I decided to take the Tamron 28-75 plunge!!! **LARGE FILES**

[chops]

After much thought and comparison, I decided to change out my Canon 17-40 L lens for the 28-75 XR Di lens. Yes, it is that much better!

After doing some testing between the two, I have found that in most cases, the Tamron is sharper and more practical. With the 17-40, I found myself looking for more zoom, and it wasn't there. Also, eventhough the wide angle only goes to 28mm (45mm), it seems wide enough for my needs.

One other thing I noticed most about the Tamron lens.... the lack of purple fringing! It also has a great deal of macro which is perfect for my product photography.

I am quite happy with my new lens, even more so than with the 17-40 L.

[shiningstardv]

I just bought one of these today too! Although I can't use it because I don't have my camera yet. I bought it from my local camera store for $294 (INCLUDING tax) in basically brand-new condition. It was a floor demo unit, but in perfect condition and I got 15% off so I figured, sure what the heck.

Congrats on your new purchase!

[chops]

$294!!!??!! Lucky you! :wink:

Man, that's better than what I paid, and I got mine at cost! (one of the nice perks of working at a camera store). However, mine was also still in the box and never touched. That's alright though, I'm not complaining. Even at the regular retail price, I feel that this lens is a steal.

I'm hoping that I'll have a chance to go out and take some pics with my new lens tomorrow. If so, I'll post up a few pics later on in the day. :D

[cdhender]

I'm hoping that I'll have a chance to go out and take some pics with my new lens tomorrow. If so, I'll post up a few pics later on in the day. :D

You know, that'd be awesome. I'm debating getting this lense and would love to see some pics.

[OviV]

Here is a picture of my son with that lens. Other then cropping and resizing, it is untouched.

http://www.shareapicture.com/samples/_MG_8164.jpg
Taken at 4.5 1/50

I posted some comparisons here to the Canon 28-135 IS.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46709

[chops]

Here's a few very quick test shots of a neighbor's cat durring my lunch break.

The first two are full-size crops. The last one was just for fun! LOL

ISO - 100, 1/160sec, 67mm, f/4.5
http://chops.tzo.com/kittie01.jpg

ISO - 100, 1/200sec, 75mm, f/4
http://chops.tzo.com/kittie02.jpg

ISO - 100, 1/200sec, 75mm, f/4
http://chops.tzo.com/kittie03.jpg

[chops]

Hey OviV, that is an excellent shot! I really think this lens is hard to beat, especially for the price.

What flash did you use?

[OviV]

Used a Sigma 500 Super DG flash with a Stofen Omnibounce on it.

Ovi

[chops]

That looks alot like the Canon 550EX flash from the back. All we sell are the Sunpak flashes, which the new ones are small and only take two AA batteries.

Is there any place you could recommend that sells them any cheaper than what I have found on eBay? They have them for $196-199.

Also, are there any reviews around here on the Sigma flash?

[OviV]

Chops,

I have two of them and I like them a lot. They are not as nicely built as the 550 but have most of the same features. The first one I paid $179 for about 6 months ago but the last one I bought about a month ago had gone up to $219. I bought both from B&H.

Ovi

[chops]

Thanks a lot OviV for all the great info.

Now it's my turn to dump some info on here about the 28-75 f/2.8 lens. Ealier today before I went down to the lake, I did a series of comparison shots between my Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the my new Tamron. I took shots with both lenses at f/2.8, 5.6, 8.0, and 11.

There was NO color shift in the pictures with the Tamron lens throughout the entire aperture range. I only mention this because someone else on another thread saw shifts in color with his 28-75 lens. In fact, color rendition between both lenes were right on with the actual subject through their entire range.

NOTE: In order to get the 28-75 lens to match up prefectly with the 50mm, I had to zoom it to 54mm for an exact match. Also, the two comparison pictures are fullsize crops with nothing done to them at all. The first picture shows the entire image before cropping.

http://chops.tzo.com/tamron-full.jpg

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

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

[shiningstardv]

Thanks for that test chops! It appears that when the Tamron is stopped down to f/8 there is no difference between these two lenses.

So now the question is this: Is this standard performance of the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, or did you just get a nearly perfect copy of the lens?

