Tamron 28-75 v 50 1.8 (56K Warning)

[OviV]

Not a scientific test by any means. Taken on a tripod. The Tamron is as close to 50mm as I could guess. I took two shots with each lens one at 2.8 and one at 5.6, 100% crops at 400 ISO.

Tamron 28-75 2.8

http://www.shareapicture.com/samples/_mg_8129.jpg
2.8 1/80

http://www.shareapicture.com/samples/_mg_8130.jpg
5.6 1/20

Canon 50 1.8

http://www.shareapicture.com/samples/_mg_8133.jpg
2.8 1/80
I am not sure if this picture was properly focused because it seems off to me. I will try to retake it later. (Re-Done)

http://www.shareapicture.com/samples/_mg_8132.jpg
5.6 1/20

[davidwegs]

Do you notice the slight yellow cast with this lens?

I have noticed it at times, and it looks like yours has it too.

[Persian-Rice]

Umm, the 50mm is considerably sharper, but it should be. Prime vs Zoom........ definitely not scientific haha.

[shiningstardv]

Interesting comparison...as these are the first two lenses I bought for my 20D. (I haven't bought the 20D part yet :?) Thanks for the comparison!

[Molydood]

based on these pics, I'd say the difference looks quite noticeable at 2.8, but once both are stopped down to 5.6 there is not a lot between them in the real world. For a zoom, and considering its being compared to the 50 1.8, its not too shabby :-)
Martin

[OviV]

I'll try to take some more test pictures over the weekend and post them. These were done hastily.

Ovi

[PGR70]

I would say the Tamron is not good at 2.8... A bit disappointing.

[chops]

Umm, the 50mm is considerably sharper, but it should be. Prime vs Zoom........ definitely not scientific haha.

Not always! :wink:

Go check out my thread and scroll down to the loudspeaker pictures. Minus a very, very, .......... very slight yellow cast in the blacks, you really can't tell a difference between my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Di lens and the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II lens.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46708

[Brettpp]

Would it be hard to tell a yellow cast on such a yellow subject?

[ron chappel]

Would it be hard to tell a yellow cast on such a yellow subject?

You get used to it after awhile.I'm very glad to say that it's something i have learned (it took awhile though!) :)

Having them side by side helps enormously

[phili1]

Wow maybe I am going crazy and blind but how did you get dissapointing from the Tamron shots.

First off you can't compare a prime to a zoom the prime will win out every time.

Second the difference was so minimal between them and unless you have them side by side it is hard to tell but scrolling makes it harder.

Wow like I said I am getting old and feeble because they both look pretty darn good.

[Reminisce]

phill, you're right except for this.

At 2.8 on the Tamron, look down in the right hand corner and see where it says "Hecho en Mexico"
Now look at that same spot on the 50mm, and you'll see the difference. The difference is noticeable there. But not much so when stopped down.

[RDKirk]

phill, you're right except for this.

At 2.8 on the Tamron, look down in the right hand corner and see where it says "Hecho en Mexico"
Now look at that same spot on the 50mm, and you'll see the difference. The difference is noticeable there. But not much so when stopped down.

As said before, you have to compare apples to apples. A 50mm prime is one of the easiest lenses to design. A wide-to-tele fast, parfocal, non-variable aperture zoom lens is one of the most difficult to design. If the 50mm weren't noticeably sharper, Canon would have to be ashamed to sell cameras.

A comparison to Canon's 24-70 would make more sense, but even then you'd have to give consideration to the fact that the Canon costs 3 times more.

[RDKirk]

Do you notice the slight yellow cast with this lens?

I have noticed it at times, and it looks like yours has it too.

I ran some tests with Canon, Tokina, Nikkor, Tamron, and Sigma lenses. All the other lenses have the same tone--it's actually Canon that has a blue cast.

[Persian-Rice]

Umm, the 50mm is considerably sharper, but it should be. Prime vs Zoom........ definitely not scientific haha.

