First Copy of Your Tamron 28-75XR Di OK?

[dsze]

Persian-Rice has let me know that there are appearantly some problems with Tamron quality, regarding this lens in particular. I'm just wondering, since we recieve at least one post/week about this lens, how many people have gotten a bad copy?

-daniel

[Persian-Rice]

I guess ill vote two, but I will receive my second copy soon, I hope its all good.

[dsze]

Yes, hopefully. What was wrong with the first one? Soft? Back/front focus?

-daniel

[Persian-Rice]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=48454&highlight=

[Kenski]

heheheh, I was going to post some TEST pictures of mine after I received it to ask if it was "FUZZY" in the corners.... I had all of my wife's Boyds bears lined up on the counter and I took a full framed picture and boy, if it wasn't SOFT AND FUZZY in the corners!!! :) I just ran out of time and never got them online before going to work....

My copy was good and I was very happy with it... My 28-300 Di was very good also and I didn't have any problems with that one....

[dsze]

HAhahaha.....funny....fuzzy in the corners... Good one! :)

-daniel

[commando]

Mine can do nice sharp photos, but with F2.8 it's easy to get the focus wrong and do bad photos. This one ain't bad.

http://kiwirant.co.nz/gallery/misc/bee_crop.jpg

[dsze]

Sure the DOF is short at 2.8, which could mean that you might screw up the focus point, especially if the subject moves, but this does not indicate a defective lens.

-daniel

[commando]

Sure the DOF is short at 2.8, which could mean that you might screw up the focus point, especially if the subject moves, but this does not indicate a defective lens.

-daniel

I know - I was just pointing out that it could be photograper error rather than a faulty lens. It took me some practice to get used to mine.

[chops]

Persian-Rice has let me know that there are appearantly some problems with Tamron quality, regarding this lens in particular. I'm just wondering, since we recieve at least one post/week about this lens, how many people have gotten a bad copy?

-daniel

I wouldn't exactly only put Tamron in the spotlight for quality control problems.

How many threads have you seen here started about the 17-40 L being soft? No one ever seems to point that out in these kind of threads. :?

Oh yeah, and my Tamron is excellent! :D

[Persian-Rice]

Persian-Rice has let me know that there are appearantly some problems with Tamron quality, regarding this lens in particular. I'm just wondering, since we recieve at least one post/week about this lens, how many people have gotten a bad copy?

-daniel

I wouldn't exactly only put Tamron in the spotlight for quality control problems.

How many threads have you seen here started about the 17-40 L being soft? No one ever seems to point that out in these kind of threads. :?

Unfortunartly there is a big differnce between the number of 17-40's sold to the number of Tamron 28-75's for a Canon. We have about 150-200 or so students in one of my Photography theory classes, about 70%-80% own Canon dSlR's. 90% of whome own a 17-40 while only two, including myself that I know of own the Tamron, the rest must be hiding them hah.

I don't really think this poll is going to prove anyhting, our community is rather small and honestly, not that many own a Tamron lens.

[chops]

Persian-Rice has let me know that there are appearantly some problems with Tamron quality, regarding this lens in particular. I'm just wondering, since we recieve at least one post/week about this lens, how many people have gotten a bad copy?

-daniel

I wouldn't exactly only put Tamron in the spotlight for quality control problems.

How many threads have you seen here started about the 17-40 L being soft? No one ever seems to point that out in these kind of threads. :?

Unfortunartly there is a big differnce between the number of 17-40's sold to the number of Tamron 28-75's for a Canon. We have about 150-200 or so students in one of my Photography theory classes, about 70%-80% own Canon dSlR's. 90% of whome own a 17-40 while only two, including myself that I know of own the Tamron, the rest must be hiding them hah.

I don't really think this poll is going to prove anyhting, our community is rather small and honestly, not that many own a Tamron lens.

I'm not going to argue, but you're missing my point, and that is no matter who it is, they are going to put out a rotton egg every once in a while.

Canon is a great company and I will always stick with them, but they too have put out a "problematic" product... the 20D. So has Nikon, the D100. So has Minolta, the whole line!

[dsze]

Persian.... you voted in this pole. Then, 10 posts later, when you are still the only one who has voted #2, you say that this pole isn't going to prove anything? I don't understand that. You said to me in another thread that you would be rich if you had a nickel for every time you read about people getting a bad copy of the 28-75 and you told me that I must not do much research because I disagreed with you.

