Thinking about Tamron f/2.8 28-75mm - need advice

[hank1105]

So after reading a good amount about the Tamron f/2.8 28-75mm I might be picking one up. My plan is to sell my 18-55mm kit lens and use this as a replacement. I don't really need the wide angle attribute of the kit lens, but I think that the Tamron f/2.8 28-75mm will be a good companion with the Canon 70-200mm f/4 lens I have, which has produced amazing shots.

So I guess my question is - do any of you think this is the right plan? In the past I had always read that Tamron lenses were not the greatest. Why is this one different?

Thanks for the info.

Hank

[Cadwell]

If you don't need the wide angle then I couldn't agree more. I have the Tamron and the Canon 70-200 f/4L and they make a nice pair of lenses.

[chops]

Yes! The Tamron is a great lens. I have one and wouldn't even give it up for Canon's own 24-70 2.8L. You can not go wrong with this lens.

Go for it!

[CanonUser]

For the price, you cannot find a better value to performance ratio than the kit lens. Keep it for one of those family gathering or who-knows-what day. The Tanron is a great lens, get it, you won't regret it. I had 3 with each of my Dreb, 10D, and now the 20D. There are about 50,000 images in my hard drives vouching for ALL the Tamrons I had.

Alan

[Olegis]

Definitely get the Tamron.

[cdhender]

Related question: Where do all of you sell your lenses? I'm interested in this lense as well and definitely want to sell my kit.

[Persian-Rice]

Related question: Where do all of you sell your lenses? I'm interested in this lense as well and definitely want to sell my kit.

Fred Miranda
http://www.fredmiranda.com/

[hank1105]

Thank you for all the replies. Looks like I am definitely getting that lens now.

cdhender - I am a big fan of eBay, so that is where I will be selling my kit lens.

Hank

[piku]

just want to share my pics of a recent trip to the philippines w/ family... http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=2252170093

all pics taken w/ my tamron f/2.8 28-75. what can i say about it, other than my nifty-fifty, its always on my 300d. enjoy =p

note: almost all the pics were taken w/ natural light... i'm not a flash-whore... sue me ^^

[tumb]

I ordered one myself, should be here tomorrow. I'll post my results later.

[Kenski]

just want to share my pics of a recent trip to the philippines w/ family... http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=2252170093

all pics taken w/ my tamron f/2.8 28-75. what can i say about it, other than my nifty-fifty, its always on my 300d. enjoy =p

note: almost all the pics were taken w/ natural light... i'm not a flash-whore... sue me ^^


Wow, you must have a non-violent, peaceful family.... I sure do see alot of PEACE signs being thrown around in those pics :) lol

Hmmmmm, If you are like me and always have the 50mm on (I don't know which one you use but I have the f1.4), and you love this lens, I think I will too... I'm going to order it tonight I think...

[commando]

Since I got the Tamron 28-75 i've only put the kit lens back on once, to try a wider angle shot. It's not a heck of a lot wider, so I didn't really bother again.

The 70-200L F4 is the lens i'm considering getting as my telephoto zoom lens. Do people find 200 long enough? I don't shoot anything in particular, just whatever I wander across and like, but sometimes I want to isolate a bird (or more recently a cheerleader) from a greater distance than the tamron can do. I can't decide between the cheaper consumer 100-300 and the 70-200L. Any thoughts?

[RbnDave]

Here are some pics I took with my Tamron. I really like mine. 28mm is a tad too narrow for a lot of landscapes. I find I take this lens off my camera a lot in favor of of my 17mm or my 50mm primes. It takes great photos, but with my 10D, it is not as usefull as I had hoped.

http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/34200516
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/27661182
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/34200586
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/32285439
http://www.pbase.com/rbndave/image/26778783

[commando]

I think the thing to consider with the 28-75 is is it long enough for you? I find myself wishing it'd extend to 100 or 135, that way i'd not really need another telephoto lens.

[hank1105]

Nice pics RbnDave - definitely getting this lens now. I don't shoot many landscapes, that is why I don't see any need to keep the kit lens.

Commando - the 70-200 f/4 L lens is awesome. However, I think I will also be getting the 1.4 extender shortly to get to 300mm. From my reading the two work extremely well together. As of now I always have my 70-200mm on my 310d. However, for family events, I don't want a large lens (I know it isn't that large) while running around with the family, so I switch to the 18-55mm, which isn't bad, but isn't great either.

