Tamron 28-75 f2.8

[markubig]

I see a lot of you have the Tamron 28-75 and many more rave about it. What would you say to someone who was also considering the EF 28-135 because of the Image Stabilization and extra range? Does the Tamron help stabilize hand movement? Is the IS really important?

My fiance told me that I can go ahead and get a wide zoom for christmas (before you ask, she responded with a very quick, "NO" when brought up the 17-40L). Anyway, the 28-75 and 28-135 are what I'm looking at and they somewhat fall into her "approved" price range.

Thanks for your help!

[Cadwell]

I replaced my 28-135mm with the 28-75mm because I was unhappy with the image quality of the Canon lens.

[jimlp]

Your choice will depend on what you plan on shooting. I owned both lenses and I will say that my version of the Tamron lens was sharper than my version of the Canon lens, I sold the Canon and I have not looked back. I shoot a lot of portraits and the Tamron on a 20D fits the bill with the larger F-stop, the Canon has IS which theoretically can save you a couple of stops but the bottom line is at the long end you are still shooting at f5.6 and you will get the DOF of that f stop. If you are shooting film I would say get the Canon for the range, if you are shooting digital and do not need a wide angle I would get the Tamron as it will get you close to the 135mm area and give you a faster lens to boot.

[Malaxos1]

I have this lens and cannot complain one bit. I have shot around 20 weddings with it without even one problem. While image stabilization is nice, the lens isn't wide enough (f stop) to produce the nice blurred backgrounds that you see in portraits. Last night I shot a wedding and was approached by a guy who is a photographer who has the IS lens you are thinking about. He said he read an article by Canon that asked "why would you put Chevy parts on a Ford?". The idea was that if you have a Canon body you should stick with Canon lenses. The thing is that at $329 this lens is disposable. If it breaks I will go buy another. If it was Canon's optical equivelent that broke I wold lose sleep for a week. Get the Tamron...Dean

Oh, if I knew how to post photos here on the new bopard I would post a few from yesterday's wedding...Dean

[OneManArmy]

My fiance told me that I can go ahead and get a wide zoom for christmas (before you ask, she responded with a very quick, "NO" when brought up the 17-40L).
Thanks for your help!
Not even married and already whipped? DANG.

j/k

[slin100]

Does the Tamron help stabilize hand movement? Is the IS really important?
The Tamron does not have image stabilization. What it does have is the constant f/2.8 aperture that enables you to use shorter shutter speeds (up to 2 stops compared to the Canon @ 75mm) to reduce the effect of camera shake.

Image Stabilization is important and can compensate for slower shutter speeds but it cannot address subject-induced motion blur. One should also realize that the Canon 28-135 has 1st-generation IS technology. It provides a lower level of stabilization (around 2 stops) than 2nd-generation IS (around 3 stops). It also doesn't have the ability to selectively disable stabilization in the horizontal direction to allow for panning.

Optically, my Canon doesn't compete with the Tamron. This was the primary reason I've stopped using my 28-135. Trading off the extra range for the sharpness was worth it.

[markubig]

Not even married and already whipped? DANG.

j/kLOL . . . you don't understand . . . I've always followed the saying:

"It's a lot easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission"

But when she found out that i spent over $1,000 on a new camera (without talking about it first), she flipped out. Believe me, I don't want her to be mad at me like that again, especially when we're married (i can't cook for squat:p :p :p :p )

[Persian-Rice]

I am not totaly in love with the lens, but I don't hate it either. It might be that I am slightly spoiled since I have its Canon counterpart. It is a great value, probably glorified more then it should be by most of the guys who own it.

Focusing is pretty slow but smooth. Searches very hard on low contrast subjects, even worse then my cheapo 50mm 1.8s. Not a problem for me, but some go insane.
Build is ok.........
Hood is ok........
Not very sharp wide open.
Nice bokeh.
Good size & wieght.
Great price.
Filter size is better then the stupid 77mm Canon one.

My 3rd copy was good, first two had major problems. With the price I paid for shipping on replacements, I could have purchased it cheaper locally. Btw, that's why I'm not getting married. Getting yelled at by my GF for spending my own money is more then enough thank you.

I would suggest the Tamron.

Cheers

[markubig]

I am not totaly in love with the lens, but I don't hate it either. It might be that I am slightly spoiled since I have its Canon counterpart. It is a great value, probably glorified more then it should be by most of the guys who own it.

