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 11 Feb 2014 (Tuesday) 07:31
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why do people say the Tamron lenses are built cheap?

 
gnome ­ chompski
Goldmember
1,252 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 136
Joined Jun 2013
Location: oakland, ca
     
Feb 11, 2014 13:42 |  #16

The third party lenses historically were a less expensive (at the cost of image quality and build quality) alternative to the more expensive 1st party offerings. I suspect that the crowd who moans about them are hold-overs from these days, because the facts are that many of the 3rd party lenses rival and best their 1st party counterparts. I have 3 third party lenses, and each one is optically superior (or at the very least goes toe to toe) to their Canon counterpart


Tumblr (external link)
Flickr (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gnome ­ chompski
Goldmember
1,252 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 136
Joined Jun 2013
Location: oakland, ca
     
Feb 11, 2014 13:46 |  #17

Hogloff wrote in post #16681213 (external link)
I've used lenses from countless manufactures over the last 40 years and none just disintegrated on the spot. Most held up very well. In fact the only lens I had problems with are two L lenses from Canon. My 24-105 L has zoom creep and my 300 f4 L focus got stiff. Not a single issue with any 3rd party lenses and I'm using some that were manufactured in the 60's.

not to derail the thread, but do you know if Canon will fix this? Mine has it as well. Only really affects me when I am shooting straight up, but its annoying...


Tumblr (external link)
Flickr (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,317 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2000
Joined Dec 2006
     
Feb 11, 2014 13:47 |  #18

gnome chompski wrote in post #16681557 (external link)
not to derail the thread, but do you know if Canon will fix this? Mine has it as well. Only really affects me when I am shooting straight up, but its annoying...

Canon will do it as part of a lens service, but not for free. It would be classified as out of warranty work and subject to their flat rate fee.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Joe ­ Ravenstein
Goldmember
2,338 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2010
Location: E Tx
     
Feb 11, 2014 13:59 |  #19

I don't recall if Tamron lens were even around back in the 60s when I got my 1st interchangeable lens camera. I had a Minolta SRT101 and had nothing but Minolta lens.


Canon 60D,18-55mm,55-250mm,50mm compact macro, AF ext tubes. Sigma 8-16mm uwa, 18-250mm, 85mm F1.4, 150-500mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,317 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2000
Joined Dec 2006
     
Feb 11, 2014 14:08 |  #20

Joe Ravenstein wrote in post #16681583 (external link)
I don't recall if Tamron lens were even around back in the 60s when I got my 1st interchangeable lens camera. I had a Minolta SRT101 and had nothing but Minolta lens.

A look at their wiki page shows that Tamron USA (division of the main company) was founded in 1979. That pretty much lines up with my memory, they didnt become big players until the late 80's. For the 80's vivitar pretty much ruled the 3rd party marketplace for lenses and flashes.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
phantelope
Goldmember
Avatar
1,889 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 40
Joined Sep 2008
Location: NorCal
     
Feb 11, 2014 14:18 |  #21

I only have experience with one Tamron, the 24-70 on my camera. Could not be happier, and it offers IS (or VC as they call it) which Canon left off their 24-70 for no good reason at all. Especially at that high price.

Sometimes I get the feeling that those that slam Tamron (or Sigma etc) and praise their Canon lens alternative have something like buyers remorse, they need to talk themselves (and others) into believing that they didn't get milked. I don't usually pixel peep, but I did with the Tammy and can't find any flaws at all. And with the money saved I got a grip for my 5D3 and the 14mm Rokinon and still have some to spend :-)

I actually think the Tammy is of better build quality than my Canon 17-55, a fine lens, but the zoom creeps out and it seems more plasticy than the Tammy.

I probably even would have bought the Canon 24-70 if it had IS, but without it was a no go from the start.

Decades ago I had Minolta gear and a Sigma zoom that worked great as well until I dropped it one too many times and the zoom got stuck. But by then I had pretty much gone to compact p&s film with zoom anyway, was more into snapshots than "real" photography for a while.


40D, 5D3, a bunch of lenses and other things :cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KirkS518
Goldmember
Avatar
3,983 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Central Gulf Coast, Flori-duh
     
Feb 11, 2014 15:26 |  #22

Joe Ravenstein wrote in post #16681583 (external link)
I don't recall if Tamron lens were even around back in the 60s when I got my 1st interchangeable lens camera. I had a Minolta SRT101 and had nothing but Minolta lens.

