Tamron DI 28-75 f2.8 story..

[mcneguy]

I wandered in to my local store today, I was interested in buying the Canon 24-70 f2.8L for my 10d. They salesperson said, "Before you do that, try this one" He put on the afforementioned Tamron lens and told me to take some pics outside which I did. He then gave me the L glass and had me do the same thing of roughly the same stuff, I did as I was told.

We then looked at the pics, I do have to say that there wasn't a whole lot of difference. Admittedly it was bright so I was shooting with a very small apeture. He then printed out one of the photos from each lens and I really could not tell the difference. The photos were taken as raw and converted to 8 bit tiff without any processing or sharpening. I do believe that I had my 10d set for maximum sharpening however, not sure if that matters with RAW or not. I can't believe that the store had a higher profit margin on this lens than they have on the L so maybe they just believe that this is a better lens (which they actually said).

Bottom line is I walked out of there with the Tamron and a 30 day guarantee if I wanted to exchange it. Of course I could buy 4 of the Tamron lenses for 1 of the Canon, but I'll have to see how it goes...

[drisley]

I've read similar stories, and seen direct comparisons that show the quality to be VERY close.

Please let us know how you like it after using it for a few days/weeks.
Pictures would be nice to see too!!!
:D

BTW, how does it compare besides optically? Like the focus speed/noise, etc?

Here is a site with a direct comparison:
http://64.42.93.248/Lubow/tamron-canon-test.htm

[Malaxos1]

I have the Tamron lens and love it. It was the first accessory I bought after getting the 300D. It is an excellent portrait lens and has served me well on many occassions, including a few weddings...Dean

[CanonUser]

"Brown" handed me the 28-75mm XR Di at 3PM. Went to tape an underground hiphop show at 8PM. Asked the producer if I can shoot some still along with the video, she said "yes"! Snapped away with the DR and the Tamron mounted on it. Shot at f2.8/AV mode/-2EV metering/handheld/ISO1600. Shutter ranged between 1/15 to 1/60. Post processing includes USM, WB, EV correction in C1. Dynamic range adjustment, noise reduction (Kodak GEM filter), and JPG conversion were done in PS-CS. You can see the results here...
http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=4175628&a=31171163
The available lights were heavily gelled spots and were not set up for either video or photo. The Tamron had no problem on focusing or sharpness. The C1 proves itself again at WB with these difficult images.
The arsenal of tools currently available to photographer is amazing. A few years ago, only pro with huge resources can enjoy the toys we have today.

Regards,
Alan

[mcneguy]

Those shots were taken at ISO 1600? Whenever I do that I get a grainy mess. I was thinking of posting some shots of my house being built that I took about an hour after buying the lens but now they'll look stupid.

Looks like I need to step up to Capture 1 and stop using Canon's File Viewer Utility...

[CanonUser]

Opinion varies, but I found C1 to be great at WB and exposure correction on my RAW files. Fortunately, I had enough light to shoot at ISO1600 and still get a decent image. Image 4848 was shot under a VERY dim overhead tungsten light. The RAW basically has no detail in the shadows. I selected C1's "Film Extra Shadows" mode and it opened up the dark areas just like that. There were tons of noise but a quick run of the GEM filter in PS makes the imge very usable.

Regards,
Alan

[ldivinag]

I wandered in to my local store today...

wow nice store...

are most stores like this nice or am i not just going to the right ones???

[Vegas Poboy]

Good story I just asked about this lens two days ago and got mixed reactions.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28358

But I'm sure I'll get this one I also had the chance to play with this lens tonight in class and it produced great results in low light.

[drisley]

I think what makes the decision easier is that there really is no other lens in this class/price range that is better.
When people are often comparing a $300US lens (sometimes favourably) to an L lens that costs thousands of dollars, I think you have a winner.

