Tamron Di Xr 28-75 f/2.8 vs Canon EF28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

[Liang]

I wish to get a replacement for the 300D kit lens.

These 2 lens are within my budget.
Which one should I choose?
Please advice.

[pmarz]

I traded my 28-135 for the Tamron. I couldnt be happier. The Tamron is tack sharp. For the longer focal lenths I went with the Canon 70-200mm f-4. That is also a great lens

[Cadwell]

The Tamron is streets ahead in terms of optical quality. The Tamron is always in my camera bag... I am not sure where my EF 28-135mm is... my vote would be Tamron.

[roanjohn]

Don't have the Canon 28-135 IS but the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 does wonders for me as a genral purpose lens.

Ro1

[WestFalcon]

Cadwell must have had a bad sample of the 28-135IS. Mine is fantastic! I make phenomenal 16x20 portraits with this lens. Great zoom range and I would always go with Canon lenses. They focus more quietly and try to sell a Tamron and the Canon 3 years from now. I've sold a lot on Ebay and good Canon lenses will sell for 80% of their new value no matter how long you have had them as long as they are taken care of and not abused. Tamron lenses might get 50% on resale and far fewer bidders. This is important because someday you may want to upgrade to L lenses and the Canon resells very easily. To me its a no-brainer, I'll take the Canon everytime!!The IS makes up for the not so large Fstop on the Canon.

[Cadwell]

Cadwell must have had a bad sample of the 28-135IS.

:lol: Aint it amazing how often that excuse comes out? I can assure you that my 28-135mm is representative of the breed, I've tried 3 different examples of it. I am not saying it's a bad lens... just that the Tamron is better. Actually the Tamron is better than my 17-40L at the focal lengths it shares too...

[roanjohn]

... Actually the Tamron is better than my 17-40L at the focal lengths it shares too...

Hmmm.........interesting statement.

Ro1

[Malaxos1]

When I gort the Rebel I was dissapointed with the kit lens at first, it just didn't do it for me for portraits. So I had to spring for a lens with a constant 2.8 or 2.0 aperture and being that I just laid out a grand for the camera the Tamron was something that wouldn't get me in too much trouble with my wife. Anyway I love the lens and use it more than any other lens in my bag, and I have some glass that cost more than twice as much...Dean

[drisley]

I've heard so many conflicting statements about the Tamron it makes my head hurt.

The large majority say it is awesome however.

The only negatives I've heard is that it is quite soft at apertures f2.8 - f5.6. I'm always wondering how soft exactly.

I've seen that Tamron vs the Canon 24-70L comparison page where the Tamron looks much sharper, even at f2.8, but that almost seems too good to be true.

However, on topic, I would get the Tamron over the Canon 28-135mm.

[WestFalcon]

Roanjohn.....Don't missquote me...I never said that the Tamron was better that the 17-40 Canon...that was Cadwell.

I am a big fan of the 28-135 IS Canon and I think that you would be better off with this lens but to each his own. I have had and still have some of Tamrons better and most expensive lenses. They sit idle in my camera room. Maybe I should put them on Ebay and let you guys go after them. I have the 20-40(about a $600-700 lens and the 35-100 F3.5(fixed) a no longer made but expensive lens with special glass. I use strictly Canon lenses now but I realize that they are not the only sharp lenses in the world.

[Liang]

does IS help to prevent shake when shoot slower than 1/60 snd handheld?

[Andy_T]

does IS help to prevent shake when shoot slower than 1/60 snd handheld?

Yes, that's what IS is for.

Best regards,
Andy

[c0ntr0lz]

Tamrons are good lenses?
they are about the same price as the canons

[slejhamer]

they are about the same price as the canons

Compare it to the price of the Canon 24-70 L. Some people think that particular lens is comparable in quality.

[Andy_T]

Controlz,

unfortunately, you can't put it that simple.

It's safe to say that Canon, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina and most other manufacturers produce the following qualities of lenses:

1) Great
2) Very good
3) Good
4) Mediocre
5) Poop (thanks CDS :lol:)

(I deliberately used 5 categories here in order not to add further to the insulting of DRebel users by putting the kit lens into the lowest category :wink:)

The difficult part is to correctly put single lenses into these categories...

Category 1 is by definition reserved for very expensive Canon L lenses :twisted:
The Tamron XR DI 28-75/2.8, e.g. is put by many into category 2.
The 28-135 IS would be in category 3, most likely.