Focusing is pretty slow but smooth. Searches very hard on low contrast subjects, even worse then my cheapo 50mm 1.8s. Not a problem for me, but some go insane.
Build is ok.........
Hood is ok........
Not very sharp wide open.
Nice bokeh.
Good size & wieght.
Great price.
Filter size is better then the stupid 77mm Canon one.

My 3rd copy was good, first two had major problems. With the price I paid for shipping on replacements, I could have purchased it cheaper locally. Btw, that's why I'm not getting married. Getting yelled at by my GF for spending my own money is more then enough thank you.

I would suggest the Tamron.

CheersI notice here and in other forums that people have to return/exchange their 28-75 because of problems . . . what kind of "problems" should I watch out for?? . . . I was planning on picking one up tomorrow. I wanted to have it for the holidays.

Thanks!

[Phil Hall]

I have both lenses and use them with a 1D and 1Ds. I prefer the Canon 28-135, it focuses faster and better. It is not quite as sharp as the Tamron but to me has better Bokeh. The Canon range is more useful for outdoor photography, nature,people,animals.

Phil Hall

[chops]

I notice here and in other forums that people have to return/exchange their 28-75 because of problems . . . what kind of "problems" should I watch out for?? . . . I was planning on picking one up tomorrow. I wanted to have it for the holidays.

Thanks!
Some people like Persian-Rice got a bad copy of the Tamron where either the lens had soft focus on one side or the other of the frame, or it just didn't have a sharp image period.

HOWEVER, there are also a lot of people like me who bought the Tamron and found it to be extremely sharp. Some even agree that the Tamron 28-75 is every bit as sharp as the $1300 Canon 24-70 L equivalent, which I strongly agree. Maybe this is some of that "over glorification" Persian-Rice was refering to.

At any rate, if you buy the Tamron and get a really nice, sharp copy like I did, you will see that it is a very good compromise to the Canon for a fraction of the Canon's price.

Go for it, you won't regret it! :D

[davidwegs]

Tried 2 of the 28-75 di's and one went back.

the one I have is great. period. I don't use the canon (if you can belive that) now as it weighs too much compared (weddings 6-8 hours).

Go for it and be prepared to return it for another copy. Use B&H IMO. and i'm not in any way affiliated.

[HJMinard]

The Tamron is an excellent lens and an outstanding value. Accepting the risk of over-glorifying, my copy rivals both of my L lenses with regard to image quality (certainly not build quality, but given its price and six year warranty ... so what).

From all accounts, the Canon 28-135 isn't quite in the same league for sharpness/image quality, but it's close and held in high regard for its cost. The IS is mostly offset by the Tamron's constant 2.8 aperature ... so your decision mostly comes down to zoom reach versus improved image quality.

[JX]

Hi markubig,



I recently purchase the Tamron SP 28-75 F/2.8. For the price it is a fantastic lens. I bought a Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS, that was defective right out of the box. No complaints on my Tamron. I do not think the AF is as fast as it's Canon counterpart, but I can live with that.

[Persian-Rice]

As chops put it, my first one was blurry on one side and sharp on the other, my second one was very very soft all around, my third one is good.

I find it to be softer then the Canon at f/2.8, but pretty much equal at anything above 4.x

I would say its worth it, after some usage, it's not really comparable to the Canon as some people say, even though they don't own one. Image quality is almost on par with the Canon, everything is below Canon. We Persian's have a saying. The more you pay, the more you eat. But IMO what really counts is image quality, which for $350, Tamron gives you your money's worth and then some.

[snibbetsj]

I'd get the Canon 24mm f2.8 and the 50mm f1.8, these two would get you under the Tamron price and make your fiance happy. :)

Then start looking at the 70-200 f4L and tell her what a bargain it is compared to the f2.8 model :rolleyes:

[brunzie]

I have the 28-135 IS and use it at every wedding. I have no sharpness issue. I have made 16x20's with this lens that look like they were taken with medium format. I usually shoot at F8 to f11 with a flash or studio lights however. The canon lens is a great lens for the money and has a great range which the Tamron does not have. If it is available light stuff, the Tamron has the edge however. Tough to go wrong with either in my opinion.

[dhbailey]

I would counter Jeff's suggestion that you get two primes and save money -- Primes are terrific for certain situations and if you are interested in planning on spending lots of time on post-processing to crop the pictures to get the framing you originally wanted. But I find that I don't want to spend hours in front of photoshop or paintshoppro -- I would much rather get the framing I want in the camera when I take the picture, and to do that I find zoom lenses to be unbeatable.