So, I'm not sure what this pole is going to prove...I doubt that it will "prove" anything...What it is suggesting (so far) anyway, is that you are the only one who wasn't completely happy with his first copy of this lens. ....yet, you ordered another one.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised to see more people in the next couple days vote with you, but I seriously doubt that it will be enough people to indicate that Tamron has a quality problem with this lens. I just don't think its fair to make comments like that, which is why I questioned your sources in the other thread. This is certainly not worth arguing about and I know the people that make up this board is a minute portion of the photography population, but it certainly does not support your claim.

I'm not sure what your photography theory class has to do with this. Have you asked all 150 students whether or not they have a 28-75 Tamron lens? ...and whether or not it was defective?

-daniel

[chops]

Yeah, Persian's post up there really had nothing to do with the question at hand. The question wasn't "figure out the ratio of lenses sold between companies".

Oh well. :roll:

[Persian-Rice]

Persian.... you voted in this pole. Then, 10 posts later, when you are still the only one who has voted #2, you say that this pole isn't going to prove anything? I don't understand that. You said to me in another thread that you would be rich if you had a nickel for every time you read about people getting a bad copy of the 28-75 and you told me that I must not do much research because I disagreed with you.

So, I'm not sure what this pole is going to prove...I doubt that it will "prove" anything...What it is suggesting (so far) anyway, is that you are the only one who wasn't completely happy with his first copy of this lens. ....yet, you ordered another one.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised to see more people in the next couple days vote with you, but I seriously doubt that it will be enough people to indicate that Tamron has a quality problem with this lens. I just don't think its fair to make comments like that, which is why I questioned your sources in the other thread. This is certainly not worth arguing about and I know the people that make up this board is a minute portion of the photography population, but it certainly does not support your claim.

I'm not sure what your photography theory class has to do with this. Have you asked all 150 students whether or not they have a 28-75 Tamron lens? ...and whether or not it was defective?

-daniel

Again you won't get any tangible results from posting a poll here. This community is far too small to get a substantial number of feedback to make any judgments. The reference to my class was more toward the fact that the 17-40 sells many more copies and in turn will likely have more defective copies. I have not shot with every person in the class but probably with about 70-80 of them, and only one other guy has the Tamron.

Chops, my point is that of course there will be more complaints about the 17-40, there are also probably 75x more of the 17-40 out there then of the 28-75. Before I purchased this lens I even talked about being worried about getting a bad copy, and guess what, I got one. There is no point for me to argue this, I stated that there is a bad reputation before I made my purchase and I proved my own point by unfortunately getting myself a bad copy like many others.

Obviously this is not the only place in the world where photographers spend their time, actually most don't. Go look for reviews of this around the net and you will get at least 20 comments about bad copy out of 60-70 reviews. Maybe it's that people who are dissatisfied who voice their opinions. As it stands, I have seen far too many complaint and still decided to take a shot since it was priced as it was.

[Olegis]

I also voted 2.
My first copy was quite soft wide open, not like Persian-Rice's but still soft to my taste. The store I bought it from exchanged it with no questions asked - a day after I had a fresh copy, which I use now without any single problem.

[dsze]

Persian...the point is; your photog. class is no more "tangible" than this poll. No, this poll does not provide conclusive results.... It does INDICATE that your claim is not true. I haven't seen any poll from your class or from other forums....You're right, I don't spend a lot of time in other forums, but if you could provide some url's to discussions or polls that support your claim that Tamron has a quality control problem, I would be more than happy to read through them sometime.

Believe it or not, you're theory class doesn't make up the entire photography population either...Lets take a look at it. A bunch of college kids who've got their extra student loan money to spend on equipment....:) I know, because I've been there too...only I spent mine on stereo equipment and flights to australia! A word of advice...you'll pay for it later!! :)

Anyway, Persian, you know I appreciate all of your posts here. Please don't think I'm bagging you or anything. I just don't think its fair to claim that Tamron sells defective lenses without substantiating that claim in some way. :wink:

-daniel

[vfilby]

I won't vote because I havn't owned this lense. But I spoke to a few people on FM who mentioned they had had problems finding a sharp copy. I have heard the bad QA story from a few different (read unrelated) places as well which is enough corroboration for me.

[chops]

I won't vote because I havn't owned this lense. But I spoke to a few people on FM who mentioned they had had problems finding a sharp copy. I have heard the bad QA story from a few different (read unrelated) places as well which is enough corroboration for me.

Then you're going to miss out on one heck of a deal. Unless you have an ample amount of money to throw at a 24-70 L lens, then the Tamron is the ONLY logical choice, especially at 1/4 the cost!

[vfilby]

I won't vote because I havn't owned this lense. But I spoke to a few people on FM who mentioned they had had problems finding a sharp copy. I have heard the bad QA story from a few different (read unrelated) places as well which is enough corroboration for me.