I have just heard that this lens is comparable to a L series lens as far as quality and sharpness of photos taken. I love my 70-200mm, so smooth, hopefully the Tamron will be the same.

Hank

[Gerdav43]

I think the thing to consider with the 28-75 is is it long enough for you? I find myself wishing it'd extend to 100 or 135, that way i'd not really need another telephoto lens.

I've been pondering this issue myself. I have the Canon 28-135 IS lense and have been looking at the 28-75 Tamron based on all the positive talk here on the site. I spoke to a man at the camera store about this and he said he'd stick with the Canon. He reasons that the Canon's IS makes up for the 2.8 aperture on the Tamron (he was little more technical than this of course), yet has more zoom. Sounds good. But for those who have experience with both lenses, what are your thoughts. I'm looking for general walk around (family shots, light travel, indoor and outdoor and so on.) I ask this because I can only keep one lense. Which should it be?

[commando]

Thanks for your answer to my question guys. I've started a new thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=343289) on this topic, rather than hijacking this thread. Hopefully we don't have the discussion in two places instead of one ;)

[chops]

I think the thing to consider with the 28-75 is is it long enough for you? I find myself wishing it'd extend to 100 or 135, that way i'd not really need another telephoto lens.

I've been pondering this issue myself. I have the Canon 28-135 IS lense and have been looking at the 28-75 Tamron based on all the positive talk here on the site. I spoke to a man at the camera store about this and he said he'd stick with the Canon. He reasons that the Canon's IS makes up for the 2.8 aperture on the Tamron (he was little more technical than this of course), yet has more zoom. Sounds good. But for those who have experience with both lenses, what are your thoughts. I'm looking for general walk around (family shots, light travel, indoor and outdoor and so on.) I ask this because I can only keep one lense. Which should it be?

You have to remember that some people refuse to use anything but Canon equipment. Yes, the 28-135 IS is a nice lens, but the 28-75 2.8 is a great lens that has wondered into L territory!

Now honestly, do you really think that the Canon 28-135 IS is up there with the L glass? I've used the 28-135 IS on my 10D before, and I was not impressed.

[Gerdav43]

Now honestly, do you really think that the Canon 28-135 IS is up there with the L glass? I've used the 28-135 IS on my 10D before, and I was not impressed

Honestly, I do not know, but I would suspect that it is not. However, about a year ago when I started looking around this site, the 28-135 IS was the sure thing for a general walk around lens. I have found it to be bit bulky for my use, hence the looking around. Is the Tamron that much better that I should sacrafice the extra zoom, albeit it is a little smaller and lighter.

[commando]

Honestly, I do not know, but I would suspect that it is not. However, about a year ago when I started looking around this site, the 28-135 IS was the sure thing for a general walk around lens. I have found it to be bit bulky for my use, hence the looking around. Is the Tamron that much better that I should sacrafice the extra zoom, albeit it is a little smaller and lighter.

The Tamron's 1.5lb to the Canons 1.1lb, and the Tamron is 0.5" longer, so they're similar enough. I think the issues to consider here are image quality and zoom length. That's a call only you can make, based on how you use your camera.

[rkoshy]

Hank

I can't speak technical jargon of why it's good or bad... BUT.. I got one a few days ago, and it takes amazing pictures... so much clearer than the kit lens. I like it, and think it's worth what you pay for it.

[commando]

I've done some shots of the kit lens vs the Tamron 28-75, with the photos side by side.

http://www.kiwirant.co.nz/gallery/TamronTestShots/Flowers/index.html

They're thumbnailed, which link to scaled down images, which then link to the full sized image. There's no EXIF data, because I copied and pasted sections of images between images in photoshop. The F stop values are in the page titles, ISO 200, custom white ballance which was redone for each lens. The colors came out a bit different, I have no idea why. If anyone wants the original photos I can put them up. All shots were taken on a tripod.

Overall, I think the kit lens is very close to the Tamron for these photos. It leaves me wondering if:
- people around here are very fussy about subtle details
- maybe I have a great Canon kit lens or a dud Tamron lens.
- maybe i'm a really crap photographer!

[commando]

Can no-one explain why the "incredible" tamron doesn't appear to perform any better than the "horrible" kit lens. I really hope it's me, because otherwise it was an expensive mistake.

[hank1105]

Commando - very interesting - makes me think now. It seems that the pictures taken with the kit lens are brighter then the Tamron lens. I can say as far as feel goes, the Canon kit lens feels cheap. Of course I am comparing this to my only other lens the 70-200 L lens, which is smooth and just feels like a quality product.