[ron chappel]

Of course there is the option of just getting a fast 50 to go with your telezoom and wide/wide zooms....
That's basically what i do

[MediaMagic]

Canon 24-70 f2.8L
Price:$1299.00US
Filter Size 77mm
F-Stop Range 2.8-22
Minimum Focus Distance 1.25' (0.38)
Magnification 1:3.5
Zoom/Focus Control Two touch
Angle Of View 74 to 29 Degrees
Groups/Elements 13/16
Length 4.9" (123.5mm)
Max. Diameter 3.3" (83.2mm)
Weight 2.1 lb (950 g)


Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di
Price: $329.00US
Filter Size 67mm
F-Stop Range 2.8-32
Minimum Focus Distance 13" (33 cm), over entire zoom range
Magnification 1:3.9
Zoom/Focus Control Two-touch
Angle Of View 75 to 32 Degrees
Groups/Elements 14/16
Length 3.6" (92mm)
Max. Diameter 2.9" (73mm)
Weight 1.50 lb (510 g)


On paper, the Tamron would appear to hold its own quite well in the comparison, even taking several categories, e.g., size, weight, fstop range, price. The only questions I'd have about the Tamron is durability under heavy use and speed of AF. It looks like the Tamron would be a much better buy for casual shooters and amateurs who don't put the lens through more extreme use (just not enough time in the market as of yet to make the determination of durability). The image quality is very good.

If I didn't already have a 24-70L I'd certainly consider it. I think it's quite the performance to cost value.

[mcneguy]

Ok after looking at the shots I took yesterday and printing a couple out I have concluded that this is a heck of a lens. My pics are tack sharp. It is entirely possible that the Canon L may be better but there is absolutely no possible way that it is 4 times better, this lens absolutely defines the law of diminishing returns.

I even called Tamron today to find out when the 75-??? DI will be available, the bad news is they only have a 200-500 DI planned for release in May..I really don't need a lens like that, I am thinking about the 180mm DI that is already out for my telephoto needs..Anyone seen one of those?

[jamiew]

I recently got a 28-75 as well...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/83560

[Vegas Poboy]

As far as durability my wedding & digital darkroom instructor is a major photographer here in Las Vegas doing alot of work in a few of the major casinos & he's had no trouble with the lens. I've also met with another photographer who shoot with the N*k*N D2H and he also have given good reviews.
If I had the extra $1300.00 I would go with Canon but right know I'm trying to get studio lights and preplan vacations so my disposable income is very low right now. :)

[Jon Borcik]

I purchased two Tamron lenses when I purchased my 10D last March. I shot a lot of sports pics, but my experience was not very good. Both of my lenses showed a lot of chromatic abberation and were not very sharp. I had to post process every photo. I thought it was the camera, but I borrowed a 100-400L canon lens from a friend and.... low & behold... my pictures were tack sharp, colors were more accurate and not chromatic abberations. I sent both lenses back to Tamron and for analysis and they indicated that one of the lenses had a problem while the other might have been a compatability problem with the 10D. With the help of my local camera store, I received a fullrebate from Tameron (thank you) and spent the extra cash on Canon lenses and haven't looked back. Tamron may have resolved their compatability problems since then, but I'll be buying Canon. Just my findings.... yours sounds much more favorable than mine.

[mcneguy]

The cheaper Tamron lenses are pretty much paperweights but I can't argue with the DI line so far, I really want to see the 180mm DI. I may go to my store tomorrow and slap one of those on to see what happens. I have season tickets to the Milwaukee Brewers (Hey, I love baseball and they have got to be good eventually) so I plan on using it there.

[dds]

I think it is a pretty decent lens for the money.
I posted a little comparison with EF 50/1.4 USM a few days ago, but I don't have a really comparable lens so...
In practice I'm quite happy, but I need some more testing. Focus speed and noise are not an issue to me.
For sure at 2.8 is MUCH softer then stopped down, but we can't pretend everything from a "relatively" cheap lens.
Will upload some pictures later.
Cheers

DDS

[dds]

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3562935&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3563021&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Image quality was a little bit decreased in PS because of image size (slow internet connection :roll: ).

DDS

[drisley]

Wow, very nice!
And so are all 3 models :)
Do you recall what sort of settings you used for these 2 pics, mainly aperture?