I would vote wholeheartedly for the Tamron, since I received mine a week ago and have been very happy with the pictures I've taken with it.

[Toogy]

I love my Tamron as well, only minor complaint is that the zoom ring is totally backwards compared to Canon Lens, but other than that, it is on my camera 90% of the time.

[morpheus]

is this true that u usually have a bad 28-75 before getting a good one?? I'm worried because I've just passed an order on CameraBeach. Hope that'll be okay for me (i'm oversea and I had my friend buy it for me). I chose CameraBeach be cause of stock lacking yesterday (it's in stock today :-()



Tried 2 of the 28-75 di's and one went back.

the one I have is great. period. I don't use the canon (if you can belive that) now as it weighs too much compared (weddings 6-8 hours).

Go for it and be prepared to return it for another copy. Use B&H IMO. and i'm not in any way affiliated.

[chops]

As chops put it, my first one was blurry on one side and sharp on the other, my second one was very very soft all around, my third one is good.

I find it to be softer then the Canon at f/2.8, but pretty much equal at anything above 4.x

I would say its worth it, after some usage, it's not really comparable to the Canon as some people say, even though they don't own one. Image quality is almost on par with the Canon, everything is below Canon. We Persian's have a saying. The more you pay, the more you eat. But IMO what really counts is image quality, which for $350, Tamron gives you your money's worth and then some.
This is true, I don't own any L glass, however I am surrounded by L glass at work. I have so far borrowed/used four totally different Canon 24-70 F2.8 lenses now, and each one of them display slightly different image quality, which in turn puts the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 right in the middle of all of them as far as image quality is concerned.

Naturally, the Canon focuses alot quicker and quieter, and the build quality and feel are top notch over the Tamron, but what do you expect for 1000 more bucks?! ;)

I don't know.... Maybe I have an extraordinarly sharp piece of Tamron glass or something, but it is easily compairable to the Canon in the image department. Oh yeah, and even wide open at F2.8, my Tamron is still tack sharp through the whole focal range. I guess I just got real lucky with my copy. :cool:

Also, morpheus, not everyone has had to go through several lenses to get a good one, but it does happen from time to time. I definately wouldn't hold back because of that issue. This lens is too good to pass up on.

[morpheus]

This is true, I don't own any L glass, however I am surrounded by L glass at work. I have so far borrowed/used four totally different Canon 24-70 F2.8 lenses now, and each one of them display slightly different image quality, which in turn puts the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 right in the middle of all of them as far as image quality is concerned.

Naturally, the Canon focuses alot quicker and quieter, and the build quality and feel are top notch over the Tamron, but what do you expect for 1000 more bucks?! ;)

I don't know.... Maybe I have an extraordinarly sharp piece of Tamron glass or something, but it is easily compairable to the Canon in the image department. Oh yeah, and even wide open at F2.8, my Tamron is still tack sharp through the whole focal range. I guess I just got real lucky with my copy. :cool:

Also, morpheus, not everyone has had to go through several lenses to get a good one, but it does happen from time to time. I definately wouldn't hold back because of that issue. This lens is too good to pass up on.
Thank you chops,
I hope that everything'll be ok. Anyway it is too late to change my mind. Lens is on the way :-)

[markubig]

good thing i have a mail-order place right around the corner from me that has a showroom. . . at least I can try the lens with my camera and make sure everything looks fine, which leads me to another question:

Can you only tell a lens gives a soft photo only on your computer screen? or can you tell thorugh the viewfinder or the LCD?

Thanks!

[chops]

good thing i have a mail-order place right around the corner from me that has a showroom. . . at least I can try the lens with my camera and make sure everything looks fine, which leads me to another question:

Can you only tell a lens gives a soft photo only on your computer screen? or can you tell thorugh the viewfinder or the LCD?

Thanks!
The best way to see any softness would be on a computer screen, since most likely blown up to the full sized image view will be much larger than any print you might make. On my 19" LCD computer screen, the full size image is equal to a print 81" wide by 54" tall. You know how big a 20x30 print is? Imagine an 54x81 print a foot or so away from your face?!

[Olegis]

I also vote for Tamron. My first copy was kinda soft, but it was exchanged in the same store I bought it from, in about 2 days, no questions asked. The second copy is very good, you can see 100% right-out-of-the-camera shot here (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/image/36114206/original) (shot at 75mm, f/2.8, 1/60s, ISO 800, handheld with flash).