Then you're going to miss out on one heck of a deal. Unless you have an ample amount of money to throw at a 24-70 L lens, then the Tamron is the ONLY logical choice, especially at 1/4 the cost!

I can't go into a local store and try one out. If I could, I would likely already own it.

Vince

[chops]

I won't vote because I havn't owned this lense. But I spoke to a few people on FM who mentioned they had had problems finding a sharp copy. I have heard the bad QA story from a few different (read unrelated) places as well which is enough corroboration for me.

Then you're going to miss out on one heck of a deal. Unless you have an ample amount of money to throw at a 24-70 L lens, then the Tamron is the ONLY logical choice, especially at 1/4 the cost!

I can't go into a local store and try one out. If I could, I would likely already own it.

Vince

Even if you have to buy online, then "shuffle cards" a few times to get a good copy, what are you missing but a little time without it? That's still alot better than coming up with the money for the other.

I'm sure you must have a town close by that has this lens. I would be willing to take a nice little weekend drive somewhere to buy one. Besides, it gets you out of the house for a little while to enjoy the great outdoors. :wink:

[vfilby]

Even if you have to buy online, then "shuffle cards" a few times to get a good copy, what are you missing but a little time without it? That's still alot better than coming up with the money for the other.

I'm sure you must have a town close by that has this lens. I would be willing to take a nice little weekend drive somewhere to buy one. Besides, it gets you out of the house for a little while to enjoy the great outdoors. :wink:

Yes yes, indeed... "Just going for a walk darling." I am sure she won't notice that package under my arm when I return at the end of the weekend! Just kidding, my gal is wonderful and supports my hobby/business.

I will be driving through London to go home for christmass. My mother has asked me to pick out some of my own gifts. So I will be stopping by forest city image center (cameracanada.com). There is already a 190Pro in black with my name in it. I am sure I could swing a few extras too ;-)

Maybe I will try on the tamron while I am there.

[Persian-Rice]

Then its a matter of opinion of who thinks the QA is bad or not, I feel that there are far too many complaints compared to good reviews. To me if I see one negative review out of ten reviews, I would consider that bad. To others, I guess its not.

As for the college kids with extra student loan money, I am in a 4 year photography undergrad program, which considered to be one of the best in North America. It not a 2 weekend course or anything.........

[HJMinard]

I guess I've been unusually lucky with all of my equipment. No complaints or problems with anything from my original digital camera (G1) to the DRebel or the 20D. All of my lenses have been excellent, including the Tamron - even wide open it has produced excellent results. I've even been relatively pleased with two copies of the EF-S 18-55 (one with each kit).

You might surmise that I'm not very critical of my equipment, but that's definitely not the case. I'm not a measurebater, but I'm very critical of and picky about real world results.

Just pleasantly lucky, I guess. I highly recommend the Tamron lens.

[commando]

I can see a noticable increase in quality on this lens when I drop from F2.8 to the region of F 5-6. Is this normal?

[dsze]

...I don't think I said anything about a 2-weekend course? ...and I may be mistaking you for someone else, but I think I've read posts where you've mentioned spending part of your student loan check on photo equip... Thats why I made that little comment, which was made in a joking fashion :) If I am in fact mistaken, I appologize. Nevertheless, stating you're in 4-year respectable course of study still doesn't substantiate your claim that Tamron has issues. 1/10 would be bad. How about 2/24 :wink: Thats a little better statistically.

-daniel

[Persian-Rice]

No offence taken, it just sounded........I'm confused. Yes that was me. My whole refernce to my course has nothing to do with the differnce it was intended towards chops' comment against the 17-40.

2/24 is still 1/12, I guess we can't count the 3rd guys vote, he must be on the ani-Tamron club hehe. I don't know if people are misunderstanding me, I like Tamron, and I would buy from them again........... I for one still think that Tamron seems to have too many duds in their line up.

Commando, your best bet is to make a thread with some tests and ask. What do you mean by quality? because the lens should be sharper at a smaller aperture then a wider one. If your images are sharper at 2.8 and you are focusing properly, then you might have a problem.

[commando]

Commando, your best bet is to make a thread with some tests and ask. What do you mean by quality? because the lens should be sharper at a smaller aperture then a wider one. If your images are sharper at 2.8 and you are focusing properly, then you might have a problem.

I know things get sharper with smaller apertures... I said it was sharper at F6 than at F2.8. It's quite noticable, still ok at 2.8 but great close to F8. I think it's normal, I was just checking. I have a few test shots up, but none that show it well... you can tell best with peoples faces, mainly along the wrinkle lines.

