Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 13 Aug 2013 (Tuesday) 10:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 alternatives

 
guitarjeff
Senior Member
671 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 18, 2013 22:15 |  #61

Really? Not in my opinion. I sold my 28-75 Tammy to get the 28-135. It is better in my opinion. Better contrast by far, better color by far, way better edge sharpness.

I agree with this test.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&A​PIComp=0 (external link)

Look at the horrible Tammy corners compared to the 28-135. Better contrast on the 28-135. Look how the blacks get darker, the lights get lighter than when you are looking at the Tammy. 28-135 has rich, vibrant colors. 60 more mm of range, fast USM motor, good IS. Simply better all around other than the 2.8 speed.

wombatHorror wrote in post #16216444 (external link)
The Tamron 28-75, which you have never used, is so much better optically than the 28-135 it is not even funny, so what sense does it make to recommend that he sell of the tamron for the 28-135 when he is worried that even his tamron might not be good? The 28-135 isn't even sharp to the edge on APS-C, which the Tamron at least is.

Sure you can take nice pics with any lens and if that is your budget than get it and have fun. But the scenario here is someone wanting a FF improvement over the 28-75, which the 28-135 absolutely utterly is not.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
YashicaFX2
Goldmember
1,003 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
Location: A quiet place in the country.
     
Aug 18, 2013 23:01 |  #62
bannedPermanent ban

I agree with Jeff. On my 5D, I use my 28-135 unless I need the f/2.8 on the 28-75.


Dedicated APS-c shooter. Gripped 60D, 60 2.8, 10-22, 15-85, Σ70-200 OS and a big white something or other! Plus a 5D w/28-75.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Aug 19, 2013 04:19 |  #63

tkbslc wrote in post #16218826 (external link)
It's 1.33 stops, just like the sensor size difference would suggest and just like always.

You can see in the shadow noise of the paintbrush crops that there is more noise on the 6D, so it is not quite 2 stops, but slightly more than 1.

Incorrect, the 5D2 was one stop better. The 6D is not only a bigger sensor but is a generation ahead and that brings it up to 2 stops better. You're comparing a crop camera from 2009 with a full frame camera from 2013.

guitarjeff wrote in post #16219950 (external link)
Really? Not in my opinion. I sold my 28-75 Tammy to get the 28-135. It is better in my opinion. Better contrast by far, better color by far, way better edge sharpness.

I agree with this test.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&A​PIComp=0 (external link)

Fair enough, and interesting. The tests I was looking at must have been weighted towards centre performance.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
genjurok
Senior Member
537 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
Aug 19, 2013 04:28 |  #64

guitarjeff wrote in post #16219950 (external link)
Really? Not in my opinion. I sold my 28-75 Tammy to get the 28-135. It is better in my opinion. Better contrast by far, better color by far, way better edge sharpness.

I agree with this test.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&A​PIComp=0 (external link)

Look at the horrible Tammy corners compared to the 28-135. Better contrast on the 28-135. Look how the blacks get darker, the lights get lighter than when you are looking at the Tammy. 28-135 has rich, vibrant colors. 60 more mm of range, fast USM motor, good IS. Simply better all around other than the 2.8 speed.

Pretty sure that you got a bad copy and the copy used in the digital-picture test wasn't a decent one either.

I've used four copies of the Tamron 28-75. Two of them are really sharp, including mine. The other two however are not. One doesn't focus accurately, and the other over 50mm wide open has low contrast and fuzzy picture. Even when stopped down to f/4, the PQ can't compare to the copy I have. I guess I got lucky. The PQ of my copy is very similar to a good copy of Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS.


6D
Canon 17-40mm f/4L | Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
Canon 50mm f/1.8 | Sigma 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 100mm f/2
580 EX | 430 EX | Pixel King Pro wireless radio trigger and receiver (x2)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
guitarjeff
Senior Member
671 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 19, 2013 07:40 |  #65

