Update on my tamron 28-75 F2.8 purchase

[Henry Low]

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

www.henryandamanda.com/folder/images/flo2.jpg
check out the flower in the middle of the picture.... the sharpness is INCREDIBLE, even at F2.8! Colors are also super punchy and strong. Only time it falters is when u use F2.8 at 75mm... but even then, its still sharp enough for most purposes.

I am wondering, how is the Canon 24-70L at its long end @ F2.8? does the sharpness fall slightly?

All in all, the tamron is a nice lens, build quality isnt L quality of course but... hey! its cheap, its decently fast tracking and did i say it was cheap?

[Henry Low]

crap didnt realize theres a new EF lens section now! Sorry guys!

[IanD]

No problem Thread moved. It will take a litle while for folks to get used to the new forums. till then, "Have mouse, will move":):)

[ssim]

"Have mouse, will move" Read...I have the power:rolleyes:

I found the 24-70 to be good at all ranges and most f-stops. I have also heard great things about the lens that you got. Your image looks great. Enjoy the new toy.

[Henry Low]

Intersting how reviewers said tht this lens can only focus down to 0.33metres.... which works out to be about 13 inches. but i was able to focus from 5inches away. How closer where you guys able to focus to?

[thomasrhee]

I just did a side by side comparo between the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and the Sigma 24-70/2.8 Macro. In my informal test, the Tamron blew away the Sigma sample. Wide open, at all focal lengths, the Tamron was sharper with better color fidelity. The Sigma by comparison was soft at 2.8 and rendered images a little darker and on the warm side of neutral. The Tamron was fairly sharp even wide open, and stopped down, was pretty incredible for a under $400 lens. Just as sharp as the Canon 50 at the same focal length. Call it lens to lens sample variation if you will but my money's on the Tamron. $30 cheaper plus another $40 rebate until the end of April. Smaller and slightly lighter always helps too. The Sigma however had better build quality.

I'll be picking up the sample that I tested next week to fill the void between my Canon 17-40/4 and Canon 70-200/4. I was thinking about picking up the Canon 24-70/2.8 but Tamron is $800 cheaper and the image quality is VERY close from what I can see. Close enough that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in images made from one or the other in a "blind" test. Besides, I just bought the wifey a black body Rebel XT and in my mind I paid $100 for it with the savings. =D

tyr

[Henry Low]

Interesting, i was gonna buy the sigma 24-70 on ebay... good thing i didnt end up winning it lol

[xstrio]

while were talking about this lens Tamron SP AF28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical could any one tell me what the sp means please, as some models don`t have the sp

[slin100]

while were talking about this lens Tamron SP AF28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical could any one tell me what the sp means please, as some models don`t have the sp
It stands for Super Performance. I suppose it's their equivalent to an L-series lens.

[ayotnoms]

I've had the Tamron 28-75mm for 2 weeks. The photos it produces are top shelf. Sure, if $1200 were laying around doing nothing, the 24-70 f/2.8L would be in my bag but to get something for less than $400 that gets you 97% (or thereabouts, if you believe the reviews) of what the Canon delivers????
I'm satisfied with the choice I made.

[HJMinard]

In a cost/benefit analysis, I think this lens is one of the very best values available for EOS ... right behind the thrifty fifty and ahead of the 70-200/4L. Mine provides consistently sharper results than the 70-200/4 (which is also excellent) ... perhaps because of the f2.8 allowing the 20D to utilize it's higher precision autofocus capability?