[cc10d]

OviV,
Neat picture of your son!!

Looking at the comparison Tamron 28-75/ Canon 28 -135, hard to see any difference. (your comment also). So what is the reason for purchasing the Tamaron if one allready has the Canon with more zoom range? I have been wondering about what would be an upgrade for the Canon 28-135 IS. I havn't reqognized anything that seems significantly better in performance. Looking for enlightenment about this. Thanks.

[shiningstardv]

Looking at the comparison Tamron 28-75/ Canon 28 -135, hard to see any difference. (your comment also). So what is the reason for purchasing the Tamaron if one allready has the Canon with more zoom range? I have been wondering about what would be an upgrade for the Canon 28-135 IS. I havn't reqognized anything that seems significantly better in performance. Looking for enlightenment about this. Thanks.

To answer your question, the reason to purchase the Tamron would be because the lens is faster (f/2.8 vs. f/3.5-5.6) and sharper. The only thing I can think of to upgrade your 28-135 would be to buy two lenses to replace one. Buy a Tamron 28-75mm and a Canon 70-200mm f/4 (or f/2.8 if you can afford it). There is not much else that can upgrade the 28-135 in one lens, unless I'm forgetting something.

[chops]

OviV,
Neat picture of your son!!

Looking at the comparison Tamron 28-75/ Canon 28 -135, hard to see any difference. (your comment also). So what is the reason for purchasing the Tamaron if one allready has the Canon with more zoom range? I have been wondering about what would be an upgrade for the Canon 28-135 IS. I havn't reqognized anything that seems significantly better in performance. Looking for enlightenment about this. Thanks.

Well, after getting back from the lake and looking at the pics I took today, I can definately tell that this lens is far sharper than the Canon 28-135 IS, and runs neck to neck with the 24-70 L f/2.8.

I would have posted some of them tonight, but after I got home, I rebuilt my server with a new motherboard and processor, and reinstalled Windows. But anyway, once I get some of them up tomorrow evening, you'll be able to make up your mind on where this fine lens stands in the crowd.

[chops]

Thanks for that test chops! It appears that when the Tamron is stopped down to f/8 there is no difference between these two lenses.

So now the question is this: Is this standard performance of the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, or did you just get a nearly perfect copy of the lens?

To answer you question shiningstardv, I'm not sure. I think most of them will produce sharp images like this. Look at the picture of OviV's son. That picture quality looks every bit as good to me as it would coming from an L lens.

The real proof will be printing a couple inlargements and see how they look. :wink:

[OviV]

My wife and I both shoot. We have a DRebel and a 20D. We wanted
another walk around lens so I decided to give the Tamron a try.
Although my test shots did not show this, my real world pictures so
far show the Tamron to produce nicer pictures in terms of sharpness
and contrast. We are keeping our 28-135IS (mainly because it is my
wife's favorite lens) but we will probablly buy anonther Tamron since
we like having the extra speed and it is lighter.

[OviV]

Double post...

[cc10d]

OviV

Thanks! for the update on your lens performance.

Thanks to all the others who also responded to my question for upgrading to a better lens than the 28 -135 IS.

I have a couple of L lens and of course the 50 mm and they all seem just a tad sharper than the 28-135. Some of the lower cost EOS lens that I have are not any sharper or noticably less so.

So I was wondering if something else in that range was really better. Yes, the f 2.8 seems good, if it is usable wide open, so many lens require stopping down a bit befor they are good. (Not my L's,they are good wide open)

I certainly was impressed with the picture of the boy. Some of the other posts were not as pleasing. Not sure if it was depth of field or a bit of softness with some samples of the lens.

I am going to give the Tamron more consideration.

[chops]

OviV

Some of the other posts were not as pleasing. Not sure if it was depth of field or a bit of softness with some samples of the lens.

I am going to give the Tamron more consideration.

Granted, those pictures of the cat were NOT that great, but you can clearly see in these following images that the Tamron 28-75 XR Di lens IS NOT soft at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the one I have, as I'm sure others here will agree after looking at these new pcitures.

