After thinking alot about the need for a replacement for my not so bad Sigma 28-105f2.8-4 I decided to take the gamble and went looking for a new lens in the f2.8 segment with a limit on my budget of â‚¬ 500,00 (the sigma was â‚¬ 279,00).
To be honest I decided almost immediatly for the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 EX asp. which was offered second hand for â‚¬ 349,00, the lens looked really well build and a bit flashy, autofocus is reasonable faster than my 28-105, the downside was the picture quality I could not really say I was wowed by the difference, sure there was a difference but not jawdropping.
As if faith would have it's way my supplier just got the
Tamron AF SP 28-75/2.8 XR Di LD Asf. IF MACRO model A09 in the store, this was also high on my list because it's supposed to be a lens specialy made for digital SLR's and according to some sites and reviews on sharpness it bettered the Canon L version (don't flame me I only write what I know/heard ).
We decided to attach this new wonder to my 10D, .... I walked out with it (after paying).
The buildquality is good for as far as I can tell, it's smaller than the Sigma 28-105 or 28-70, the supplied lenshood helps a bit in making it a lens .
But it's not alway's size that matters, due to the new specs of DSLR's the lenses can be made smaller without sacrificing quality.
Autofocus appears to be fairly fast, a lot faster than my other lenses (see signature). I never worked with a USM motor so I can't tell the difference there, but for me it's very quick. When focussing really close on my hand to infinity is really within a fraction of a second.
But were it all boils down to is image quality.
I wanted a tacksharp lens, since I use the 70-210f2.8 Sigma APO I have been spoiled rotten with sharpness and lightperformance, only my Tamron 90mm Macro 1:1 gives me something as good. And now I have a third tack sharp lens, because the new Tamron is razor sharp.
This shot was made with the same camera in a timelapse of a few seconds, it's a 1:1 crop of the original RAW unprocessed so this is straight of the camera (I found out later that PS CS RAW does do a little sharpening so take that into account).
|IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!|
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO
This was the difference I was looking for, the Tamron is clearly sharper but also when looking at the headlights there is a bit more detail in the lighter areas, but most of all, the Tamron gives a more "real" material look if you know what I mean, it's more not like a picture.
I have to test the lens a bit more to give a definitive result, but because there are not so many reviews on-line at the moment I thought I would write this down as a start.