As far as feel, I wonder how the Tamron compares to a L series lens, is it smooth,? I definitely need to visit the local photography store to get some hands on experience with this lens.

Hank

[commando]

The tamron feels nice, and better built than the kit lens, but it's not night and day. I would definitely try and find a copy of this lens to try before you buy.

I'll try and take some more test shots on the weekend.

My tutor has some L lenses, I might borrow one before my next class and take a few comparison photos, and post them up here.

[HJMinard]

Can no-one explain why the "incredible" tamron doesn't appear to perform any better than the "horrible" kit lens. I really hope it's me, because otherwise it was an expensive mistake.

You've explained it yourself.

(Almost) everyone else - including me - who owns both has reported much higher quality from the Tamron than from the kit lens. Not a little better ... a lot better. Apparently you believe we're deceiving ourselves?

Evidence suggests - as you already stated - that you either have a much better than average kit lens or a dud Tamron lens - or both. If you're not happy with the Tamron lens, return it or sell it.

[commando]

You've explained it yourself.

(Almost) everyone else - including me - who owns both has reported much higher quality from the Tamron than from the kit lens. Not a little better ... a lot better. Apparently you believe we're deceiving ourselves?

Evidence suggests - as you already stated - that you either have a much better than average kit lens or a dud Tamron lens - or both. If you're not happy with the Tamron lens, return it or sell it.

I'm not unhappy with the Tamron, i'm just not seeing significantly better optical performance. It's too late to return it, and selling it would be a great way to lose money quickly. I might email Tamron tech support and see what they say.

[Kenski]

Can no-one explain why the "incredible" tamron doesn't appear to perform any better than the "horrible" kit lens. I really hope it's me, because otherwise it was an expensive mistake.


Kit lens can't go down to f2.8 throughout the entire length of the lens can it?? So now you have alot more control of the DOF... I have seen some AWESOME pictures taken with the 28-75 and I have seen some AWESOME pictures taken with the 18-55 but I like the idea of the constant f2.8. I have a 15mm and 20mm prime lens so losing the wide angle doesn't bother me... Gaining alittle tele on the other end is a plus because it will mate up good with the 70-200 f2.8 then....

I think this will fill the bag nice....

15mm 2.8
20mm 2.8
28-75 Tamron 2.8 <==--- Plan to order VERY shortly
50mm 1.4
70-200 2.8 IS <==--- XMas gift...

Still looking at a few other primes but I'm happy with that set up. If the 10-22 wasn't a EF-S lens, I would jump on it in a heart beat because I don't know where I'm going with this, Who knows what my next camera will be, so I'll stick with the EF lenses....

[commando]

If the optical quality is the same, like you say the Tamron gives you better control of the DOF, as well as 50% more zoom.

I'll be adding the 50mm 1.8 some time, which will be an interesting comparison. I'm tempted to get the 50mm 1.4, but the price increase for a F0.4 increase is quite high.

[Kenski]

If the optical quality is the same, like you say the Tamron gives you better control of the DOF, as well as 50% more zoom.

I'll be adding the 50mm 1.8 some time, which will be an interesting comparison. I'm tempted to get the 50mm 1.4, but the price increase for a F0.4 increase is quite high.


You'll upgrade that 1.8 later... You'll see! :)

[Persian-Rice]

I just opened my package.

First impressions is the build is actually better then I expected. Pretty sturdy. Image quality is as good as my 24-70..................

So I say its really great.

[commando]

You'll upgrade that 1.8 later... You'll see! :)

I'd really like to have the 1.4. In my "eyes of eos III" book there's a classic pic of a line of beer bottles, with a very narrow DOF. At 1.4 the middle bottle's in focus, but the rest are progressively out of focus. At 1.8 the effect is less pronounced.

[Kenski]

I just opened my package.

First impressions is the build is actually better then I expected. Pretty sturdy. Image quality is as good as my 24-70..................

So I say its really great.


Wow, this is coming from a guy with alot of red "L"s in his signature too!!! :) lol

[rkoshy]

Can no-one explain why the "incredible" tamron doesn't appear to perform any better than the "horrible" kit lens. I really hope it's me, because otherwise it was an expensive mistake.

commando - a SIMPLE reason why the kit lens sucks.... try using it with a graduated filter :-)

The Tamron, like any other decent lens, will not spin the front element.

