Tamron 28-75 2.8 vs Canon Kit 18-55 3.5-5.6

[commando]

First, apologies for the long post, hopefully a few people will have time to have a bit of a read and a look at some pics, and offer me a bit of advice.

I got the Tamron today, so i've done a few test shots. So far i'm not really impressed - I don't see any image quality gain over the Canon kit lens for these test shots. The first thing I can see in the Tamrons favour is since it's so much wider and faster at all focal lengths, night/action photography is much easier. It also has a better zoom, which is worthwhile for me. The downsides are the price (it cost 1/2 the price of the camera), the weight, and it's a bit longer (1.5 inches maybe) than the kit lens.

I'm trying to decide whether or not it was a good investment, and whether or not to keep it - I have about 2 days to decide. What i've used it for so far may only be scratching the surface of what it's capable of, which is why i'm asking the advice of you nice, more experienced folks. Money isn't really a huge problem, but this wasn't cheap, and I prefer not to waste money.

What I was after is a general purpose walkaround lens that can do reasonably shallow depth of field shots, and has a useful amount of zoom. The debate was between this tamron, and a lens in the range of 28ish-120ish. The only other lenses I would even consider buying in the future are a 300 or 400mm zoom lens, and maybe a lens for macro photography with a nice low F number.

I've done a few sample pics, 2 in daylight, and 6 more in low light. Each are about 200kb, sorry, but I wanted to keep the quality up. They're 100% crops done by photoshop, max jpeg quality. They're of whatever I could see from my balcony, nothing special ;)

Day shots:
Day shot, Canon, f5.6, 1/100th, 55mm. (http://kiwirant.co.nz/attach_ext/Canon55mmF5.6.jpg)
Day shot, Tamron, F2.8, 1/320, 56mm (http://kiwirant.co.nz/attach_ext/Tamron56mmF2.8.jpg)

Night shot, text painted on a building, 55mm for all shots.
Canon@F5.6 (http://kiwirant.co.nz/attach_ext/CanonNight55mmF5.6_sign.jpg)
Tamron@F2.8 (http://kiwirant.co.nz/attach_ext/TamronNight55mmF2.8_sign.jpg)
Canon@F5.8 (http://kiwirant.co.nz/attach_ext/TamronNight55mmF5.8_sign.jpg)

Night shot, brick and text, all 55mm.
Canon@F5.6 (http://kiwirant.co.nz/attach_ext/CanonNight55mmF5.6_brick.jpg)
Tamron@F2.8 (http://kiwirant.co.nz/attach_ext/TamronNight55mmF2.8_brick.jpg)
Tamron@F5.8 (http://kiwirant.co.nz/attach_ext/TamronNight55mmF5.8_brick.jpg)

I'm not impressed - in some cases the canon kit lens gives better quality than the rather expensive Tamron. Can anyone spot anything better in the tamron shots? Or can anyone suggest a good reason to keep it?

[dhbailey]

Wow, from what I had read I would have thought the Tamron would be sharper, but in all your photos it appears the Canon lens is sharper. The tamron seems to be a bit better at light gathering at the same aperture but not enough from your sample pictures to be worth the price since you already have the kit lens.

The only reason I could think of for keeping the Tamron is the more versatile zoom range, but perhaps your money would be better spent on a different zoom range, something more like 28-ish to 105-ish.

From your pictures I don't see any reason for you to keep the Tamron.

But as you say, you may just be scratching the surface -- how does it handle in a true walking-around situation in daylight?

How does it handle with flash?

These are things you should test before making your final decision, in my opinion. Your test is rather limited.

[Toogy]

Agree with the above, I would do some more testing before coming to a final conclusion.
You mention one of the downsides of the tamron is the weight of it, does it really weigh that much? Everything I have seen indicate this is a really light lens.

[ron chappel]

OK
Firstly you MUST compare them at the same apertures to get fair results.The tamron will be much sharper at f5.6!
If you are just snapping away the tamron will be slightly better than the canon but using a tripod will bring out the ultimate in what they are capable of-so the tamron should be a fair bit better than the canon

[chops]

Yes, in order to make a fair judgement, you NEED to shoot at the same aperatures. Most of the time, you're shooting the Canon in it's sharpest aperature and the Tamron in its softest aperature.

Remember, most people, including me are comparing this lens to Canon's 24-70 2.8 L lens. In most situations, the Tamron is just as good, if not better than the Canon lens. And when you look at the price difference between the two, the deal gets even sweeter.