[PekkaM]

I bought the Tamron from B&H and am very happy with it. It's small, although not as small as I had thought from all the rave reviews. Cannot really tell the quality difference between this and my L's.

Maybe a little slow on focus (sometimes hunting a little) compared to USM if I had to find something negative.

[chops]

Just for fun, here's a link to some shots I just took with the 28-75 wide open at F/2.8....

The focus point was on the nose and mouth for both images. The other one was on A# 3. :cool:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51083

[RDKirk]

is this true that u usually have a bad 28-75 before getting a good one?? I'm worried because I've just passed an order on CameraBeach. Hope that'll be okay for me (i'm oversea and I had my friend buy it for me). I chose CameraBeach be cause of stock lacking yesterday (it's in stock today :-()

My Tamron was spankin' , first one, first time. OTOH, I've been reading about a good number of people having to return Canon 24-70 L zooms a couple of times to get a good copy. I personally suspect these are people who just don't know what's good, but that's what they claim. Bu apparently, money is not a guarantee.

If you stack a good copy of the Tamron with a good copy of the Canon, the image differences require close examination and boil down to a matter of taste on hair-slim matters.

What you've paid for with the Canon L lens is a luxurious mount, faster focusing, and environmental sealing. You have to make the choice whether that's important to you. The Tamron mount is as good as those of Canon mid-range lenses.

In that way, the Tamron is philosophically like the 20D--it provides high-level image quality in a mid-range build.

[chops]

In that way, the Tamron is philosophically like the 20D--it provides high-level image quality in a mid-range build.Yeah, but at least you don't hear about Tamrons giving you ERR-99's, or ERR-00, or just plain locking up on you.......and it doesn't cost 1500 big ones! :p

[tim]

I have the tamron: it takes good pics, but mine's not very sharp wide open. eg (both F2.8)

http://mrwild.co.nz/PhotoGallery/2004/Wanganui/slides/IMG_1882.JPG
http://mrwild.co.nz/PhotoGallery/2004/Wanganui/slides/IMG_1652.JPG

My canon 100mm macro's razor sharp, in comparison the Tamron's not great at all. If I were in the states i'd return it to be checked... maybe I should anyway. Anyone care to comment after seeing those pics? Remember they're cut down to web sizes, I can post a 100% crop if anyone would care to comment.

[markubig]

OK, picked up my Tamron today . . . i'm still new, so i thought this lens was kinda heavy. I could only imagine what the 24-80L feels like?!?!

took a couple of test photos:

28mm, Av Mode, 0.3s, f/4, ISO100, no flash, handheld (sorry . . . too lazy to get the tripod)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2977233-lg.jpg

59mm, Manual, 1/40s, f/3.5, ISO800, no flash, handheld (yes, lazy) . . . this one was originally a little dark, so i had to bump up the exposure in photoshop
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2977234-lg.jpg

Now, to me, it looks like the lens is working fine . . . but I have another question for you 300D owners:

What are your parameters set to? Mine are set to "Parameter1", but I really need to bump up the saturation/shadows/contrast in photoshop. The originals come out pretty dull. Here's what they originally looked like:

Actually, this one was taken with "Set 1", where I set Contrast/Saturation/Saturation to +1 and Colortone to 0
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2977245-lg.jpg

This picture was taken with "Parameter 1"
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2977244-lg.jpg

Can I fix this somehow? Switching to DSLR is a little tougher than I thought it would be . . .

[Olegis]

Hi Tim.
The first photo is a little soft to my taste, was it shot wide open ? The bokeh is great though. The second picture looks sharper, but it's really hard to tell because of the high-contrast lighting situation.

[IainB]

The Tamron does not have image stabilization. What it does have is the constant f/2.8 aperture that enables you to use shorter shutter speeds (up to 2 stops compared to the Canon @ 75mm) to reduce the effect of camera shake.

Image Stabilization is important and can compensate for slower shutter speeds but it cannot address subject-induced motion blur. One should also realize that the Canon 28-135 has 1st-generation IS technology. It provides a lower level of stabilization (around 2 stops) than 2nd-generation IS (around 3 stops). It also doesn't have the ability to selectively disable stabilization in the horizontal direction to allow for panning.

Optically, my Canon doesn't compete with the Tamron. This was the primary reason I've stopped using my 28-135. Trading off the extra range for the sharpness was worth it.
I picked up my 20D yesterday, and I am very interested in the Tamron, but at the risk of asking a silly question, what do you mean 'constant f2.8'? I understand it goes to f22. As I said, hopefully not a dumb Q!