Keep in mind, other than resaving these six images for the web, they are kept at their full resolution!

http://chops.tzo.com/bird01.jpg

http://chops.tzo.com/bird02.jpg

http://chops.tzo.com/bird03.jpg

http://chops.tzo.com/bird04.jpg

http://chops.tzo.com/bird05.jpg

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

[cc10d]

chops,

Nice pictures ! These are my kind of pictures. Thanks for posting them. They sure do look good. A couple of the cat shots were good also, I think it was just depth of field or something. From these shots it does appear that the lens may be consistent from one to the next. I have seen variations in quality from lens to lens in some, even in the Canon lenses sometimes, so no particular inferences were intended, just was wondering about the 28-75 in particular.

Thanks for the new posts, they were great shots.

chuck

[chops]

chops,

Nice pictures ! These are my kind of pictures. Thanks for posting them. They sure do look good. A couple of the cat shots were good also, I think it was just depth of field or something. From these shots it does appear that the lens may be consistent from one to the next. I have seen variations in quality from lens to lens in some, even in the Canon lenses sometimes, so no particular inferences were intended, just was wondering about the 28-75 in particular.

Thanks for the new posts, they were great shots.

chuck

cc10d, thank you and you're welcome!

I am really, really pleased with this lens. The image quality (I think) is excellent and color rendition is perfect. I don't think you're going to find anything optically close to this lens in this focal range until you shell out $1200 for L glass. Even then, this lens still seems sharper in some areas that the 24-70 f/2.8 L does not!

And I still have yet to witness any purple fringing anywhere in any of these pictures I have taken thus far with the Tamron XR Di lens. Even the Canon 24-70 showed evidence of that! :shock:

[commando]

Thanks to these and similar photos i've decided to replace my 300D kit lens with the Tamron too :)

[commando]

Hey does anyone know if this lens has any problems on the 300D? I've heard of some Tamron lenses needing to be rechipped, and that'd be a pain seeing as how i'm in New Zealand.

[chops]

Hey does anyone know if this lens has any problems on the 300D? I've heard of some Tamron lenses needing to be rechipped, and that'd be a pain seeing as how i'm in New Zealand.

I believe there are several members here who have this lens on their 300D with no problems.

If I have the time, I'll try my lens on the 300D at work today, just to be on the safe side.

[OviV]

Mine works great on my 300D

[chops]

Mine works great on my 300D

Yep! Mine works just fine on the 300D at work also.

BTW, I think my next quest is going to be the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 Di. I still want to do a little more research on it though. I spoke with my rep today and I should be able to pick one up for a song! We'll see. :wink:

However, I might just hold out for a couple of months and see what the deal is with a lens of theirs. It's also an ultra-wide zoom starting at 11mm. :D

[davidwegs]

I have one of these Tamron 28-75 Di lenses and also the 24-70/L.

I also bought two of the Tamrons at first asthe first one we got was so good (for the money). I was as good as the 24-70 in focus sharpness, and better hitting the mark with fast moving subjects (or at least on the 1D MkII).

When the second one came, it was noticably worse @ f.28 than the first and so went back. I have not purchased another one since.

The other thing I noticed with the Tamron (either one) was a slight yellow cast. Slight. I see from the speaker shots above that is true in general.

Over all, its a better buy than the Canon 24-70 for most things, imo.

[commando]

Thanks to the people who checked their Tamron on the 300D :)

[who me?]

After much thought and comparison, I decided to change out my Canon 17-40 L lens for the 28-75 XR Di lens. Yes, it is that much better!

I am quite happy with my new lens, even more so than with the 17-40 L.

chops,
Based on your comments here as well at to all others on this string. What do you/will you use for a wide angle lens that is wider than the 28mm of the Tamron. At least the 17-40 had from 17-28 to cover the wide angle part.
I was looking at getting the 17-40L and the Tamron 28-75 when I convert to a DSLR down the road but am now starting to rethink the wide angle side.
Suggestions?

Thanks.

[commando]

Personally i'll use the Tamron as my main lens, and the kit lens when I need a wide angle. If I find the quality of the Tamron lens is much better than the kit lens, i'll just stand further away ;)

There's also a change i'll get a wide angle lens somewhere down the road, but i'm trying to take it slow with this new hobby... but so far i've spend NZ$2100+ (US$1550 ish) in the last 2 weeks!

