Test: 17-40L/28-135mm/Tamron 28-75mm

[Cadwell]

Someone on another photography forum I use was having trouble choosing between the Canon 17-40mm f/4.0L, Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di XR. He asked me to post full size examples of the same image taken with all 3 lenses so he could make a comparison. I thought, I'd share it with you here too.

A quick note on the tests first. A heavy duty tripod was used and the camera (EOS 10D) was set to timer release with mirror lockup to avoid camera shake. Each of the lenses was set to 35mm as shown by the focal length marker on their barrels. The EXIF shows the 17-40L was actually set at 34mm - close, the EXIF for the other two reports 35mm. No lens had any kind of filter on. The shots were taken in AV mode at ISO 200, large JPEG. For each lens I took one shot wide open (whatever that was for the particular lens) and a second stopped down to f/5.6. The camera was in one shot autofocus using the centre focus point. The lens was re-focused before each shot. My 10D is set to neutral processing parameters for JPEG. No post processing whatsoever has been performed on these files. In the case of the Canon EF 28-135mm IS USM the image stabilisation was switched off. All were shot with available light.

The images are here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ukmotorsportpics/3waytest/

IMG_4288.JPG = Tamron 28-75mm @ f/2.8
IMG_4289.JPG = Tamron 28-75mm @ f/5.6
IMG_4290.JPG = Canon 28-135mm @ f/3.5
IMG_4291.JPG = Canon 28-135mm @ f/5.6
IMG_4292.JPG = Canon 17-40L @ f/4.0
IMG_4293.JPG = Canon 17-40L @ f/5.6

These are full images, not crops and they've not been proessesed or resized so they're not small... Have fun, I'll leave the images up for about a week.

[Jackal]

The Tamron can be soft at 2.8 but at 3.5 it's good. The 2.8 shots are perfect when printed or when resized down.

Geez....after seeing those L lense shots I'm happy I never went with that lense.

[Tom W]

The Tamron looks great even wide open. A little less contrast than the 17-40, but that may be a minor exposure difference - hard to say. Corner sharpness is very good.

The 28-135 lacks wide open, with a great deal of softness in the corners at f/3.5. Even stopped down to f/5.6, is loses a bit of sharpness around the periphery. Probably a result of the compromises needed with the extended zoom range. Jack of all trades, master of none.

The 17-40 looks pretty good at f/4. A little bit of softness in the corners at f/4 and even a slight amount at f/5.6 (left side) but this lens is known to be sharper at the wide end. Deepness of color and contrast is very good. I'd say it's a potential complement to the Tamron when you might want a wide angle lens.

I'd like to see how these lenses perform in bright outdoor situations where flare and chromatic abberations might be more likely.

[Jackal]

Here's some flare and cromatic aberation comparison shots between the Tamron and the Canon 28-135

http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_75_Di/page3.html

[Cadwell]

Yes, the 28-135mm looks pretty shoddy compared to the other two - probably why I never use it. It took me ages to find it in order to do the test. The Tamron 28-75mm is a fraction soft (to my eyes at f/2.8 ) but a little USM would clear that up in no time for a very respectable image. It's not strictly fair comparing the Tamron and the 17-40L, but it is an interesting exercise. For a cheap lens, the little Tamron does remarkably well.

[benhasajeep]

Someone on another photography forum I use was having trouble choosing between the Canon 17-40mm f/4.0L, Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di XR. He asked me to post full size examples of the same image taken with all 3 lenses so he could make a comparison. I thought, I'd share it with you here too.



These are full images, not crops and they've not been proessesed or resized so they're not small... Have fun, I'll leave the images up for about a week.

You just sold a Tamron! Thanks for the review. Only problem is can't find it in stock. Don't have the camera yet so may not be that much of a problem (at the moment).

[Dante King]

wow, thanks for the data Cadwell and jackall.