Bottom line is ... you have to judge each lens separately.
One place to look at would be www.photozone.de

Best regards
Andy

[slejhamer]

Category 1 is by definition reserved for very expensive Canon L lenses :twisted:


Sorry Andy, they are just "very good." :P

Canon EF 2.8 24-70mm USM L 4.16 = very-good
Canon EF 2.8 28-70mm USM L 4.15 = very-good
Tamron AF 2.8 28-75mm LD XR Aspherical SP 4.14 = very-good

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Zstf

[c0ntr0lz]

nice chart
and thanks for the info guys

[Andy_T]

Category 1 is by definition reserved for very expensive Canon L lenses :twisted:


Sorry Andy, they are just "very good." :P

Canon EF 2.8 24-70mm USM L 4.16 = very-good
Canon EF 2.8 28-70mm USM L 4.15 = very-good
Tamron AF 2.8 28-75mm LD XR Aspherical SP 4.14 = very-good

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Zstf

Slejhammer,

when I refer to 'expensive' Canon L lenses, then of course I'm not referring to your run-of-the-mill 24-70/2.8 L or 70-200/2.8 L :wink:


Canon EF 2.8 400mm USM L II 4.60 (3) = outstanding!

Just kidding, of course :lol:

I'll have a hard time to sneak a 70-200/4.0 L past my very alert wife....

Best regards,
Andy

[johnmate]

I use the Tamron for a few weeks now and I am very satisfied with the results.

Some samples on:
http://www.mateboer.com/digitalgallery/10d
(http://www.mateboer.com/digitalgallery/10d)under the 'New' categorie.

[yallcome]

How's the Tamron 28-75 do with the motor noise and speed of reaction to focus? I'm coming from an G3 and thought the Canon 16-35 I tried to be absolutely supersonic. Are all the major lenses for these DSLRs that fast and quiet?

thanks

[drisley]

To answer the first part of your question, I've heard many say that the focus speed and noise of the Tamron 28-75 is very good.
It lies somewhere between a cheaper consumer lens, and a fast USM lens.
It may be slightly slower/noisier than the Canon 16-35, but not by too much. It will also be blazingly fast compared to the G3.

Not all lenses are created equal when it comes to focus speed and noise.
The absolute fastest and almost silent lenses for Canon cameras are labelled with the term "USM".
This means "Ultra-Sonic Motor". This only applies to Canon USM lenses.
Other manufacturers use their own methods. Sigma has their "Hypersonic" line which is their equivalent to the USM from Canon. They are aparently very fast and quiet, but probably atleast one notch below the USM lenses.
I think the Tamron 28-75 probably has something equivalent to the Sigma "Hypersonic" motor. Again, just a notch below USM lenses, but still very good.

[Jmurman]

I have the Tamron 28-75 and really like it. It is my walkaround lens.

[nosquare2003]

Tamron motor is noisy compared to USM and Sigma Hypersonic motor. However, I've get used of noisy lenses (in fact, most of my lenses are noisy).

Tamron's autofocus speed is similar to Canon EF24-85 which is quite fast. It is certainly not the league of modern L lens.

[karusel]

Nay, don't look at that chart down at the photozone...

Find your lens at the http://www.photographyreview.com.

The next lens I'm buying are going to be the above discussed Tamron and 100-400 Canon. I've spent way too much time choosing but now I am absolutely certain that Tamron is the best possible alternative to ridiculously expensive 24-70 L.

[CyberDyneSystems]

1) Great
2) Very good
3) Good
4) Mediocre
5) Poop© (thanks CDS :lol:)



Ahh,.. good to see that you are catching on with the complex technical terms that often get bandied about on the forum... and of course go right over many reader's heads... :wink:

[dsze]

I'm loving my Tamron 28-75 so far. I got it for a wedding I'm shooting in a couple weeks. Here are the first real shots with it (yesterday) on my 10D. There are also some canon 70-200 f/4 shots mixed in...they are labeled on the first page. Some of you have probably seen them already in another thread, but I thought I'd post the link here too, since this thread asks about this lens directly.

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~dmcnulty/people/index.htm#9

-daniel

[karusel]

Oh yeah, the only weakness of the Tamron is bokeh as you can nicely see it in dzse's link. Well, I can live with it, if really necessary I can add it in PS.