Not always! :wink:

Go check out my thread and scroll down to the loudspeaker pictures. Minus a very, very, .......... very slight yellow cast in the blacks, you really can't tell a difference between my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Di lens and the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II lens.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46708

Yes always. Unless the prime is poorly built or you have an uber good zoom then a prime will always be sharper. I would get all technical but no time for that :D BTW compare the sharpness in the "foamy" (I know too much about speakers lol) areas, you notice a slight difference.

As for the yellow cast, you sure a dog didn't pee on the lens? Do you have UV on it? try shooting minus the UV because that is not normal.

However, I feel most people are absolute nitpicks who put more weight on sharpness then the image itself, if you need to do a 100% crop then use a magnifying glass on the monitor, then you fit into the second category of my signature haha.

BTW the test is slightly faulty because you are shooting wide open with lenses that have different diaphragms, shoot both at 2.8.

[chops]

Well, like I said before... Just go to the thread I started, and you'll see how good the Tamron lens really is, even against a Canon prime.

[Persian-Rice]

chops read my last addition about your test.

Cheers

[chops]

chops read my last addition about your test.

Cheers

AND like I said before.... AGAIN.

NOT ALWAYS!

Read this. If you still can't figure it out after looking at this picture, then you've got issues. And if you actually looked at the pictures, you would see that I never said anything about shooting at f/2.8. Please get your facts straight!

http://chops.tzo.com/test09.jpg

[phili1]

You made me Happy I own it.

[Gerdav43]

Hey Oviv, during your next test shots could you please do a side by side with Kahlua, Absolute and a tumbler with ice. My mouth is watering. Thanks. :P

[commando]

I posted this to another thread but didn't get a reply... so i'll try this one too. It says on the box/lens "SP AF28-75mm 2.8 XR DI LD Aspherical (IF) Macro". Do they all say macro on them? I just want to make sure I got the right one... the Tamron website doesn't even mention the possability of a macro version, so i'm not sure.

[phili1]

The 28 to 75 has close up capabilities. you can come wiithin about 9 inches of your subject bt it is not 1 to 1 ratio it is a 1 to 3 ratio.
It does a super job.

[commando]

What I really wanted to know was do all of these lenses have "macro" written on them, or do I have the wrong one?

It says it has a minimum focus distance of 1 foot, which is pretty good :) I've been closer with the kit lens, but I can't remember how well that turned out.

What does the ratio (1:1 or 1:3) mean?

[phili1]

Just the 28 to 75 Tamron F2.8 has macro on it. All I can tell you it is one of the sharpiest lenses I have owned. It is equal to the canon 17 to 40mm lens in most cases. Everybody who owns one loves it, all the reviews are highly regarded.

If you want true macro you have to getg a macro lens canon has a 100mm and I have a 105mm Sigma and Tanro has a 90 Di and a 180DI.

[commando]

Thanks Phil. Do you know what the ratio means? I have no idea at all...

[phili1]

1 to 1 is life size, fill the frame
1 to 2 is slightly less
1 to 3 is even less.

In terms it is magnification at 1 to 1 you have greater magnification, if it goes beyond that it is called micro.

All you need to know is with the Tamron you will fill the sensor with the whole flower depending on its size. MOst times I have only gone to 1 to 2 with my macro lens. Whe you get into bug photograpahy is when 1 to 1 is great.

[commando]

Thanks :) I thought the important part was the lens focal length, but I guess the ratio is related to that. I just make sure whatever I want to take a photo of is big enough in the viewfinder :)

[RDKirk]

What does the ratio (1:1 or 1:3) mean?

A true macro lens will focus down to 1:1 ratio, which means that the size of the image on the sensor is exactly equal to the real size of the object. The Tamron is actually just a "really close focusing lens," not a true macro lens. But lots of companies are playing fast and loose with the "macro" terminology on zooms.