[Persian-Rice]

I know things get sharper with smaller apertures... I said it was sharper at F6 than at F2.8. It's quite noticable, still ok at 2.8 but great close to F8. I think it's normal, I was just checking. I have a few test shots up, but none that show it well... you can tell best with peoples faces, mainly along the wrinkle lines.
Oh I was thinking you had the opposite effect. The lens will be soft at 2.8, but not too soft. You might want to take a shot of some print and see what happens, print is fine like the wrinkles on a face...........

The shallow depth will also blur parts of the face depending on your point of focus. Take some shots of something flat, as mentioned print would be a good test.

[commando]

Will do, thanks. I'll wait until my new Sigma 70-300 turns up and do it with both :)

[tumb]

I have seen a few other examples of bad copies, but so far mine is good. I'll give it a much better test this weekend (finishing a run of the graveyard shift tonight).

I researched this and other lenses for a couple months before I bought and I can remember at least 3 seperate threads on different forums with images that showed their problems. Most problems seem magnified wide open too if memory serves.

[Primevci]

Then its a matter of opinion of who thinks the QA is bad or not, I feel that there are far too many complaints compared to good reviews. To me if I see one negative review out of ten reviews, I would consider that bad. To others, I guess its not.

As for the college kids with extra student loan money, I am in a 4 year photography undergrad program, which considered to be one of the best in North America. It not a 2 weekend course or anything.........

Yea but you cannot base it on that because people dont bitch about a good product, you will by far have more complaints show up then useually on any product online... Most people get it like it and dont say anything after that... did i throw enough "." this time :) <--- that indacates im joking around dont want anyone to mistake that...

[dsze]

OH, I might add that I've dropped my Tamron 28-75 from a 4ft height and it still functions & produces images like it was new. :)

-daniel

[aam1234]

Guys, Persian-Rice meant well and was super polite. So please.

This lens sounds like an excellent ulternative to Canon's 24-70L (with about 1/4 of the price). However, this poll implies that it has some QC problems (isn't that the main reason for the poll?).

[dsze]

Yes, the ONLY reason for the poll is to get an idea of the # of people who've been satisfied with their first copy of this lens. Any other comments regarding the lens are welcomed as additional posts.

Yes, Persian has been very nice and no harm or disrespect is intended toward him. None at all. However, I don't feel that it is fair to say something like, "Tamron has QC problems with this lens," but offer no subtantiating evidence. No, this poll does not conclude anything, but it does give us some idea as to the # of people who have experienced good vs. bad with their first copy of this lens. Fact is, people are bound to complain more than they are to praise something thats working fine. It is also human nature to "hang-on" to the more negative comments about a lens and let the more positive comments be forgotten. This poll is to provide a more level playing field and maybe provide us with a more definitive picture of whether or not this lens does or does not have significant QC issues. I don't think there's any harm in that. :)

-daniel

[aam1234]

I don't think there's any harm in that.
not at all.

But generally speaking, and let's forget about lenses and photography. Wouldn't you trust a company that had an excellent reputation for producing 1st class product over many years (Mercedes Benz comes to mind) more than a company that had a shady reputation. After all, reputation is a result of a lot of hard work, one doesn't get it for free.

Just some thoughts. What do you guys think.

[dsze]

I don't think there's any harm in that.
not at all.

But generally speaking, and let's forget about lenses and photography. Wouldn't you trust a company that had an excellent reputation for producing 1st class product over many years (Mercedes Benz comes to mind) more than a company that had a shady reputation. After all, reputation is a result of a lot of hard work, one doesn't get it for free.

Just some thoughts. What do you guys think.


....absolutely. Of course, reputation is built over time and means a lot! So, are you saying that Tamron has a bad reputation and so we should automatically assume that the 28-75 has QC problems? I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make. Sure, I'd buy a Mercedes over a Hyundai (if I wasn't a teacher)...but if I refused to even look at any other cars because they didn't have the long-standing reputation of Mercedes....I might be missing out on something that is 1/4 the cost.

Yes, Canon has an outstanding reputation and the 24-70 is a great lens. So what? This poll is simply in regard to the Tamron 28-75 NOT how it compares to the Canon.

-daniel

[aam1234]

Thanks Daniel,

Believe me, I want to hear good news about this lens more than you do (because of my stupidity I bought an over-lapping lenses, and I want to remedy the situation).

[dsze]

.... I think there's a misunderstanding. I don't "want" to hear good news. I have this lens and have used it extensively for paid shoots. I love my Tamron 28-75 and would quickly buy another if I had a need for a 2nd one. I don't need others to support it with this poll for my own peace of mind. My intent is to provide a basis for judgement for others considering this lens that included more than just a comment like, "Tamron has QC issues."

