Happy with my Tamron 28-75... Some things I noticed [Archive]

View Full Version : Happy with my Tamron 28-75... Some things I noticed

mr.photoguy

9th of May 2005 (Mon), 08:31

I have to admit that I am happy with my Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I really got the chance to give it a workout this weekend at my Cousin's birthday party. The little guy turned 3, and I got to photograph most of the events, along with the clown that showed up which the kids loved. lol.
I also got a chance to give the lightsphere 2 a good workout as well.

Some things that I noticed:
With the Tamron, I was shooting a lot of kids portraits at 3.2 to f4. I noticed that when I looked throught the viewfinder, and put one of the dots right over the eye, and focused; I could see the eyelashes snap in focus, and sometimes snap in focus, but was out of focus. This made me realize that I had to keep a close eye on the eye when I focused. However, the lens did great, I honestly have to say. Sometimes I did want a wider FOV, but I would just take a few steps back, recompose , and just cut out whoever didn't fit in the view.

Upon takeing photo's of the blowing out of the candles, and singing happy birthday, the Lightsphere did great, It is an amazing invention. The may be an issue with the white balance, but I already know that is something that I can correct in PS anyway, so I wasn't worring about it. I was out on the Veranda which is covered by a wooden(brown) roof, there was ambient light entering from the screend, and I decided to point the flash head on at the yutes. Upon doing this I knew I would get that birght blotch in there faces, but when I reviewed the image on the LCD there was NO hot spots on any of the children's foreheads. I later double checked this on my calibrated LCD monitor, and I could see no signs of the Hot Spots. This is something I hated to get with my on camera flash..

Finally, I did not shoot much at 2.8, not that I remember anyhow..

I have to say that 98% of the images are keepers.
My gift to my little 3 year old cousin will be the prints.
I intend to order 4x6's, 4x6's should be big enough right?

I may give her a few 8x10's also.
I took some photo's of other parents' children also, and showed them, and they liked them.

Overall, I am impressed with the Tamron, and the LS2, not to mention my 20D.

I have had this 20D since thanksgiving day, and I have been a member of this forum since a few days before that.
With the amount of info that I have learned from all the guys here including scottberger, cyber, pekka,J.A., charlesu(don't think I spelled that right), and all the other guys on the forum, I have really been able to improve my photographic skill..

Thanks for reading, and I will post a few pictures asap..
Thanks
Bruce
www.pbase.com/brucescott

Croasdail

9th of May 2005 (Mon), 08:52

mr.photoguy

9th of May 2005 (Mon), 08:56

Here are two samples..
I uploaded these to mpix to check the max available photo sizes, as samples.
I will add about 4 more favorites when I get them edited.
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/43160455.jpg
this is the birthday boy... Jayden.. Age 3.
I know the shadows are on his face. I didn't have the flash on the hotshoe, but still wanted to get the shot when I could. He doesn't keep still.

http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/43160454.jpg
For this shot, I used the 550ex, and the lightsphere. I bounced the flash off the ceiling, and exposed with the histogram.
Does this look ok?
I recently calibrated my monitor with the Colorvision Spyder2, so I hope my colors, and white balance look acurate.
Here is the birthday boy's cake..
Hot wheels baby

mr.photoguy

9th of May 2005 (Mon), 09:04

good to hear... I just gave my son my old setup and now need to aquire a new wide, and haven't figured out which way to go. I have had other Tamron (in fact 2 of the lenses I gave him were Tamron) and they were good, just not great. I have heard good things about this lens, and it is my personal quest to find the best lenses available without an L attached if possible - but I am leaning toward the 17-40L - though it not being a 2.8 is holding me back.

thanks for the info.

ps - looked at your pbase gallery - fun stuff.

Thanks for checking it out.
Indeed the 17-40 is a great lens. I think f4 is ok for this lens because for what I would use it for, it would rarely go below f4. I know for sure that I want to go wider than 17 though. I really want to be in the 10-22 range, so I have been checking out the Tokina 11-? f4 . (? = I forgot the mm)
I have the 18-55, and tend to use it at above f8 ALOT. So I don't think I really need the 2.8 in the wide. The f4 is good for me though because I know I will shoot at f4. Portraits at night with backlighting, and flash is what I would be using that for. To bring more detail to the forground with a slightly distorted background.

Croasdail

9th of May 2005 (Mon), 09:20

Thanks for the info. Looking at www.photozone.de I don't see any raiting for teh tokina 11-? lens. I have never owned a tokina, but on this site they tend to get good reviews so I have been tempted. I really want a fast focusing lense which is what keeps me pulling back to the 17-40l... but it is a bitter pill to swallow. Thanks also for the feedback on the 2.8. I like naturally lit photo's, and I am starting to think that 2.8 will not do it - may have to look at the canon 50 1.4 perhaps for indoor people shots. Cheers!

jim c

9th of May 2005 (Mon), 11:25

Here's a shot taken with the Tamron @ 2.8... I like the speed over my other lenses but if you do indoor sports, you'll want faster....

mr.photoguy

10th of May 2005 (Tue), 06:21

Indeed this is an original 2.8 100% crop from a baby shot yesterday.
The image was usm'd at 125/.9/0
no noise reduction .
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/43190317.jpg

CyberPet

10th of May 2005 (Tue), 07:32

I love my Tamron too! It'll have to be sent in for calibration though, it's having a problem with its AF while shooting in 28 mm (and thereabouts). So I have to use the parfocal method to get anything in 28 mm sharp, even at higher f-numbers. While zoomed in, the lens works great at any aperture. But it's sooooo hard to let it go, they say it might take up to 8 weeks for it to be fixed. *sigh*

mr.photoguy

10th of May 2005 (Tue), 07:38

Dag 8 weeks..
You should tell them to give you a loaner ... hehe..

Na, but seriously, I am sorry to hear you are having that problem.
I am pleased with this lens, and I have to admit that I had to actually learn to shoot with it.
I mean seriously, even at 2.8 I was messing up, and getting blurry shots..
Now that I have been shooting with the lens more often, and I realize that I should take the time to zoom in, and focus properly my images are coming out better.

I hope you get your lens back soon.

condyk

10th of May 2005 (Tue), 10:45

I have to admit that I am happy with my Tamron 28-75 f2.8.

Bruce
www.pbase.com/brucescott

I just got mine today as well ... was a toss up between the Tamron and the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. They both came out equal overall using heaps of criteria and so I ended up getting the Tamron because then I'd have a Canon, a Sigma, a Tokina and a Tamron :lol: :lol: :lol: ... the big four!!

Anyway, here's a sample shot of one of my lens test items. Just applied my default USM, nothing else. 100% crop @ 75mm ... very sharp and accurate.

Second shot is same USM 100% crop but at 28mm. Not so good this time! Doesn't bother me too much as I have my Tokina for the wider end.

Seems a very good, easy to use, indoor and outdoor, everyday lens and so a keeper for me :D

CyberPet

10th of May 2005 (Tue), 10:55

Bruce, thanks for your symapthy! :)

I'll send the lens in for calibration in mid july, since I have a few wedding shoots I'll be attending (asked to be an assistant/second shooter at 3 shoots on one day, and then I have a "solo" in the beginning of july). But after that I'll think I can manage without it... even if it's going to be hard. It's my best "walk-around lens". *sigh*