NOPE. My copy of the Tamron was sharp as it was supposed to be. In the center I pixel peeped to 100 percent many a time, the sharpness was not bad in the center, I could see individual eye lashes, but it was still NO SHARPER in the center than the 28-135, but the contrast is what ruined it for me. Very little contrast and the images seemed like they were in a low contrast haze. When you look at the sample threads of the two lenses, looking at literally hundreds of pics, you get a feel for what both lenses are on average and when I go through those threads the clarity and vibrant, rich colors of the 28-135 are clearly better, each color residing in it's own sphere. The Tammy always felt like the reds were yellowish red, blues were yellowish blues. So I believe my Tamron was as sharp as it was supposed to be. When I sold it I sent pics from it from my 5D2 and the buyer pixel peeped them and he too thought it was as sharp as it was supposed to be. Bottom line, no way would I trade my 28-135 for a Tammy 28-75. For me, the sample threads clearly show what I saw in my own experience owning both, AND to me the wide variety of samples also show the same as the test. I am glad I sold my Tamron and got the 28-135 and no way would I trade back.

genjurok wrote in post #16220465 (external link)
Pretty sure that you got a bad copy and the copy used in the digital-picture test wasn't a decent one either.

I've used four copies of the Tamron 28-75. Two of them are really sharp, including mine. The other two however are not. One doesn't focus accurately, and the other over 50mm wide open has low contrast and fuzzy picture. Even when stopped down to f/4, the PQ can't compare to the copy I have. I guess I got lucky. The PQ of my copy is very similar to a good copy of Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Aug 19, 2013 19:03 |  #66

here is the thing, on most tests the 24-105L tests at least a sharp or sharper than the 28-135 and my tamron 28-75 was definitely sharper in the center than all three 24-105L I've tried in the center; many people report their tamron 28-75 was sharper than their 24-70L. mine was sharper than my 24 2.8 too. So I think your copy of the tamron 28-75 was far from the best they can get.

it did lean a bit yellowish though and the large scale contrast is good but not quite like most L lenses level though, but the sharpness and micro-contrast, crazy!

here is a 100% crops from tamron:

IMAGE: http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s4/v67/p1143977676.jpg

guitarjeff wrote in post #16220781 (external link)
NOPE. My copy of the Tamron was sharp as it was supposed to be. In the center I pixel peeped to 100 percent many a time, the sharpness was not bad in the center, I could see individual eye lashes, but it was still NO SHARPER in the center than the 28-135, but the contrast is what ruined it for me. Very little contrast and the images seemed like they were in a low contrast haze. When you look at the sample threads of the two lenses, looking at literally hundreds of pics, you get a feel for what both lenses are on average and when I go through those threads the clarity and vibrant, rich colors of the 28-135 are clearly better, each color residing in it's own sphere. The Tammy always felt like the reds were yellowish red, blues were yellowish blues. So I believe my Tamron was as sharp as it was supposed to be. When I sold it I sent pics from it from my 5D2 and the buyer pixel peeped them and he too thought it was as sharp as it was supposed to be. Bottom line, no way would I trade my 28-135 for a Tammy 28-75. For me, the sample threads clearly show what I saw in my own experience owning both, AND to me the wide variety of samples also show the same as the test. I am glad I sold my Tamron and got the 28-135 and no way would I trade back.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Aug 19, 2013 19:19 as a reply to  @ wombatHorror's post |  #67

And here is more or less the full file from that, tamron 28-75, only the right edge is clipped off, giant 100% file:
http://sunsetbayphotog​raphy4.zenfolio.com/im​g/s4/v68/p1143977878.j​pg (external link)

tamron sure looks sharp to me and that is on a 5D2 no less




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eagle_fly
Member
32 posts
Joined Nov 2011
     
Aug 23, 2013 05:54 |  #68

Tamron 28-75 is a great lens, I see no problems with mine on a 5Dc. Tha whole if you don't wanna pay top dollar for lenses don't go full frame argument does not make any sense. There are plenty of value lenses IMHO




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Moonpix
Mostly Lurking
16 posts
Joined Feb 2013
     
Aug 23, 2013 06:57 |  #69

Check out the Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4. It is an amazing lens. In the following link I compare image quality directly to the MUCH more expensive Canon 16-35mm 2.8 II. You'll be amazed by the results.

Link:

http://johncarnessali.​com/camera-lens-tests/2995 (external link)


Here is a sample picture. More at the link above.

IMAGE: http://johncarnessali.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Comparison-at-17mm-and-16mm-smaller-2-763x1024.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,179 views & 0 likes for this thread
Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 alternatives
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is smarshall1
1547 guests, 315 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.