Thanks again for posting :)

[dds]

Picture 1
F 3.5 - 1/200 - ISO 100

Picture 2
F 5 - 1/500 - ISO 100

Thanks,
:lol: :lol: :lol:

DDS

[photography By Evangelos]

No thanks I will stay with the 24-70 L the Tamron just will not take the abuse and use as well over time as the canon will. Also it is not as sharp as it is said to be when you enlarge prints to 16x20 or 20x30 there is a difference in optical performance and A/F performance. The Tamron is a good alternative over the canon.


Angelo

[drisley]

Absolutely, the L lens is better quality.
But it costs 400% more! Is it 4x better? Probably not.
And as far as durability is concerned, Vegas' post shows that shouldn't be a problem. Not to mention you can replace the lens 4 times before spending as much money as that L.
However, the Tamron comes with a 6 YEAR WARRANTY! So, again, durabiltiy shouldnt be an issue.

If both were $300, I would choose the L lens.
Since they are not, I would choose the Tamron.

[dds]

Agree 100% with Drisley,
a 20% improvement in quality does not usually cost 20% of the lens price. This is the fact with these two lenses: I don't know (unfortunately :twisted: canon 24-70) but I'm sure it is superior to Tamron. I may estimate a 20% difference in quality that costs 300%.
I don't need it and I am not going to pay for that. I still have to get looooots of stuff I need. :roll:
DDS

[Jmurman]

I just got my Tamron in from B and H.

Cant wait to try it out!

[photography By Evangelos]

I 100% disagree with your agreement on this lens. First off it is not a constant F 2.8 Lens. Second A/F performance is not the same as the Canon and no USM motor on the Tamron. Third Optical performance is not on par with the canon. Like I said the Tamron is a good alternative over the canon but it is no canon. It is a heck of a lot better than the Sigma the sigma is like junk compared to the Tamron. The Tamron is a great lens at a great price but no canon.


Angelo

[dds]

I think we are ALL saying the same thing i.e., despite the statements of some sites, canon is probably optically better than tamron (I estimated 20%, but it was just pure speculation). I think noone here will say tamron is optically better than canon.
Tamron is, in my opinion, a better bargain. If cost is not an issue Canon is a safe buy.

DDS

[photography By Evangelos]

Also one more point the shots form on Vegas' post. The Pix are nice but in no way constitute a real test of lens performance. I use my equipment more than most on the forum will. I have a 10-hour wedding this morning and Barmitzvah on Sunday and a small wedding on the beach late Sunday. This is every week for me and I will shoot around 1,800 frames that is a true test of how a lens works. In all my years I have never had a Lens that works as fast or as good as my canons have. Never ever ever. Time is money and speed is everything for me. Canon is the best for my money.
:D




Angelo

[Jmurman]

When I look at price vs performance, I dont have the luxury of being able to drop 1300 for a lens that performance wise is very close to the second place lens...i.e. Tamron

If on the other hand I was using my system to make money, then that is a whole new subject, and the 1300 is a business expense.

my .002

[dds]

I think different opinions on this kind of subjects depend on this consideration:
amateurs usually care very much of the price/performance ratio while pros usually don't care that much about it because they need the best available quality (in terms of optic quality, speed, features...) and they are ready to pay for it because on this quality depends their work and then their income.

DDS

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi,
Could you please explain why it's not a constant 2.8 lens ?
On my camera it is 2.8 from 28-75, I use 2.8 quite alot actualy and cannot agree that 2.8 is soft, f5.6 is a bit sharper but not much.

Greetings,
Frank

[Vegas Poboy]

From my understanding most lens have their best sharpness 1-2 stops down from wide open. Look @ most of the test in some of the photo mags and see the test results in general. I've also learned this from most of the Pro's I've worked with & this can be with most of the brand names on the market.

[drisley]

I found some good sample pictures from this lens, the first 2 at f2.8.
Look very nice to me!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=6683732

Here is a lens chart test from Popular Photography magazine:
http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/8212003124116.pdf

Also, there is the infamous comparison between the Tamron and the Canon 24-70mm L lens:
http://64.42.93.248/Lubow/tamron-canon-test.htm

[Tom W]

Pretty impressive pictures and test results for this Tamron. While I don't believe the test against the 24-70 L is typical, I'm convinced that this Tamron lens is a very good close second as far as image quality is concerned.

