Any feedback on the Tamron 28-300mm XR Di ?

[flyfishnj]

Any experiences with this lens yet?

[Andy_T]

Are you referring to the Tamron AF Aspherical XR 28 – 300mm 3.5 – 6.3 Macro?

There's a review of the lens.
(Actually, it's a review of the Canon 70-300 DO, but there are example pictures from several lenses).

EDIT: Changed for the 200 mm pictures, as the 135 mm pictures maybe had other problems (e.g. camera shake) ... and added the Canon 75-300 as second reference :wink:

Tamron 28-300 XR, 200 mm@f/5.6

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/uploads/tam_200_5_6.jpg

Comparison: Canon 75-300/4–5.6 IS USM, 200 mm @ f/5.6

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/uploads/is_200_5_6.jpg

Comparison: Canon 70-200/2.8IS, 200 mm @ f/5.6

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/uploads/wow_200_5_6.jpg


To read the whole report, go here: http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml

Best regards,
Andy

EDIT: I have edited the post, as it was pointed out that the images originally included (135 mm focal length) had other problems.

However, at 200 mm, the Tamron is still wide open, whereas the Canon 70-200/2.8 is actually stepped down.

EDIT2: Also added the Canon 75-300 4 – 5.6 IS USM

[Kenski]

Those are some PRETTY crappy pictures... I think someone who is CANON bias snapped those pics... I'm not trying to compare it to a "L" lens but it can do ALOT better then that.. For some reason everytime I upload pictures to PBase right now it won't display them but I will upload some pictures tonight that I have taken with the 28-300 and show you that it is a pretty damn decent lens!

[slin100]

Notwithstanding the expected drop in image quality from an extremely wide-range zoom, the Tamron image does look unusually bad. I don't know if any EXIF info is available, but I wouldn't rule out camera shake as a possible cause.

[Kenski]

All of these pictures are UNEDITED and taken with the 28-300 but they were taken at jpg form NOT RAW... Sorry... I will have some JPG's this weekend... These all probably have some camera shake in them because I had NO monopod or tripod at the time of these shots...

Focal Length 200 mm
Exposure Time 1/60 sec
Aperture f/5.6
ISO Equivalent 400
http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/34156472.jpg


Focal Length 300 mm
Exposure Time 1/250 sec
Aperture f/6.3
ISO Equivalent 125
http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/34156478.jpg



Focal Length 300 mm
Exposure Time 1/250 sec
Aperture f/6.3
ISO Equivalent 100
http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/34156486.jpg


Focal Length 300 mm
Exposure Time 1/125 sec
Aperture f/6.3
ISO Equivalent 100
http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/34156491.jpg


Thats the best I can do... I do have some more pictures that were taken with this lens.. You can go to http://www.pbase.com/kenski/milwaukee_county_zoo to look at them.. I will put more pictures up soon...

[Jesper]

Hmmm.... Sorry Kenski, but I think those photos don't look terribly sharp..... :?

[commando]

Have a look at the comparisons in the article, 200mm (http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_300.shtml) and 300mm (http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_301.shtml). To my eyes at 300mm/100% crop:
- the tamron 28-300 really isn't great, it's beaten out by all the other lenses.
- the canon 70-300 looks about the same at 300mm
- the 75-300 is a bit better, the DO version is quite a lot better

At 200mm/100% crop:
- tamron 28-300 is pretty bad,
- the canon 70-300 is about the same
- 70-300 DO is pretty nice
- the 70-200 2.8L is about the same as the 70-300

At 70mm the 28-300 still bites. The 74-300 DO is in the same class as the 2.8L.

I wish there were comparisons this good for all the lenses I was interested in!

[Cadwell]

Have a look at the comparisons in the article, 200mm (http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_300.shtml) and 300mm (http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_301.shtml).

In the 300mm test the chromatic abberation is vile on all those lenses apart from the Canon EF 70 – 300mm 4,5 – 5,6 DO IS USM. From the CA perspective the Tamron 28-300 looks to be the worst by a fair margin.

[Kenski]

Hmmm.... Sorry Kenski, but I think those photos don't look terribly sharp..... :?


Like I said, Its NOT a "L" glass. Its not a bad lens to walk around with though, and about those pictures, I'm sure I had some camera shake in them and that is why they aren't exactly sharp eaither. eaither way, I'm happy to use it as a walk around lens and when I get my 70-200 2.8 for Xmas, then I'll use that to take my reach out and touch you shots but I only paid $330 for mine so it is worth it to me.

Here are a few more examples of it though, I think these aren't too damn bad for an everyday lens...

http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36459060.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36459061.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36459063.jpg

[Andy_T]

Kenski,

I agree with you that the 135 mm picture from the lens test I crossposted might have other issues (e.g. oof, shake).
I have replaced them with the 200 mm pictures.

Best regards,
Andy

[Kenski]

hahahah, now your comparing a $400 lens to a $1600 one with IS... :) To be honest though, for $400, it doesn't look that bad.... You get what you pay for!

[gramps]

I picked up a Tamrom 28 - 300 XR Di a few weeks ago. I thought it was areally great lens till I took some pics with it................the next morning it went back to the store. It was awful from 100 out to 300.

[flyfishnj]

I have a set of "soft" lenses already - Hoping this lens would perform as well as the 28-75 xr di. Looks like no such luck

[Persian-Rice]

Ouch, these appear to very soft..............