Opinions wanted on Tamron 28-300 lens

[judyg]

I'm looking at the Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical Lens. I'd like to hear from anyone who has used one.

What I like about it is that it is very compact and light, only 3 inches long for a 300 mm zoom lens.

I'd like to know if there is a huge sacrifice in image quality for that range and that size lens.

The description of the lens on B&H's site is here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=347531&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

B&H's description says it is small and light because of use of exra refractive glass and aspherical lenses. Any insight on what the heck that means would also be helpful.

Thanks.

[Skip Souza]

Hi judyg,
I had that lens for a while until I upgraded to the 70-300 DO at a hefty price. Let me make a good-bad list.
Good List
1. Very light
2. Very compact.
3. Relatively inexpensive.
4. Hood included.
Bad List
1. Soft at the ends, especially at wide apertures.
2. Long end optimistic by as much as 10%
??? List
1. You can get good, sharp photos with good contrast if you can shoot it at least as tight as f/8, f/11 is better. an example is at http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=73106&highlight=Industrial+fire
2. I liked it better than the wife's 75-300 IS. The tamron seemed to focus faster and was much smaller, and had more contrast.
My opinion.
The Tamron is a good, inexpensive all around lens as long as you have good light and are willing to work within it's limitations.
Check here for a comparison that includes the Tamron 28-300 and the Canon 75-300 IS as well as the featured 70-300 DO.
http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml
Good Luck
Skip

[Raj]

Skip, very good summary. I am sure it will be very hepful for readers.

[Skip Souza]

Skip, very good summary. I am sure it will be very hepful for readers.
Thanks for the good review, Raj.

[KevC]

Maybe consider the Sigma 28-300? or the Sigma 18-200. Hyperzooms try to do a lot, and in that they lose quality somewhat.

[judyg]

Well I went ahead and bought the Canon 70-300 DO IS. I am keeping B&H in business :)

[EOSAddict]

I also have the lens and support what Skip says. but I do miss the wide end - I liked 28mm on my old 35mm camera so might look at a 18-200! But then I would miss the 300 end.... oh decisions!

Bottom line, for what you pay and the coverage it gives I think it is an excellent lens if you understand and work within its limitations.

[Big Worms]

Well I went ahead and bought the Canon 70-300 DO IS. I am keeping B&H in business :)
Do you have a link to that one?

[Skip Souza]

Here is a link to a comparison of the 70-300 DO http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml

[judyg]

Do you have a link to that one?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=319783&is=USA

[Dante King]

.....
Bad List
1. Soft at the ends, especially at wide apertures.............

Skip

Skip is correct on everything on this lens. I would like to say, that my copy was not soo soft at the ends that some usm could not turn into very acceptable pictures.

I am kinda sad I sold this lens at times. It is very good for what its made to do. If you understand the compromises involved it will serve you well.

[Skip Souza]

Well I went ahead and bought the Canon 70-300 DO IS. I am keeping B&H in business :)
I love my 70-300 DO IS.:lol:

[jfrancho]

See my post for samples: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=655748#post655748

[invantix]

Check here for a comparison that includes the Tamron 28-300 and the Canon 75-300 IS as well as the featured 70-300 DO.
http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml
Good Luck
Skip

I notice that in all of the Tamron shots the sun was not out (no shadows) whereas in the Canon shots the sun was shining full (dark shadows). I think this could this make a significant difference.

I am trying to decide between these lenses and the Tamron is less than half the price. I did find another review/comparison at http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_300_Di/index.html

Still not sure what to do here. I'l lkeep researching.

-Chris

[Tancor]

It isn't a terrible lens. Has some vignetting on FF on the widest setting, but nothing too terrible. Works OK in macro mode, a decent all purpose lens if you don't want to have to lug around the good glass.

I took this picture with it (macro) - I know the top is a tinsy bit out of focus, but I didn't have the aperature stopped down far enough.
http://www.ramicom.com/kg4wfx/gallery/photos/normal/goldcoin1.jpg

-Tony

[muscleflex]

i have the lens i'm happy with it. most of the planes on my site were from the tamron 28-300 (see my sig)

[Skip Souza]

I would now consider the new EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Click here. (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)
It does cost a bit more than the Tamron and is a little larger but........
1. Faster
2. Newer, better lens elements than the older 75-300 IS.
3. Above all, Image Stabilization which I truly love and missed the most with my Tamron.

[peterdoomen]

A friend of mine tried the Tamron on his 350D and it does not work... or it works, but the lens stays loose and doesn't "click" into the body... others have the same experience?

P.

[jfrancho]

Nope.