Tamron 28-75 vs 17-40L example shots

[Red Squirrel]

Hi everyone,
following on from an earlier post were I said my Tamron exhibited blurring towards the edges, here's an example of the 17-40L vs tamron 28-75.

both are 100% crops at f/4 35mm 1/1000s iso 100 using a 10D
I think they are about 11mb each btw.
For me the L glass wins hands down.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

17-40
http://community.webshots.com/scripts/editPhotos.fcgi?action=showMyPhoto&albumID=1143039 37&photoID=207154878&security=uKLCvC

28-75
http://community.webshots.com/scripts/editPhotos.fcgi?action=showMyPhoto&albumID=1143039 37&photoID=207160751&security=oxBBWh


( if they don't appear you can view them at http://community.webshots.com/user/redskwirrel )

[drisley]

Yup, just red X's here.

[drisley]

I checked the images on the link, and the 17-40L image is definately sharper than the Tamron image.

[Cadwell]

Like I said in the other thread... you've got a dodgy Tamron. It happens to the best of them. Send it back and get a good one. Simple as.

[Scottes]

Would you really expect this Tamron lens to be as sharp as the 17-40? Pretty close maybe, and worth it for the money, but I would expect the 17-40 to be visibly better.

[Cadwell]

Would you really expect this Tamron lens to be as sharp as the 17-40? Pretty close maybe, and worth it for the money, but I would expect the 17-40 to be visibly better.

I'd expect it to be sharper. My Tamron 28-75mm is better than my 17-40L at the focal lengths they have in common. Doesn't worry me because I didn't by the 17-40L for the long end.

[Adam Hicks]

At my local camera shot they have various 13x19" prints from various lenses taken on a MkII, and it's a great way to compare the lens quality at same settings. The 28-75 Tamron was sharper than the 17-40 (both at f4).. the Tamron might not be as sharp at 2.8, but you have the advantage of the extra light.

Just cause one costs more than the other doesn't mean it has to be sharper :) I'll bet the 50mm 1.8 stopped down to 2.8-4.0 is sharper than either one :)

Adam

[Hellashot]

When you do test should, you shouldn't do them of subjects that move - such as boats or water! :)

It's always too hard to tell minute differences between shots when images are way reduced in size to be posted.

[chops]

At my local camera shot they have various 13x19" prints from various lenses taken on a MkII, and it's a great way to compare the lens quality at same settings. The 28-75 Tamron was sharper than the 17-40 (both at f4).. the Tamron might not be as sharp at 2.8, but you have the advantage of the extra light.

Just cause one costs more than the other doesn't mean it has to be sharper :) I'll bet the 50mm 1.8 stopped down to 2.8-4.0 is sharper than either one :)

Adam

"I'll bet the 50mm 1.8 stopped down to 2.8-4.0 is sharper than either one"

Oh it is, it IS! :D

[shiningstardv]

When a lens might be defective (not as sharp as it should be) as in the the case of Red Squirrel here, do you just call up Tamron, explain the problem to them, send in the lens with a RMA number or whatever, and they fix it for free? Is that really all that's required?

[Red Squirrel]

I'm going to wait until I get my 10D back from Canon - as there was a front focus issue there. If it still persists, then the Tamron is going back to the shop!

[Liang]

Can not see the image. Just a red x. :(