[chops]

After much thought and comparison, I decided to change out my Canon 17-40 L lens for the 28-75 XR Di lens. Yes, it is that much better!

I am quite happy with my new lens, even more so than with the 17-40 L.

chops,
Based on your comments here as well at to all others on this string. What do you/will you use for a wide angle lens that is wider than the 28mm of the Tamron. At least the 17-40 had from 17-28 to cover the wide angle part.
I was looking at getting the 17-40L and the Tamron 28-75 when I convert to a DSLR down the road but am now starting to rethink the wide angle side.
Suggestions?

Thanks.

Well, further on in that same post, I mentioned the fact that at this point, I really don't have a major need for the 17mm range. You have to remember, I came from a long string of point-n-shoot digitals where the widest angle on most of them are only 38mm anyway. So right now, using my 28-75 isn't much different for me in that respect.

That's also why I might just hold out on the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di lens as well.

I figure if I'm going to buy an ultra-wide lens for my 1:6 camera body, then I'm going to get a TRUE ultra-wide lens and wait for the Tamron 11mm to whatever it is lens to come out and see what the test results are. That lens will be a a true 17mm on the 10D, 20D, and 300D bodies.

For now, my 28-75 will handle most everything I need it to. If I NEED more wide angle, then I can just barrow a lens from work or one of my friends (customers) since roughly 80% of them are Canon owners! :D

[DamienB]

chops - a BIG thank-you for posting full size unretouched files - the ONLY way to judge the quality of a lens. However saving for the web has stripped the EXIF info off them - are any of them actually at f2.8, and which focal lengths are involved? I have a need for a lens in this zoom range but it'd necessarily be used quite a bit wide open, so sharpness at that aperture is most important to me.

[chops]

chops - a BIG thank-you for posting full size unretouched files - the ONLY way to judge the quality of a lens. However saving for the web has stripped the EXIF info off them - are any of them actually at f2.8, and which focal lengths are involved? I have a need for a lens in this zoom range but it'd necessarily be used quite a bit wide open, so sharpness at that aperture is most important to me.

Actually, none of those were taken at f/2.8. However, these two that I just added are. I also used a manual Vivitar flash in bounce mode. I saved these two differently, so if you download the full size images onto your computer, you should be able to see the camera settings.
Please let me know if you can see the EFIX info...

I think this is pretty darn sharp for f/2.8. :wink:
http://chops.tzo.com/IMG_8385.jpg

This one focused on the chair unfortunately.
http://chops.tzo.com/IMG_8386.jpg

[commando]

I can see the EXIF data for both. Nice pics! What's the focus on in the second pic? Is it the arm of the chair?

btw is there a way to stop photoshop from overwriting the file modification date? I took some photos the other day, cropped a few, and my gallery program (JAlbum) put them in the wrong order :(

[chops]

I can see the EXIF data for both. Nice pics! What's the focus on in the second pic? Is it the arm of the chair?

btw is there a way to stop photoshop from overwriting the file modification date? I took some photos the other day, cropped a few, and my gallery program (JAlbum) put them in the wrong order :(

Yeah, it focused right in front of her little paws.

As for Photoshop overwriting the date, I don't think there's any way of getting around that. Even if you just rename a file in Windows, it will automatically modify the date. (mainly because that file has just been modified)

[commando]

Yeah, it focused right in front of her little paws.

As for Photoshop overwriting the date, I don't think there's any way of getting around that. Even if you just rename a file in Windows, it will automatically modify the date. (mainly because that file has just been modified)

Some programs manage it... maybe i'll just have to specify the order myself.

JAlbum (a great album program by the way - http://jalbum.net/). It runs on your PC to create plain old html pages, and it does all the resizing for you too. Upload them and the server and there you go :)

What album software does everyone else use?

[DamienB]

Fab - many thanks chops - I'm sold! No apparent vignetting at the corners either.

[chops]

Fab - many thanks chops - I'm sold! No apparent vignetting at the corners either.

You're most welcome! :D

I have to say, after shooting this lens for a week in different lighting conditions, f-stops, and focal lengths, I am extremely convinced that this lens is worth a heck of a lot more than what Tamron sells it for.