[commando]

commando - a SIMPLE reason why the kit lens sucks.... try using it with a graduated filter :-)

The Tamron, like any other decent lens, will not spin the front element.

That would be important if I used filters, but I don't. Well, I use a UV filter on my Tamron, for protection mainly. The kit lens obviously isn't a pro lens, but it seems good enough for casual/beginner use to me.

[Kenski]

Can no-one explain why the "incredible" tamron doesn't appear to perform any better than the "horrible" kit lens. I really hope it's me, because otherwise it was an expensive mistake.

commando - a SIMPLE reason why the kit lens sucks.... try using it with a graduated filter :-)

The Tamron, like any other decent lens, will not spin the front element.


Don't use a graduated filter.... Get a CL-PL.... :)

[tumb]

Mine came in today. I just got to snap a few quick pictures before it got dark, but it's a HUGE improvement over the 18-55 kit, and a quick test shows it to be at least a moderate improvement over my Sigma 28-105. Build is good but not fantastic, maybe slightly less smooth than the Sigma (my Sigma is super-smooth). AF and focus seems to be notably better than either of my other lenses. Hopefully tomorrow I can get a better test on it.

[Coyote169]

Can no-one explain why the "incredible" tamron doesn't appear to perform any better than the "horrible" kit lens. I really hope it's me, because otherwise it was an expensive mistake. :oops:

Based on comments in this and other forums I recently bought the Tamron lens and must admit that it may have been a mistake. I purchased it for use on a 10D in low light conditions and have found that it has difficulty auto focusing on any subject without strong contrast. This is in comparison to a 50 f1.8, 28-135 IS, EF 100 f2.8 and a 100-400 f/1.4-5.6 L IS. Perhaps I have a bad copy, but I don't see that it is optically better than the 28-135 IS. I'll keep it for the 2.8 speed but I would be very reluctant to recommend it over the 28-135 IS unless a person has a need for a relatively fast lens.

[commando]

Well at least it has a good reputation, so the resale value should be fine... unless someone reads this thread ;)

It's a good lens most of the time, I quite like it. I took about 30 photos of my girlfriend the other night inside under tungsten and halogen lighting, 10-15 of them weren't properly focused - but that could have been photographer error. Another time it was reasonably low light and I had to use the flash to get it to focus, but it was a candlelit night photo.

I've emailed Tamron and given them the test photos that compare with the kit lens, so i'll see what they have to say before I decide what i'll do with mine. I'll probably keep it, it's a good price, fast, and feels like decent quality.

[Persian-Rice]

Well after some more testing, which was minimal because my brother wrote-off our car while we were coming back from the camera store that I went to purchase some 67mm filters from. Thank god it wasn't our fault.

I have two beefs, first, as mentioned, the lens seems to search when pointed at low contrast/light focusing. Personally, I have never found this too annoying as I have no problem of pointing it at something better close by. I would compare it to a 50 1.8. My only other beef is that the zoom ring is pretty damn stiff. I think that is good because it prevents any creep but I am not used to that. I usually loosely hold the lens from underneath, but with the Tamron, you need to grab hold and twist.

In terms of image quality. It is great, slightly soft wide open, but I think that was a faulty test, I will try again later.

Anyway, got to get some more aspirin for my cheek, stupid airbag slammed into my face and I can't stop coughing from the airbag dust.......Maybe I should go to the hospital.

[nosquare2003]

My only other beef is that the zoom ring is pretty darn stiff.

It would be loosen after some use.

[Olegis]

Well after some more testing, which was minimal because my brother wrote-off our car while we were coming back from the camera store that I went to purchase some 67mm filters from. Thank god it wasn't our fault.

I have two beefs, first, as mentioned, the lens seems to search when pointed at low contrast/light focusing. Personally, I have never found this too annoying as I have no problem of pointing it at something better close by. I would compare it to a 50 1.8. My only other beef is that the zoom ring is pretty darn stiff. I think that is good because it prevents any creep but I am not used to that. I usually loosely hold the lens from underneath, but with the Tamron, you need to grab hold and twist.

In terms of image quality. It is great, slightly soft wide open, but I think that was a faulty test, I will try again later.

Anyway, got to get some more aspirin for my cheek, stupid airbag slammed into my face and I can't stop coughing from the airbag dust.......Maybe I should go to the hospital.

I hope you're feeling OK now.

Now back to our topic - to prevent the zoom creep, Tamron has this little "zoom lock" thing, which can be engaged in 28mm zoom position.