Yeah, they started with lenses in 1961, but didn't really become a player until the late 60's/early 70's. Plenty of FD and Minolta MD mount Tamron lenses out there. Popularity definitely picked up in the 80's though, as mentioned above.

Considering Tamron (and Sigma) have only been making lenses for about 40 years, vs Canon for 80, I think they're both doing ok. Both Tam and Sigma gained in popularity in the 70's, and have stayed in the lead as 3rd party manufacturers. Whereas others either went the way of the Dodo bird, or like Tokina, just really haven't kept up with the pack.

Because they are 3rd party manufacturers, there will always be a stigma attached to that, no matter how good they are.

I've taken apart, and put back together many lenses, and there is almost no difference in the quality level of parts being used, whether it's a Canon, Sigma, or Tamron. Lots of plastic. The low-end consumer lenses by any manufacturer is pure, unadulterated crap. Only the L lenses have 'quality' components, but what Sigma and Tamron use in their higher end lenses compete quite well.

I really like Tamron. I love the fact that I can get the same or better optical quality of a Canon for half the price (or even less). As for build, their better lenses are built quite well. My only hesitation with Sigma, is that they reverse-engineer the lens, which makes me question the lens longevity if a new system comes out (think of film to digital - none of the old Sigmas work anymore), whereas most of the Tamrons do work.

From what I've seen, if you take a middle of the road Canon lens, and compare it to it's current counterpart by the 3rd party's, the Canon lenses tend to fall short at a much higher price. Lenses like the 28-135, 17-85, 70-300 (non-L), etc.

Just my 2 cents, and that's about what it's worth.
______

On a side note, I am currently doing a head-to-head/side-by-side comparison of a 3rd party cheap (really affordable, not cheap in performance) against a very well regarded Canon L lens. So far, I've been very impressed with my findings. I will eventually have a thread comparing the two, but it's still a couple of weeks before everything is done.


If steroids are illegal for athletes, should PS be illegal for models?
Digital - 50D, 20D IR Conv, 9 Lenses from 8mm to 300mm
Analog - Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD, Canon A-1, Nikon F4S, YashicaMat 124G, Rollei 35S, QL17 GIII, Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex 1st Version, and and entire room full of lenses and other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Feb 11, 2014 15:57 |  #23
bannedPermanent ban

gnome chompski wrote in post #16681557 (external link)
not to derail the thread, but do you know if Canon will fix this? Mine has it as well. Only really affects me when I am shooting straight up, but its annoying...

Nope...won't fix it. Use the rubber band trick.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jt354
Senior Member
401 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Michigan
     
Feb 11, 2014 21:09 |  #24

I've owned three Tamrons: A 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3, a 17-50 f/2.8, and a 70-300mm VC. The first was from the mid 90's and was nothing to write home about: Very soft, loud and slow autofocus, cheap plastic build, etc. The 17-50 was a stellar lens with good (though loud) autofocus and great optics. My 70-300 is a little soft at max telephoto and doesn't always nail the focus. In general it seems that Tamron's quality has improved, but that statement may only apply to their Made in Japan lenses (17-50, 90mm macro, 70-200, etc.) The cheaper Chinese glass still seems a bit hit or miss.


Zenfolio (external link)
flickr (external link)
Gear: Canon 60D / Canon G12 / Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 / Canon 35mm f/2 IS / Canon 85mm f/1.8 / Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 / Speedlite 430 EXII / Slik 700DX legs / Cullmann MB6 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
panicatnabisco
Senior Member
Avatar
971 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 317
Joined Apr 2012
Location: san francisco, CA
     
Feb 11, 2014 22:19 |  #25

I used to work for an online camera rental company and yes, tamrons are built cheap. Probably the cheapest built from any third party brand. That doesn't mean they can't be good, but but build quality averages from 'fairly decent' to "why did this internal element just fell over on this brand new 24-70VC, what the hell"

But if makes you feel better, nikon 24-70s have the highest rate of failure of ANY lens due to stuck zooms

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7361/12472025035_4c681a170c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …acity4action/12​472025035/  (external link)
LoL Tamron Quality (external link) by capacity4action (external link), on Flickr