Like you said, there's no vignetting. There's also no soft spots, distortion, or Chromatic Aberrations anywhere that I can find. And trust me, I have looked hard for them. Even Canon's own 24-70 f/2.8 L lens shows some of these artifacts.

Dare I say that the Tamron SP 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di lens might just be better than the Canon at a fraction of the weight, size, and cost?! :shock: :shock:

[Cadwell]

Dare I say that the Tamron SP 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di lens might just be better than the Canon at a fraction of the weight, size, and cost?! :shock: :shock:

:shock: A heretic! :shock:

Be careful, they burn you at the stake round here for that sort of comment... and it's bonfire night here in the UK :shock: :twisted:

:wink:

[chops]

Dare I say that the Tamron SP 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di lens might just be better than the Canon at a fraction of the weight, size, and cost?! :shock: :shock:

:shock: A heretic! :shock:

Be careful, they burn you at the stake round here for that sort of comment... and it's bonfire night here in the UK :shock: :twisted:

:wink:

LOL. :wink: Not really.

But what do you expect me to say? The proof is in the pictures, and pictures don't lie.... At least I don't think they do! :P

[Kenski]

Well, you sold me... I was going to go for the 17-40 but I am getting the Tamron... This is going to add to my collection NICELY and round out my bag.. Now I need to attack my REACH OUT AND SMACK YOU lenses....

*MY COLLECTION*
10-22mm EF-S*COMING SOON*
15mm Canon 2.8 FISHEYE
18-55mm EF-S
28-75mm Tamron *Going to order now*
28-300mm MACRO Tamron
50MM 1.4
70-200mm 2.8 IS *This X-Mas from the Family*

I figure I could pull the 18-55 EF-S out of the bag now....

BTW, that 28-300 TAMRON is an AWESOME lens to walk around with also, it takes some good pictures but its no "L" and that is why my ENTIRE family is all pitching in and getting me the 70-200.... Plus I am kicking in a few hundred too... I know they aren't going to pay for it all...

There are still a few other primes that I would like to pick up though, 24 f1.4, 85 f1.2, and then the TS-E 90mm F2.8 but I can wait...

[chops]

Hey, do you think you can get your ENTIRE family to pitch in and get one for me also?! :twisted: :P

[commando]

My lens just arrived. 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...

[shiningstardv]

Mine says Marco too. I think it's just a marketing technique Tamron uses to let users know it has a close focus ability.

[commando]

Nice, thanks shiningstardv.

[DamienB]

Mine turned up this morning - it's a dull rainy day today so testing has been limited to taking a few snaps of the dog just outside the back door, but early indications are this lens is living up to the rave reviews and examples posted earlier in this thread. Can't get over how small and how inexpensive it is for this quality!

[commando]

I've done some test shots, and so far i'm not overly impressed. I've started a new thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=336816#336816) with some tamron vs kit lens pics. If anyone has the time to take a look, i'd be most greatful for some advice about whether it's a keeper or one to return - I have 2 days to decide, at most.

[rkoshy]

I've done some test shots, and so far i'm not overly impressed. I've started a new thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=336816#336816) with some tamron vs kit lens pics. If anyone has the time to take a look, i'd be most greatful for some advice about whether it's a keeper or one to return - I have 2 days to decide, at most.

I'm rather upset with my Tamron... check out my post on this thread:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47812&start=41&postdays=0&postord er=asc&highlight=

[phili1]

Chops I have both the 28 to 75 and the 17 to 35. I used the 17 to 35 for a baby shower and the pics were great, so far.

I like the lenses, there build is solid, easy to use and sharp, you can't beat them for the price.

[chops]

Yeah, I'm seriously thinking about that 17-35 Tamron lens. The f/2.8 on the wide end is very desirable. I wonder what the max aperature is at 28mm. At any rate, I'll probably be buying one soon enough. :wink:

[phili1]

17 mm to 20 mm F2.8

24 to 28mm F3.5

35mm F4

[chops]

Ah... Thank you! :D

[JasonMX]

Nice! How much that lens? It is on my "buy next" list.