Its nice to see good performance at f/2.8 - its relatively easy to offer a fast lens, but rather hard to make one that is sharp wide open.

This isn't the first good Tamron lens to work well in that zoom range - For years, I relied on a Tamron 35-80 f/2.8 FD mount lens on my FT. It was a pretty good performer, though it became mechanically inept after about 25 years of service (in other words, it finally broke).

[Cadwell]

I don't own an EF 24-70L so I can't comment on the Tamron vs that lens.

What I can say is that in my opinion the Tamron produces better images than my Canon EF 17-40 F/4.0L at all the focal lengths they share. It is certainly sharper at F/4.0 and to my eyes, better at F/8.0. It also completely blows away my EF 28-135mm. I know which lens I will be using from my bag in future for this focal range, and I can tell you right now that it won't have a Canon badge on it.

As for focus speed... it doesn't have a USM, that is true, but I used it on Saturday at Brands Hatch to shoot some race cars at very close range travelling at well over 100mph and it managed to focus correctly and give me the shots without problems. If it can do that, then I would suggest that it's focus speed is adequate for most purposes.

[ron chappel]

That test against the 24-70 L is just plain wrong.That particular canon has to be a dud because other examples i've seen are MUCH sharper.

It's a real pity it's online as now heaps of people will believe it and be linking to it ('look,here's proof!') :x

Not to take it away from the tamron..clearly they have got a winner on their hands with this one.Well done guys :) :) :) :) ,it's about time you made a genuinely great lens-i haven't heard a peep out of you for years!
looking forward to the 80-200 XR that's coming! (or so i've heard)

[drisley]

That test against the 24-70 L is just plain wrong.That particular canon has to be a dud because other examples i've seen are MUCH sharper.

Such as?...

I think I beleive it. Even Cadwell says it's a sharper lens than his canon 17-40L, so it is possible that it is also slightly sharper than the 24-70L.

I am just going by what I've seen, and that is the only comparison I've seen between the Tamron 28-75 and the Canon 24-70L.

Could you point out the other examples you were looking at?
I've been looking high and low for good info on the Tamron lens.

Cadwell, I had a look at your latest racing gallery... very nice indeed!

[G3]

I 100% disagree with your agreement on this lens. First off it is not a constant F 2.8 Lens. Second A/F performance is not the same as the Canon and no USM motor on the Tamron. Third Optical performance is not on par with the canon. Like I said the Tamron is a good alternative over the canon but it is no canon. It is a heck of a lot better than the Sigma the sigma is like junk compared to the Tamron. The Tamron is a great lens at a great price but no canon.


Angelo

Ummm...yes, it is a constant f2.8. It is also internal focusing. And, I would say that the optical quality compares favorably to the Canon glass. The Canon glass may have a slight edge in quality, but not enough to justify a 400% price delta. As far as USM motor...well, if it focuses quickly and quietly and has a 6 year warranty, who cares?

Here's a link:
http://www.tamron.com/di.htm

[roanjohn]

This Tamron lens is a good performer.

I finally got a chance to use it extensively on my recent trip to DC. It is a tad soft wide open (though useable), but stopped down to f4 and beyond, it is nice and sharp.

The lightness (physically and financially) is a big plus compared to the canon L. The extra reach of 75 is also a plus for portrait shots and etc... Macro shots are also a nice option and are acceptable.

About the only gripe I have is that it rotates in the opposite direction comapred to the Canon lens and it produces a slight yellow tint on all pictures.............Other than that, I am happy with it as a nice and light walk-around lens.

http://www.pbase.com/image/27598287.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/27598306.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/27598302.jpg

Okay................I hope I didn't post too much pics :-) But it shows you what it can do.

Ro1

[drisley]

More pictures! More! :lol:

[daaaveman]

roanjohn, great pics. Is that your little girl? She's a cutie. I've got a little boy that's 3 1/2. Of every 1,000 pics, about 800 seem to be of him!

