Are these ratings accurate?

[enlighten_me]

I surfed onto another ratings site, and the ratings differed drastically from FredMiranda's:

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter=%22brand='Canon%20EF'%20OR %20brand='Sigma%20AF'%20OR%20brand='Tamron%20AF'%2 0or%20brand='Tokina%20AF'%20or%20brand='Vivitar%20 AF'%22 (http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter=%22brand=%27Canon%20EF%27% 20OR%20brand=%27Sigma%20AF%27%20OR%20brand=%27Tamr on%20AF%27%20or%20brand=%27Tokina%20AF%27%20or%20b rand=%27Vivitar%20AF%27%22)

Specifically, I'm looking at the Tamron 28-75, which didn't score so high relative to all the positive things I've heard about it, and the 18-55 EF-S kit lens, which scored really low, when people on this forum are continuously saying not to discount this lens (if stopped down, etc.). Are the users on that forum being too strict?

On a side note, I have another related question - is the 18-55 kits lens plus a 50 II f1.8 a decent substitute for the Tamron 28-75?

[Skip Souza]

I would not put a lot of faith in the rating site you listed. It is better to get some direct comparisons. I find The Digital Picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/) to be very helpful regarding Canon lenses. This site also links to other reviews.
My wife has the Tamron 28-75 and it is a killer. Very sharp, as good as and cheaper than the Canon 24-70 L. I would not hesitate at all to recommend it.
The kit lens is another matter. I can get very good photos if you use it within it's limitations but at some point you will want to replace it with a lens, or more correctly, lenses that work better.
The kit lens will never give you the sharp images and fabulous bokeh of a see in the dark prime like the 50 f/1.4. Nor will it give you the low light versatility and tack sharp images of the 17-40 f/4 L or the 16-35 f/2.8 L.
When you find that you need those qualities then get ready to spend the bucks.
Nor

[Skip Souza]

P.S. From the chatter on this site I gather that the Tamron 28-75 is out of stock at many of the reputable stores these guys use. That doesn't sound like a dog of a lens to me.

[Wildewinds]

My Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 is way way WAY sharper than my Canon 50mm 1.8. It's about even with my Canon 85mm 1.8.

[Persian-Rice]

The review is pretty accurate. Skip Souza have you used a 24-70? It's not even close to a 24-70. Not as sharp, very neutral, not built as good and AF just about stinks.
I actually think the AF is * star, since it's not only the slowest of any lens you can find, but it's not very accurate either.

I would recommend it if you are desperate and don't have money for anything better, but for the price, it's pretty much as good as you will find, unless you want a prime, then you can find better lenses. The only thing the Tamron has going for it is sharpness at f4+ and price, other then that, the lens is pretty bad by my standards.

The only reason I keep it around is that it makes a good cap on the 10D I never use.

BTW, the Tamron is not way way way sharper then the 50mm, actually the 50mm is slightly sharper wide open then the Tamron is at f/4

[Cadwell]

ROFLMAO

[Cadwell]

enlighten_me: I've found the ratings on that site to be fairly accurate. However, I am sure the site owner would appreciate you removing that link. He explicitly asks users to use the queries on the database sparingly because of the costs involved... you aint helping.

[Redbird_xo]

The only thing the Tamron has going for it is sharpness at f4+ and price, other then that, the lens is pretty bad by my standards.
...actually the 50mm is slightly sharper wide open then the Tamron is at f/4

Not the kind of usual comments I have read concerning the Tamron, and certainly not in line with my personal experience with these two lenses.

[condyk]

BTW, the Tamron is not way way way sharper then the 50mm, actually the 50mm is slightly sharper wide open then the Tamron is at f/4

I have good examples of both and find the Tamron more useful (obviously, as it covers a wider range) and almost as sharp as my super sharp 50mm f1.8: very little in it, though there is a difference. That makes it a very decent lens to have.

The problem with going by recommendations of others is that group think is rife: there are alternatives at every price point, but sometimes people don't do the research. They ask an easy question and get an easy answer, but it may not be the right one. The FM reviews are good because it's usually real users using the actual lens, not second and third hand opinion. After 20 or so reviews you can build a solid opinion about the lens in question.