Now, it is possible that you could have received a "soft" copy of this lens, but I doubt it. You've seen my pictures before and you know what this lens is capable of doing, so don't pull the plug on it yet.

Besides, do you honestly believe that the 18-55 kit lens can compare to L type glass? Just take your time and do some more shooting with the Tamron lens before you make up your mind. :wink:

[drisley]

Actually, the pictures show the Canon shot wide open, at F5.6, and then a Tamron at F5.6, which is stopped down quite a bit.

[Vinny454]

I think you need to continue the tests some more. Also what were your other settings? I have this lens and it is a fantastic lens for the money.
Your first pic's seem a bit dark for an outdoor day shot?

Here is a sample from my Tamron shot indoors at F2.8, ISO 400, 1/200
hand held with no flash. Straight out of a 20D with only WB adjusted, nothing else. The lighting was not the greatest in that arena.

http://www.sherakan.com/tamronlens/shania.jpg

Stop this lens down and it only gets better.

[chops]

Actually, the pictures show the Canon shot wide open, at F5.6, and then a Tamron at F5.6, which is stopped down quite a bit.

No.... Actually, the maximum aperature on the 18-55 kit lens is f/3.5, but I see what you're saying because it was also shot at its maximum focal length. Still, the Tamron is capable of much more than the kit lens.

BTW Vinny454, my lens is also that sharp at f/2.8. Pretty puppy, too!!! :wink:

[ron chappel]

Oops
missed the stopped down tamron shot

I'm still having lots of problems getting the pics to download unfortunately

[DamienB]

commando, your test shots look way underexposed to me - handheld in low light too? Not ideal conditions to take a picture with any lens.

I'm very happy with mine and looking forward to using it 'in anger'.

[commando]

Thanks for your thoughts everyone. Like someone pointed out, I took the 2nd and 3rd sets of shots at about the same F stop for each camera. The Canon was at its maximum zoom, the Tamron was in the middle of its range. I used a tripod for all the shots.

The first two shots were in daylight, but not strong daylight. I could see the sign easily myself though. I was suprised how much better the picture was at F5.8, but I guess that makes sense - smaller aperture, less stray light going slightly off target.

If the pics don't download for you, copy the URL into a new web browser - that should help. If not... give up ;)

The reason I want to make this decision reasonably quickly is because B&H have a 7 day limit on returns. Maybe they'd be a little more flexible with their international customers, seeing as how it takes over a week to get the lenses here? I guess I should take a few more photos and see how they are... if I get anything worth posting i'll throw 'em up later :) Right now i'm not convinced the lens is good value, given that the kit lens takes photos that are just as good - albeit not as quickly.

[Olegis]

Commando, your pictures look a little bit wierd - VERY underexposed and soft, almost out of focus. The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is capable of producing MUCH better results, please see the following photograph (straight out of my 10D with no post-processing at all, ISO 800, f/2.8, 1/60s, 75mm, with flash bounced from the ceiling - WARNING, VERY LARGE IMAGE !) :

http://www.pbase.com/olegis/image/36114206/original

[Persian-Rice]

Does anyone have any words on build? I considered buying this lens just for the hell of buying a lens.

My only real concern is that I have read on numerous pages that it could have been built considerably better, especially compared to both the 17-40 & 24-70. I need this lens to last through heavy usage, and I mean HEAVY usage. The 17-40 & 24-70 are both "just right".

Please no biased reviews.

[Olegis]

Persian-Rice, the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is built no better and no worse than the Canon 28-135, if you're familiar with that lens - you can get the idea :wink:
I haven't put mine to a HEAVY (that would be "professional", right ?) usage yet, but I've seen a couple of people that were using it for weddings.

[commando]

Olegis, they were shots in lowish light, some just with dim-ish street lamps, some with evening light. It's quite dim today, but i'll try and take a few snaps today and post them this evening.

I'm wondering if the sharpness of this lens compared with the kit lens has been exaggerated, or if i've just taken really bad photos ;)

[HJMinard]

Persian-Rice, the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is built no better and no worse than the Canon 28-135, if you're familiar with that lens - you can get the idea :wink:
I haven't put mine to a HEAVY (that would be "professional", right ?) usage yet, but I've seen a couple of people that were using it for weddings.

I agree - similar to Canon consumer-grade lenses. Additionally, the Tamron comes with a five (six?) year warranty.

