Should I have the Tamron 28-75 replaced?(2 big images)

[Persian-Rice]

Ok guys, I am contemplating sending this lens back to B&H for a replacement since I think it might be problematic.

Wide open at 28mm, the lens appears to be sharp on the right and blurry on the left. At 75, it appears to be consistent, but slight soft all around.

I made sure that the body and the box were parralell before shooting. The reason I ask is because at this point I am pretty low on cash since I had to buy some new books for my courses on Monday and sending the back and forth between Toronto & New York is not cheap.

Especially from you current owner, what do you suggest?? I'm pretty pissed about this since I have never ever had a problem with any of my Canon lenses.

28mm f/2.8
http://hostmyfile.net/files/1020.jpg

75mm f/2.8
http://hostmyfile.net/files/1022.jpg

Thanks guys

[Adam Hicks]

You're right that's definitely blurry on one side, but how on earth would it only do it at the wide end? Have you tried other tests? I've never had any problems with mine, and have always been pleased with the sharpness. Here's a quick picture I took handheld that is unprocessed other than a crop...

http://www.golilm.com/images/MiscCar/orangeviper.jpg

Might not be a great example since it wasn't flat and the focus point was towards the rear, but the lens has always done a great job.

Do some more tests, and I hate to say it, but send it back if it's consistently like that wide open. That just sucks. It's such a nice lens for the price that it's disappointing to see something like this.

You might try sending it to Tamron vs. sending it back, they might be more eager to take care of you (plus we'd all like to know how their service is!)
[/img]

[Adam Hicks]

Jeez why didn't those resize down? Sorry about that!

[Persian-Rice]

Unfortunatly my lens does not come with a Canadian Warranty. I think I will have it replaced. Does anyone know if B&H bills me for shipping the replacement Item back to me? I know I have to pay for it to go there.

[slin100]

Yes, I can see that the left side is slightly softer than the right but it doesn't look too bad to me. I'm guessing that @ 28mm the box was pretty darn close to the lens. At such a close distance any misalignment of camera is likely to be significant. One should also realize that except for dedicated macro lenses, most lenses are not optimized for zero field curvature.

I'm not doubting you did your best to ensure that the camera was parallel to the box, but I suggest redoing the test. Use a wall-mounted mirror to confirm alignment (look through the viewfinder and place the center AF sensor right in the middle of the lens' reflection). Also, try the test at a more realworld camera-to-subject distance.

[Kenski]

Hmmm, I would get it replaced....



ahhhhhh, the big brother to my car.... SRT-10....

[Persian-Rice]

Ok, I did some more testing and yes it seems bad, check out the sharpeness between the left and right side of the background.

And dont laugh at my sofa's, white furniture + 2 dogs = disaster waiting to happen.

http://hostmyfile.net/files/1065.jpg

[Toogy]

I mentioned this in your other thread, but I will say it here too

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.

[izzypizzy]

(nt)

[chops]

Just curious.... Did you have the lens in the car with you when you and your brother got in the accident? If so, the shock might have bumped one of the elements out of alignment.

[Persian-Rice]

Just curious.... Did you have the lens in the car with you when you and your brother got in the accident? If so, the shock might have bumped one of the elements out of alignment.

No the lens was at home................

[Persian-Rice]

Oh BTW Adam, your shot was taken at f8, at f8 my lens is sharp as well, it's when i shoot wide open that I have problems.

[chops]

Have you checked out my new thread yet?

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

[Persian-Rice]

Yes I did, the quality is the reason I bought this lens.
There were two things I was concerned about before I purchased it. On one I was pleasantly surprised, the build and the other one was the one that bit me in the ass, poor quality control.

I guess that will be added as a con in my review of the lens, but now I need to wait to get a working one to finish it.

I read about bad copies in other reviews and hoped I would not be a victim.

BTW, I despise cats. :D

[chops]

BTW, I despise cats. :D

Yeah well, notice my new avatar?! :twisted: :lol:

[rkoshy]

Yes I did, the quality is the reason I bought this lens.
There were two things I was concerned about before I purchased it. On one I was pleasantly surprised, the build and the other one was the one that bit me in the ass, poor quality control.

I guess that will be added as a con in my review of the lens, but now I need to wait to get a working one to finish it.

I read about bad copies in other reviews and hoped I would not be a victim.

BTW, I despise cats. :D

I just tried the same shot ... and my lens is perfectly fine... @ f/2.8, it's definitely not fuzzy like your unit.

[Tintype]

I purchased my Tamron from B&H and didn't test it out right away. To my chagrin I discovered the lens developed a soft focus spot in the middle of the image beginning at f/10, and it got progressively worse from there to f/32. I had to wait another week for B&H to get back from a holiday. When I was able to call them, the guy told me the best thing would be to order a new lens, since I needed within a few days. I did that and he give me a return authorization on the bad one. I had ordered the first lens as 2 day Air; and that is the way they sent me the second lens. They paid the shipping. I was very satisfied with the whole thing, with the exception of the bad lens. The new lens works great!