[retro]

OK, picked up my Tamron today . . . i'm still new, so i thought this lens was kinda heavy. I could only imagine what the 24-80L feels like?!?!

took a couple of test photos:

28mm, Av Mode, 0.3s, f/4, ISO100, no flash, handheld (sorry . . . too lazy to get the tripod)
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2977233-lg.jpg

59mm, Manual, 1/40s, f/3.5, ISO800, no flash, handheld (yes, lazy) . . . this one was originally a little dark, so i had to bump up the exposure in photoshop
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2977234-lg.jpg

Now, to me, it looks like the lens is working fine . . . but I have another question for you 300D owners:

What are your parameters set to? Mine are set to "Parameter1", but I really need to bump up the saturation/shadows/contrast in photoshop. The originals come out pretty dull. Here's what they originally looked like:

Actually, this one was taken with "Set 1", where I set Contrast/Saturation/Saturation to +1 and Colortone to 0
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2977245-lg.jpg

This picture was taken with "Parameter 1"
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2977244-lg.jpg

Can I fix this somehow? Switching to DSLR is a little tougher than I thought it would be . . .

Could you post some pictures in similar lighting situations using a tripod? I am seriously considering this lens very soon and would like to see some more (other than the other posts on this site) test shots, not lazy shots, with this lens. Greatly appreciated! Mmmmm....reeses.


PS. Clean up that desk or you're fired Jetson.

[gcogger]

I picked up my 20D yesterday, and I am very interested in the Tamron, but at the risk of asking a silly question, what do you mean 'constant f2.8'? I understand it goes to f22. As I said, hopefully not a dumb Q!

As they say, there are no dumb questions...

The 'constant' f/2.8 means that the lens will go as wide as f/2.8 at all zoom lengths (i.e. 28mm to 75mm). Some zoom lenses are quoted as, say, f/3.5-5.6 - in this case the lens would do f/3.5 at the wide angle end, but only f/5.6 at the telephoto end.

Of course, all these lenses will happily do narrower apertures (e.g. f/22) as well.

[tim]

Hi Tim.
The first photo is a little soft to my taste, was it shot wide open ? The bokeh is great though. The second picture looks sharper, but it's really hard to tell because of the high-contrast lighting situation.

Thanks Olegis. They were all shot wide open F2.8 in bright light. Here are some 100% crops, for comparison.

http://mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/potn/IMG_1652_crop.jpg
http://mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/potn/IMG_1652_crop2.jpg
http://mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/potn/IMG_1882_crop.jpg
http://mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/potn/IMG_1882_crop2.jpg

I did some test shots at lots of stops with my four lenses, and I just did a very quick visual comparison of 100% crops. The Canon 100mm Macro's a little bit better wide open than the Tamron, but not so much most people would tell unless they were looking very closely. I think I got a good copy :) You do have to learn to use it well - my teach, a professional, took 2 shots with it (on my camera not his, 300D instead of 10D) and got two that were out of focus. I took 30 and got 29 good ones. So maybe it just takes some practice, or the AF isn't perfect.

After NY i'll post the test shots of my 4 lenses at various stops.

[phili1]

Mark, My wife is the same, she still does know that I bought a 100-400L

It is a hard decission 28 - 135 is a good walk around lens but it gets mixed reviews.

AS far as IS my 100-400 has it and as far as I am concerened it has its limitations, under certain conditions it works and under some it does not.

I opted for the 28-75 Tamron and I am happy but the primary purpose was for Portraits..

I also have a 17-35 for wide ands love it.

Check out this site for the review on 28-135 Canon.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=10&sort=7&thecat=27

As an all around lens situation the Tamron 28-75 and Canon 70-200L F4 is a good combination, If you can afford it.

[cactusclay]

I got a copy of the Tamron, it was soft on one side, which was depressing, but after shooting with it anyway for a day or so, I also found that under floresent lights at 2,8/160 sec. the auto focus would have some sort of spastic episode, then a few seconds later, focusing on the same thing, from the same spot it would focuse fine. I shoot people for a living and can't spend time consoling my lens when it has a spastic episode, when it's suppose to be working. Although one side of my frame was sharp, I didn't care for the stark color rendition and the extenion when at 75 mm seemed awfully long. I like my 17-40 and niffty fifty. One on each body and I'm pretty much covered with a step or two in either direction.

[tim]

I shoot people for a living

You're a hitman? :confused:

[cactusclay]

that's a big ten four- shuuuuuuush