Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical [IF] MACRO

[PhotoFranz]

The new lens was delivered yesterday. My wife and I went to an ethnic festival in Skokie Illinois today and I shot a few test shots.

I bought this lens to be a vacation "outside" walk around lens and I think it will do VERY well in that role. The lens feels very substantial and seems to be very good quality. The zoom and focus rings both have a nice feel, but I mostly AF anyway. I am not a pro in any way, my photography is for my family and I, mostly vacations and family functions. The lens was $537 at BuyDig.com and was delivered 3 days after purchase.

Here are 8 shots from today and then a link to 15 in the original size with intact EXIF. These are straight out of the camera, except for resizing for the web, there is no P.P.. Also, they were shot at around Noon with a bright, high sun. LOL, what I usually shoot in.

Here is a link to the 15 shot set on my Flickr account. Hey, it is NOT "L" glass, but for my purposes and $537 I am very happy so far. Link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/photofr...7605104596044/

[Permagrin]

I just bought this lens today...after returning my second 100-400L for softness at 400mm.

I've not had a chance to do more than the preliminary focus test (just making sure it wasn't soft) and a couple of quick snaps. But I like what I see. And the VC really seems to work nicely.

it is a little slow focusing and noisy but those are my only complaints so far

[LightRules]

Wow Lisa. You sold tossed the forum-beloved 1-4 IS for this 3rd party f6.3 superzoom?

[Permagrin]

Originally Posted by LightRules

Wow Lisa. You sold tossed the forum-beloved 1-4 IS for this 3rd party f6.3 superzoom?

I've tried two of those blasted lenses with horrid results at 400. I just wanted a walk around (for when I don't want to carry the 300 2.8 on one camera and the 70-200 on the other). The tamron was sharper than any of the 100-400's that I tested. I even bought one of the 100-400's (again) and brought it home and tested it with the focus chart...it was backfocusing across the board and soft at 5.6 on 400mm.

[PhotoFranz]

I had big back-focus problems with both Sigma lenses I owned, the 17-70 and he 70-300 APO. I had both corrected and now love the 17-70. I sold the 70-300 now that I have the Tamron. I took a lot of shots of fences at angles and things and so far, see no focus issues. Ok, it IS softer than any "L" lens, but for my uses, it is pretty damn good. Any comments on the photos I posted?

[PhotoFranz]

Don't get me wrong, I do not think this is the lens for you birders out there. However, as just a serious hobbiest, I am pretty happy with the results I am getting. I shot this RWBB the other day at Montrose Harbor Bird Sanctuary in Chicago, Illinois.

It was an overcast, windy day and I shot this at ISO 400. No crop, a little levels adjustment and a touch of USM.

[PhotoFranz]

Here is a hand held grab shot out my back door the other day. It is heavily cropped, and PP'd. I still think it is pretty good. The Cardinal was sitting pretty far away on my power line. The VC makes a big difference over my old Sigma 70-300.

[mrfourcows]

just thought i'd put this here, its a review of the tamron vs the ef L 28-300mm:
http://review.fengniao.com/74/743815.html

its in chinese though, so you'll need to translate.

[PhotoFranz]

Yeah, that is pretty hard to read. I cannot even find a button to push to translate it. One IMPORTANT thing to remember though, I paid under $600 for the Tamron and on a GOOD day, the Canon L is about $2300. Being retired, I guess I have to live with the lower IQ. LOL, that sounds bad. I mean a lower IQ on the lens, not me!

[Southswede]

With my 40D, I have the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-200 2.8 L IS. But I also have the Tamron, for when i just want to walk around, carrying next to nothing.
I kinda like the Tamron.........

[mrfourcows]

try this for translation:
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate...rUrl=Translate

still very hard to read though - problems with the difference in language structure and their metaphors.

basically, the tamron does better at 28mm while the canon takes the cake at 300mm. the reviewer personally chooses the tamron, but i guess its still an individualistic choice: would you be willing to put in 2+k for a general all purpose lens? especially so when you've already got other more specialized lenses to cover the same focal lengths?

[Kenski]

I had this lens and IT IS A GOOD starter lens. I sold it about 6 months later and bought the 70-200 2.8 IS. This lens is good IF YOU DONT THINK YOU ARE GOING TO DO MUCH WITH PHOTOGRAPHY!!! If I though I was going to do alot with photography, then I wouldn't waste my money.

[Permagrin]

Originally Posted by Kenski

I had this lens and IT IS A GOOD starter lens. I sold it about 6 months later and bought the 70-200 2.8 IS. This lens is good IF YOU DONT THINK YOU ARE GOING TO DO MUCH WITH PHOTOGRAPHY!!! If I though I was going to do alot with photography, then I wouldn't waste my money.

this isn't the same lens...it's new as of Jan this year...and frankly I've got a whole aresenal of lenses and like this one very much. It's a bit slow to gain focus in low light but it's sharp for an ultra zoom. Perfect for walk around lens.

[sgogula]

seems to be very good..

here is google translation of the above comparision page..

http://translate.google.com/translat...sl=zh-CN&tl=en

[casaaviocar]

My Tamron was terrible from 200-300 and 28-50. Also not very good wide open. I took photos with it and my 80-200, there was no comparison. I sold it.