[Persian-Rice]

Olegis, sorry have not used that lens. I have the 17-40, 50, 24-70 & a broken 70-200.

As in use, depending on what my project is, I take 2000-3000 shots a week, so durability is of utmost importance. I think I will buy another 17-40 if I cant find anything better. No locals I know of carry this lens, so I don't have much of an opportunity to test it.

[commando]

I agree - similar to Canon consumer-grade lenses. Additionally, the Tamron comes with a five (six?) year warranty.

Six years. I'd have to send it to the states for repair though.

[Olegis]

Olegis, they were shots in lowish light, some just with dim-ish street lamps, some with evening light. It's quite dim today, but i'll try and take a few snaps today and post them this evening.

I'm wondering if the sharpness of this lens compared with the kit lens has been exaggerated, or if i've just taken really bad photos ;)

I would not judge the optical quality of a lens right away, but instead wait for some better lighting (or use a flash) and then look into the new results.

[Olegis]

As in use, depending on what my project is, I take 2000-3000 shots a week, so durability is of utmost importance. I think I will buy another 17-40 if I cant find anything better. No locals I know of carry this lens, so I don't have much of an opportunity to test it.

Well, all I can say is that the Tamron build quality is not up to the L standards (I own the 70-200 f/2.8L), it's more like the quality of Canon / Sigma or even Nikon consumer zooms. My 100mm f/2.8 Macro also has better build than the Tamron.

[DamienB]

Persian-Rice, the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is built no better and no worse than the Canon 28-135, if you're familiar with that lens - you can get the idea :wink:


Hmmm - I'd say the build quality and feel was somewhat superior to the 28-135, which is far more plasticky in feel. The Tamron's barrel barely moves when you attempt to wobble it from side to side, unlike the 28-135 which wobbles like crazy.

[commando]

I would not judge the optical quality of a lens right away, but instead wait for some better lighting (or use a flash) and then look into the new results.

I think i'll give it a few days, and take a good few photos with both lenses on the weekend. If i'm unhappy i'll hope that BH will take it back, it being within 7 days of me receiving it.

Does anyone have any tips on the how to get the best from this lens? I typically leave it on ISO100, and run in Av mode. I know this is a very general question, but lets say i'm doing portraits and closeup photography of flowers.

[Persian-Rice]

Can anyopne do me a favor and post a picture of the tamron with the hood on and all on it? I want to see what the lens looks like.

I think I might just buy it, it's not that expensive and leaves me room to buy the kenko extensions I want.

Thanks.

[Olegis]

Hmmm - I'd say the build quality and feel was somewhat superior to the 28-135, which is far more plasticky in feel. The Tamron's barrel barely moves when you attempt to wobble it from side to side, unlike the 28-135 which wobbles like crazy.

I tried the 28-135 of a friend, who had it for almost two years - his lens didn't wobble to any extreme amount, I felt just the regular (slight) wobble. It might be the tolerances / differences from lens to lens / wear due to usage etc.

[commando]

Can anyopne do me a favor and post a picture of the tamron with the hood on and all on it? I want to see what the lens looks like.

Imaging the kit lens, a little wider and 1.5 inches longer, with a small hood. If no-one else can I can do a pic tomorrow - the hood's at home right now.

[Adam Hicks]

Well as far as build quality, the Tamron is actually quite good. It's MUCH MUCH MUCH better built than the playschoolish 18-55. It's not as heavy as the 24-70, partially because it's not as large. I think its size is a plus.

Just go try one at a local camera shop if you have the means. It was enough to convince me and it's a lens I'll keep around a LONG time.

Adam

[chops]

Can anyopne do me a favor and post a picture of the tamron with the hood on and all on it? I want to see what the lens looks like.

I think I might just buy it, it's not that expensive and leaves me room to buy the kenko extensions I want.

Thanks.

Here's four of them.... One more thing, that EP-EX15 eye piece extender is really nice to have also, even if you don't wear glasses.

http://chops.tzo.com/IMG_0522.jpg

http://chops.tzo.com/IMG_0521.jpg

http://chops.tzo.com/IMG_0520.jpg

http://chops.tzo.com/IMG_0523.jpg

[Persian-Rice]

Thanks chops, I received my extender yesterday, my dogs chewed my original eyepiece and it would not clip onto the body, but it seems to clip onto the extender, so I use one now.