[roanjohn]

roanjohn, great pics. Is that your little girl? She's a cutie. I've got a little boy that's 3 1/2. Of every 1,000 pics, about 800 seem to be of him!

Ha ha ha

I Wish!!! No..........she's just a random child I took a photo of :-) And I can certainly understand how one day I'll be taking pictures of my kid till they get sick of it (my traveling companions certainly were at the end of this trip)....

Ro1

[CanonUser]

The Tamron IS a constant f2.8 lens. On the battle of Canon vs Tamron, I think many user agrees that Canon 24-70mm L is the better lens and the Tamron 28-75mm XR Di is the better value. Like everything else in life, most of us have to make a compromise here and there including the purchase of a lens. If you're a pro and charge a fee that reflects your hi-end status, then anything less than an L lens would be unacceptable to your customers and yourself. On the other hand, if you shoot budget weddings, then the Tamron offers better performance /price balance and your customers will get more than what they pay for in term of image quality. And then there is the photographer's capability. Wouldn't it make more sense if you're an amateur or a beginning pro to purchase a lens like the Tamron to practice on? You won't break your bank or business budget (thus you have to charge more and have less business...). If it turms out that you're a natural born "image catcher", the Tamron can be a great back up to the new L lens that you just purchased. If not, then you still have a very nice lens that will give you great snap shots and 8X10s.
Beside, wouldn't it be a tragedy if your L lens just sits there? I know at least 2 guys who have their Pelican cases full of Canon glass (and 1 with top notch N***n glass) stashed in the closet and rarely see the daylight! I do shoot along side with these guy from time to time and their images, well, have the quality of an instamatic shot. I also have the pleasure to work with some other guys who shot film bodies with 3rd party lens whose works are just excellent, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them to my family and friends. I also see a few forum messages commenting on how the Tamron is the better walk around lens due to it's size and weight. These posters leave the L lens at home in favor of the Tamron. I would too!

Just My $.02,
Alan

[Vegas Poboy]

The Tamron IS a constant f2.8 lens. On the battle of Canon vs Tamron, I think many user agrees that Canon 24-70mm L is the better lens and the Tamron 28-75mm XR Di is the better value. Like everything else in life, most of us have to make a compromise here and there including the purchase of a lens. If you're a pro and charge a fee that reflects your hi-end status, then anything less than an L lens would be unacceptable to your customers and yourself. On the other hand, if you shoot budget weddings, then the Tamron offers better performance /price balance and your customers will get more than what they pay for in term of image quality. And then there is the photographer's capability. Wouldn't it make more sense if you're an amateur or a beginning pro to purchase a lens like the Tamron to practice on? You won't break your bank or business budget (thus you have to charge more and have less business...). If it turms out that you're a natural born "image catcher", the Tamron can be a great back up to the new L lens that you just purchased. If not, then you still have a very nice lens that will give you great snap shots and 8X10s.
Beside, wouldn't it be a tragedy if your L lens just sits there? I know at least 2 guys who have their Pelican cases full of Canon glass (and 1 with top notch N***n glass) stashed in the closet and rarely see the daylight! I do shoot along side with these guy from time to time and their images, well, have the quality of an instamatic shot. I also have the pleasure to work with some other guys who shot film bodies with 3rd party lens whose works are just excellent, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them to my family and friends. I also see a few forum messages commenting on how the Tamron is the better walk around lens due to it's size and weight. These posters leave the L lens at home in favor of the Tamron. I would too!

Just My $.02,
Alan

Very well said,
Notice how many have viewed this topic, I'm sure someone sales is going to increase real soon.

[daaaveman]

Very well said,
Notice how many have viewed this topic, I'm sure someone sales is going to increase real soon.

Yup, been putting money in my piggybank for the 24-70L. Just waiting for B&H to open back up now.......

[roanjohn]

Very well said,
Notice how many have viewed this topic, I'm sure someone sales is going to increase real soon.

Yup, been putting money in my piggybank for the 24-70L. Just waiting for B&H to open back up now.......

Me too!!! And the 50 USD rebate is really gonna come in handy.

Ro1