = 3.96
50/1.8 = 3.91
50/2.5 macro = 4.34

The rating is the "average" of different lens tests. Are they using the same lens tests for averaging? What lens tests are included? And the same lens tests included for all lenses?

I doubt this lens rating.

[Tom W]

I have had the 28-135 and it was a very nice all around lens. The only problem was when I wanted to shoot indoor sports like soccer and basket ball I could not shoot fast enough. I did some looking around and read a lot on this lens and found it was a good fit and range. I think one that it has gotten me many shots that I would have missed and find the sharpness great. If someone can find fault with it at 2.8 they maybe looking to hard. If money was not an object sure L would be fine but for me dollars to count.

This link also may help to show ratings
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm


From the link, the lens rating of Tamron 28-75/2.8 is 4.14 (just a little bit lower than the Canon L). It is higher than all prime lens from 24mm to 35mm (all brands). And from the rating the Canon prime lens for the same focal lengths of Tamron's are:

28/2.8 = 3.86
35/2 = 3.5
35/1.4L = 3.61
50/1L = 3.64
50/1.4 = 3.96
50/1.8 = 3.91
50/2.5 macro = 4.34

The rating is the "average" of different lens tests. Are they using the same lens tests for averaging? What lens tests are included? And the same lens tests included for all lenses?

I doubt this lens rating.

There's another lens rating in the form of a survey at the same site - go to http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/ , then click on "canon EOS", scroll down a bit and you'll find a box where you can search the survey. Search "standard zooms", sort by performance, and start query.

This isn't scientific either, but it is based on a survey of user's estimates of how the lens performs in the various categories. The Tamron in question scores a respectable 3.36, well above the 2.82 turned in by the Canon 28-135, but a good deal below the Canon 24-70L at 4.32.

Unfortunately, Photodo.com (which is scientific) seems to have given up testing lenses and doesn't have the Tamron lens in question.

[Cadwell]

:)

About a week ago on here I posted about problems I had with my Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8. It was showing what I considered to be bad chromatic aberation and I sent it back to the supplier.

I received a replacement lens today and I am happy to say that it is perfect. No sign of CA at all :) I've run some tests against the best comparable lens I have that overlaps in focal length, my Canon 17-40mm F/4.0L and I am VERY impressed with the Tamron. Using both lenses at 28mm, 35mm and 40mm, the Tamron is significantly sharper at F/4.0 and to my eyes just sharper at F/8.0 than the Canon. The Tamron is a little soft at F/2.8 but it's nothing that a touch of software sharpening won't fix. Colour reproduction and image quality is excellent.

Anyway... the point of this post is to say that I am happy with the Tamron and that my previous example must have been a Friday afternoon special. (it happens to the best of them ;) )

[CanonUser]

My first pics with the 28-75mm XR Di. Shot at ISO1600.
http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=4175628&a=31171163&f=

Regards,
Alan

[drisley]

Wow, some very cool pics!
Good work!

[wattsmedia]

I think it boils down to what your using the lens for at the end of the day.

If your getting paid to do the job, get the canon version as soon as.. I've tried both tamron and sigma lenses in the past only to find that they have a limited number of sweet spots where the lens it at it's sharpest.. with the L series lens there are just more sweet spots and less of the problems that you find with 3rd party lenses.

i'm not a huge canon fan as i've always used nikon until a short time ago where I joined a number of other photographers (just to ride out the recession storm).

If your a full frame user 5d 1d, the extra wide 24mm is also an advantage on the canon lense.

if you've got the time and not the budget you could learn where the tamron gives you the best results, even though I've found the lens to be a bit soft. you've got to remember that it's not just the "F" number, it's also the distance you are away from your subject and the focusing position.

it all adds up.

I'm sure you could get some good results from the lens for the money. but if it's business, save the pennies for the lens that is the business. canon 24 - 70 f2.8

[dave_bass5]

Personally i found the Tamron to be a great lens, never let me down and almost on a par, IQ wise, with my 17-55IS f/2.8
But of course that didnt exist when this thread was started so was not discussed 6 years ago.

[crispypie]

Hey,

did you guys notice this was asked back in 2004?

[dave_bass5]

Hey,

did you guys notice this was asked back in 2004?

Of course, did you not read my post ;-)