[Olegis]

That's weird, Persian-Rice. I never noticed that kind of performanve with my lens.
Try to give the Tamron service center a call, see what they suggest.

[IncompletePete]

I avoid Tamron like the plague, never work that great!

[chops]

I avoid Tamron like the plague, never work that great!

Considering all of the Tamrons I've sold over the past four years, I have never had one come back with something wrong with it. Maybe you just got duds.

[commando]

From the Tamron site (http://www.tamron.com/contact/default.asp):

Q: Should you send your equipment in to Tamron?

A: Yes. Since it is difficult to evaluate the problem over the phone without a technician looking over the equipment, we suggest you send the equipment in for a free estimate. Fill out the Adobe Acrobat form and include it and a more detailed letter explaining the problem with your equipment. The form MUST accompany the equipment. When requesting warranty service, package your equipment with the warranty card and proof of purchase.

Upon the technician's inspection of the equipment, the repair charge or warranty status of the product damage will be determined and an estimate will be mailed to you. We cannot estimate the repair charges without this inspection process. Approximate turnaround time is 7-10 business days from payment or determination of warranty status. Repaired equipment is returned via 3 day UPS at no charge. All declined repairs will incur a $10.00 return shipping fee.

[shiningstardv]

Does anybody know if Tamron will do any kind of calibration thing for the lens? I know Canon will do this for it's lenses...

[Persian-Rice]

My local Tamron dealer will accept it, but will send it to Japan...............No thank you.

I was waiting for a UPS pickup yesterday and they called me at 6 after I waited for 5 hours saying they are on a 72 hour strike........I just sent it via canadapost/purolator expedited an hour aga to B&H. B&H said they will replace it and send it next day....................

I guess I will refer to the local Tamron place if I have some problem down the road. Unfortunatly they will only satistfy non-Canadian warranties for 1 year instead of 6. I'm not too pleased, but if I get another dud, I will do what I probably should have done at the start and buy another L. Thats if I get another bad one though, and from what I keep reading, its a good possibiliy.

[pcasciola]

I was lucky enough to get a good copy of the Tamron 28-75mm, but look at it this way. Sure, the build quality of the 24-70L is going to be better, but the picture quality is only slightly better if at all, speed is the same, and the Tamron is smaller and lighter.

Worst comes to worst, after the replacement comes back from B&H, even if it's bad you could buy another Tamron, and if that one is bad, buy a 3rd Tamron, and you've still saved around $200 vs the L even if you decide to keep all three of the Tamron's.

Seriously, if money is no object and you don't care about the bulky size, get the L, otherwise, maybe you could buy another Tamron and sell the worse copy of the two on ebay for like $200-$250. You'd still save a ton.

Actually, I notice you do have a 24-70L. I'd love to see some comparison shots after you get a good copy of the Tamron.

[Persian-Rice]

No I rather just keep sending it back till I get a good one. BTW, the Tamron is not as fast as the 24-70, not even really close. But it's still pretty nice, it's smooth.

I was going to write a review, I might make a comparison later, only reason I want to review it is that its becoming a popular lens and I still have yet to see a good dedicated review.

[slin100]

Persian,

I'm curious. Why did you buy the Tamron when you already own the 24-70L? I'm hoping you can get your lemon replaced.

[planesh00ter]

Why is the Canon backwards in the picture.....?

[Persian-Rice]

The Canon is not backwards.........unless u mean the mirror shot...........

The reason I need two is because I have two separate sets of equipment, one is my film stuff, one is my digital stuff. Alot of the time I leave my film stuff somewhere that I usually don't have access to. If my mid range lens is in there, I'm screwed. I decided to get a second normal length zoom so I can have always have a normal zoom with each bag. I was going to either double up on the 17-40 and keep one as a wide angle for the film(mandatory for my schoolwork) and the other as a walk around on the dSLR. But because I already own the L I decided to grab this for the film and use my L 24-70 on my dSLR (just because its slightly wider). If I doubled up on the 17-40, I would not get enough zoom and would have two of the same lens, so I might as well get something I don't have and got the Tamron.

[pcasciola]

No I rather just keep sending it back till I get a good one. BTW, the Tamron is not as fast as the 24-70, not even really close. But it's still pretty nice, it's smooth.

I was going to write a review, I might make a comparison later, only reason I want to review it is that its becoming a popular lens and I still have yet to see a good dedicated review.

Sorry, I meant fast as in they are both f/2.8 throughout the focal range, not the focus speed.

I'd love to see that comparison if you get to do it with a good copy of the Tamron. A friend of mine just got a 24-70L. Maybe we'll do a quick side-by-side this week.

Good luck getting that resolved.

[Olegis]

BTW, Persian-Rice - my first copy was soft wide-open (it was soft all over the frame, not like yours). I replaced it with another copy and have been happy since then.