[Persian-Rice]

Olegis, thanks, I actually feel like ground beef.
I mean, I powerlift and do massive amounts of plyometrics(muscle shock training) but the shock of a car accident, especially a big one, is nothing in comparison.

Ya I know about the zoom lock, but too bad its not effective at all zooms. As I said, at this point my zoom ring is pretty stiff, which is both good and bad. I wont mind if it stays the same or becomes "looser" over time.

I think i might to an in depth review of this lens on a little webpage. Not a comparison to anything, but an overall review.

[JABACo]

How does lens perform with basketball or other sports? Is it fast enough?

[commando]

I took a load of pics with this last night, and they came out great. Look how sharp this shot is:

http://www.kiwirant.co.nz/gallery/TamronTestShots/Misc/slides/IMG_1246.html

[TonyKInTexas]

Are you referring to focus speed? If so, that would depend on the amount of light present. It is reasonably fast but not super performer. I use it at concerts and like it very much.

Take care,

How does lens perform with basketball or other sports? Is it fast enough?

[Persian-Rice]

I'm in the middle of writing a review, but it won't be done for some time.

So ill let you know somthing. I consider this lens somewhat soft wide open. Either commando has done some PP'ing or my lens has an issue wide open.

[Olegis]

This lens is no L glass, and it's sharpness decreases to some amount when wide open. However, I find its wide-open performance very good - the loss in sharpness is barely niticeable, at least with my copy.

Can you post an example of a soft picture at f/2.8 ?

[JABACo]

How does lens perform with basketball or other sports? Is it fast enough?

Thanks to all who responded. If someone does use this lens for any sporting event, especially basketball, post or send me some samples.

BA

[Persian-Rice]

Olegis, I actually have found a problem with my lens.

It appears that when I shoot wide open, the left half of the image is softer then the right half. The right half is actually fairly sharp.
it appears that at f 4/5+ thing seem fairly sharp.

I will post a couple examples in a few mintues. Unfortunatly for me, the warranty does not appear to apply to Canadians..........I guess I have to waste a ton of money to have it replaced by b&h.

[Kenski]

DAMN YOU PEOPLE!!!

LOL!!!

I Just ordered my 28-75 with next day air because I am taking the wife on a sunrise hot air balloon ride on Sunday and wanted to test the lens in the low light condition!!! DAMN IT!! WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO ME!! :)

Rice, that sucks about your lens.... I hope I don't get a bad copy because my nextday air shipping would be worthless then....

*edit* stupid automatic editing... It takes all the fun out of the messages now!!! can't say damn!!!

[Persian-Rice]

Ya, I am going to make a small thread baout it. I hear that Tamron's quality control is not the best and thus thy do have quite a bit of bad models out there.

Too bad, since I am a student and cant really afford to spend another $100 or so to have it shipped back and forth.

[Toogy]

Persian Rice, I read a post on DPreview about somebody in Toronto getting a used Tamron and got it replaced for free at AMPLIS
http://www.amplis.com
They are located in Missassauga and are the Canadian distributor and service center for Tamron Canada.

I'd give them a call before shipping anything back to B&H.

[TonyKInTexas]

I like my copy and it does me pretty well. Auto-focus is only an issue in very low light where there is low contrast.

darn YOU PEOPLE!!!

LOL!!!

I Just ordered my 28-75 with next day air because I am taking the wife on a sunrise hot air balloon ride on Sunday and wanted to test the lens in the low light condition!!! darn IT!! WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO ME!! :)

Rice, that sucks about your lens.... I hope I don't get a bad copy because my nextday air shipping would be worthless then....

*edit* stupid automatic editing... It takes all the fun out of the messages now!!! can't say darn!!!

[chops]

Here's a bunch of shots taken wide open...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=345117#345117

[RDKirk]

I spoke to a man at the camera store about this and he said he'd stick with the Canon. He reasons that the Canon's IS makes up for the 2.8 aperture on the Tamron (he was little more technical than this of course), yet has more zoom. o on.)

IS does NOT make up for a faster lens. IS allows you to use a somewhat slower shutter speed--it takes the place of a monopod, not a faster lens.

If you actually need a faster shutter speed (for indoor sports, for instance), IS will do nothing for you--a faster lens will.

Also, if you have a 20D, remember that an f2.8 aperture will also allow you to use the higher accuracy AF mode--IS doesn't help with focusing, either.