-daniel

[aam1234]

Just out of curiosity Daniel, why did you start this poll (non of my business really, you don't have to answer).

[dsze]

aam.... Are you serious? Have you read any of my posts in this thread? If you have and you still have to ask me why I started this thread, I'll repeat myself:

Persian made a blanket comment in another thread that read something like, this lens has alot of bad copies out there and I disagreed with him stating that I'd read more good posts than bad posts about this lens.


....essentially, both Persian and I were talking very subjectively. So, this poll was started to provide some sort of more objective view of people's experience with their first copy of this lens....more specifically, to put an actual # to the Good first copies of this lens, within this forum. All the talk about Mercedes reputation and Canon selling a greater #of lenses really have nothing to do with the Poll itself.

-daniel

[aam1234]

Ooppss, I missed the very first question. My fault, please ignore everything I said.

Thanks

[dsze]

aam.... No worries! :)

Anyway, this is my last post here until the voting dies out. Maybe a couple days or so. Then maybe we'll have an idea of how serious (if at all) we should consider this lens to have a QC problem.

-daniel

[aam1234]

This will be my last post too. I just want to say that I learnt enough from this thread that the little risk involved w/ the tamron is outweighed by the savings from the 24-70L.

[dsze]

Ok.... its been several days and we have 34 responses from owners of this lens... quite a small sample size for any reliability.... What do you people think? Does 29/34 copies being good, tend to support that this lens has a QC problem? Of course, there is no scientific validity or reliability to this poll whatsoever, but it gives is some idea.

-daniel

[vfilby]

Ok.... its been several days and we have 34 responses from owners of this lens... quite a small sample size for any reliability.... What do you people think? Does 29/34 copies being good, tend to support that this lens has a QC problem? Of course, there is no scientific validity or reliability to this poll whatsoever, but it gives is some idea.

-daniel


In scientific studies 35 seems to be the magic number. Many papers depend on a sample size of 35 or greater. So I don't think that 34 is all that bad.

[dsze]

Well, you're kind of right. Actually 20 or more tends to be the rule of thumb for sci. studies, but a sample size of 35 for a question like this really isn't sufficient.... it gives us an idea though, and it gives us a place to start; ie., when more people purchase this lens they can come back to this poll and add their experience.

-daniel

[slin100]

I don't know how to vote. This is my first Tamron, but I don't really know if I got a bad copy. It's a bit soft at f/2.8 but still usable. There're no doubt sharper copies out there than mine but I think I can live with mine.

[dsze]

...shoot w/it for awhile and if you still think its soft at 2.8, then vote #2, because it is in fact different than other copies of the lens, which points to a QC issue.

-daniel

[Andy_T]

It's a bit soft at f/2.8 but still usable. There're no doubt sharper copies out there than mine but I think I can live with mine.

Not exactly my definition of 'bad' :lol:

MAN THIS THINS IS SHARP. Sharper than my canon primes!!!

From the quote I got from user Henry Low's other thread on his Tamron purchase, I assume that he hit the wrong button in the poll when he voted 'bad experience with ALL Tamron lenses' ... so the result might be revised (just a bit :wink: )

Best regards,
Andy

[schmoelzel]

I just received this lens in a trade and while I have only used it once so far, I will start using it today and see what gives.........so far, the few pics that I have taken are all very good with nice colour, contrast, and bokeh. For a $500 lens (CANADIAN $) it seems to be a bargain for a zoom of this range.........

[Andy_T]

Michael,

Good. You'll love the bokeh.
It is definitely one of the strong points of this lens as compared to others in that range
(maybe not compared to the 28-70/2.8 L, but the third party lenses).
Here is a comparison (http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests) that also compares bokeh 8)

Best regards,
Andy

[schmoelzel]

Michael,

Good. You'll love the bokeh.
It is definitely one of the strong points of this lens as compared to others in that range
(maybe not compared to the 28-70/2.8 L, but the third party lenses).
Here is a comparison (http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests) that also compares bokeh 8)

Best regards,
Andy

I think you may remember my story of my 28-70L ........wasn't very impressive but then again I had a faulty copy!! (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=74249)

Thanks for the link and I will see what I can get out of the Tamron today.......

[kram]

This thread doesnt prove anything? ...... absolutely, just like the other umpteen posts about issues with the lens. Both are unscientific and offer a different view. But its refreshing to see the other side.

End of the day, if the quality of a lens is good for its price, there will be enough people who will be willing to make the effort to get a good copy....

[slin100]

Haha, I thought this was a new poll. Only just now did I realize that this thread started last year, and I posted to it, no less!

Anyway, I finally went ahead and put my vote in. My 1st copy is a keeper.