Tamron, or not to Tamron...

[Cr8tor]

So a few months ago I purchased my new Rebel XT (my first dSLR) and quickly discovered that I needed another lense.
The local shop i purchased my camera from, and so far all of the accesories, recommended i purchase the Tamron name. They said it was a good lens for the price range...
Overall, would this be a true statement or am i getting snickered?
I've seen various review but am having a hard time figuring out whats considered low end, middle of the row, and top end.
Can someone point me to a good forum that answers these questions?

PS: I purchased the AF 70-300 with macro for approx $175.00

[CyberPet]

Depends which lens... I for one love my Tamron 28-75/2.8 lens, which is very sharp and produces very nice images.

[Eagle]

I haven't used my Tamron 200-400 much yet on my Rebel but I've loved it on my Elan IIe. Only had my Rebel for a few weeks now.

[Cr8tor]

And can someone explain to me what 'L' is?
I feel stupid asking but i cant figure out if its a brand name or what...

[DallasG]

Luxury

[Cr8tor]

Ok I think I figured it out... it’s the L in some of the canon lenses. Correct?

Example: EF 70-200mm f/4L USM



Can someone explain why they are better? Is it features or more just higher quality or both or depends... :)



Should an amateur like me look to the L series for my next lens or would it be overkill until I am more advanced?

I hate to buy cheap just to replace it later so i’m thinking I should plan on L series from now on, unless id just be wasting money.

[wolf]

I totally agree with CyberPet, the Tamron 28-75 is one awesome lens for the price. Another Tamron "L" quality lens is the 17-35 f/2.8-4, comparable to the Canon 17-40 f/4 in image quality.

[scottbergerphoto]

L lenses are manufactured to have excellent optics from the center to the edge, giving you acceptably sharp pictures throughout the aperture range. They also are designed to give less spherical and chromatic aberration. The usually have faster maximum apertures and larger diameter elements as well.

[Redbird_xo]

Tamron has a cashcow for sure...the AF 28-75mm F/2.8 SP XR Di LD ASL IF Macro (like the long name?). Going by the manufacturer's model number is easier: A09.

One personal observation: If blazingly fast focus speed is required, the said Tamron lens may not make the cut.

[Feihung08]

Depends which lens... I for one love my Tamron 28-75/2.8 lens, which is very sharp and produces very nice images.This lens gest rave reviews all around Cr8tor. I've done a lot of research and everyone that has it, loves it, and say it's one of the best for the money. It really eats up any pf (purple fringing). There's an awesome review of it on Photo.net (http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_75_Di/) where they even put it head to head against a Canon EF 28-135.

[lostdoggy]

I think everybody is being a little too gentle. Let be a little blunt, the 75-300 is a lowend lens. It seems that Tamron is working on providing a better lens in the wide to wide and wide to moderate tele. Their newer line is the Di series. There is another third party brand you might consider Sigma, they have a pro line EX series. It could be consider a step down from the Canon's L series.

[ghocking]

If you can afford L glass buy. The sharpness is excellent, but remember you then get stuck in the L club (you want more).

I can only compare my L zooms to my original Canon zooms 75-300 and 28-105, and IMHO they are in a different league, my 100-400 is fantastic. I made the mistake of moving up to the IS models thinging that they would give me sharpness, they did not, but the L's do.

________________________________________

[birders]

I recently bought the Tamron 90mm f2.8 to use on my EOS20D and am very pleased with the results, but I'm not a professional photographer..

[MikeCaine]

The other nice thing about Canon's L lenses is that they generally zoom internally

For some reason I hate lenses that grow and shrink in size when you "zoom"

[blue_max]

My view is that you must judge each lens on it's own merit. The Tamron 28-75 has had some very good reviews from members of this very forum - and I would trust their judgement.

You can't say all lenses by a manufacturer are all good - even Canon. The only exception is Canon L and then you pay heavily. Even they seem to have some variation in quality control (but not in my limited experience).

If you do your research, you will pick up the perfect lens for you, whatever your budget. Generally the 'other' lens manufacturers will produce a lens that is at a lower price point. If ultimate quality is your aim, I would look no further than Canon L, but if you wish to save some money, you need to very carefully pick the better third party lenses.

Graham

[Andy_T]

There's an awesome review of it on Photo.net (http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_75_Di/) where they even put it head to head against a Canon EF 28-135.

Feihung, thanks for the link :D

The real eye-opener for me is that the Tamron with 1.4x Tcon is better than the Canon 28-135 IS at 105 mm :shock:

It really confirms what I observe every day with my own Tamron 28-75/2.8 ... it's a great and sharp lens.
Only difference I noticed is that my 50/1.8 (MK I) is sharper than my Tamron at 50 mm... so either I got a better 50/1.8 or a worse Tamron than the reviewer :wink:
Bokeh is a lot better with the Tamron, though.

I only knew about this comparison (http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/shootout)comparing various lenses in the 24-70/2.8 range (not the Canon 24-70/2.8 L, unfortunately) and the 28-135.

Bear in mind that in this test, the sharpness test shots were done wide open, so the Tamron was used at f/2.8, while the Canon 28-135 was used at about f/4.5. Now the sharpness of my Tamron 28-75/2.8 at f/4.0 is the same as my 50/1.8 at f/2.8 (there's an example of that lens in that aperture available).

What I like about the comparison, though, is that a bokeh test is also included.

I think everybody is being a little too gentle. Let be a little blunt, the 75-300 is a lowend lens.

It's the old case of 'you get what you pay for' :wink:
Take a look at RonChappel's review (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78099) here ... the only lens that outperformed the 160$ Tamron 75-300 was the used and no-longer-available Canon 100-300/5.6 L (that you can pick up used for $350-400, if you manage to find one :wink: ). The 300$ Canon 75-300 IS was definitely not as sharp as the Tamron.

There are not many other options in that focal range ... you could go for Sigma's 800$ 100-300/4.0 or Canon's 1200$ 300/4.0 L IS if yo want better performance. Not a bad verdict on the Tamron, if you ask me...

The other nice thing about Canon's L lenses is that they generally zoom internally


That certainly only applies to a few of the Canon L lenses, and especially not to the longer ones.

Best regards,
Andy

[Cadwell]

Ah the myth of the L series. It's almost acheived the status of holy writ on here, hasn't it? Unfortunately like many other religous statements it's pure hokum. L series are generally very good, but not always.

All lens manufacturers make some terrible lenses. Some lens manufacturers make some good ones. There are excellent Tamron, Tokina and Sigma lenses out there as well as some stunning Canon stuff (often without L badges).

If you're sensible you'll do your homework and make the best choices for the lenses that meet your requirements regardless of manufacturer.