Canon 1DXmkIII |1DX | 6Dii | 6D | 16-35/2.8II | 24-70/2.8II | 35/1.4ii | 50/1.8 | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 85/1.4 IS | 100/2.8 IS macro | 200mm f/2 | 400/2.8 IS II | 2xIII
Leica M8.2 | Noctilux 50 f/1 | Elmarit 90/2.8
afimages.net (external link) | Facebook (external link) | instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frodge
Goldmember
Avatar
3,085 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 146
Joined Nov 2012
     
Feb 11, 2014 22:44 |  #26

panicatnabisco wrote in post #16682649 (external link)
I used to work for an online camera rental company and yes, tamrons are built cheap. Probably the cheapest built from any third party brand. That doesn't mean they can't be good, but but build quality averages from 'fairly decent' to "why did this internal element just fell over on this brand new 24-70VC, what the hell"

But if makes you feel better, nikon 24-70s have the highest rate of failure of ANY lens due to stuck zooms

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …acity4action/12​472025035/  (external link)
LoL Tamron Quality (external link) by capacity4action (external link), on Flickr

Rentals get abused by both the person doing the renting, and the shipping back and forth. Also, Tamron stands behind their product. You can't beat a 6 year warranty.


_______________
“It's kind of fun to do the impossible.” - Walt Disney.
Equipment: Tokina 12-24mm, Canon 40mm 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di, Canon 18-55mm, Canon 50mm 1.8, Tamron 70-300VC / T3I and 60D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
panicatnabisco
Senior Member
Avatar
971 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 317
Joined Apr 2012
Location: san francisco, CA
     
Feb 11, 2014 23:01 |  #27

I've never seen an element just... fall over like that. But anyways, i'm commenting more on build quality feel compared to other brands out there. Feels like they're more prone to get damaged but tamrons can survive the brutal day-to-day man-handling of equipment rental better than pro glass


Canon 1DXmkIII |1DX | 6Dii | 6D | 16-35/2.8II | 24-70/2.8II | 35/1.4ii | 50/1.8 | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 85/1.4 IS | 100/2.8 IS macro | 200mm f/2 | 400/2.8 IS II | 2xIII
Leica M8.2 | Noctilux 50 f/1 | Elmarit 90/2.8
afimages.net (external link) | Facebook (external link) | instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Feb 11, 2014 23:26 |  #28
bannedPermanent ban

panicatnabisco wrote in post #16682729 (external link)
I've never seen an element just... fall over like that. But anyways, i'm commenting more on build quality feel compared to other brands out there. Feels like they're more prone to get damaged but tamrons can survive the brutal day-to-day man-handling of equipment rental better than pro glass

Maybe not an element...but the 5d had the mirror dropping out.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GregDunn
Goldmember
Avatar
1,289 posts
Likes: 129
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Indiana
     
Feb 11, 2014 23:48 |  #29

I have a 10 year old Tamron 75-300 that has been used on several cameras starting with my 300D. While it is rather light and "basic" in feel, I can't say that it leaves the impression of cheapness. It has certainly never given me any problems in daily use and I still haul it out for moon and airshow shoots. I'd say that its biggest fault is a noticeable amount of CA at 300mm - but hey, it was a $200 lens brand new!


Canon 1Dx | 5D3 | 7D2 | 6D | 70-200L f/2.8IS | 70-200L f/4 | 24-70L f/2.8 | 24-105L f/4IS | 100-400L f/4.5-5.6IS | 17-55 f/2.8IS | 50 f/1.8 | 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 | 4x Godox AD360

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 36
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Feb 12, 2014 08:44 |  #30

gonzogolf wrote in post #16681603 (external link)
A look at their wiki page shows that Tamron USA (division of the main company) was founded in 1979. That pretty much lines up with my memory, they didnt become big players until the late 80's. For the 80's vivitar pretty much ruled the 3rd party marketplace for lenses and flashes.


S'pose it depends on what continent you're on. Tamron and Metz were pretty big in Australia, in the 1980s, especially with the pros. As were Nissin flashes.

I had the original Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro in a Nikon mount in the early 80's. Bought the 90mm f/2.8 macro in a Canon mount when I went over to digital.

I've had a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 since Noah was a boy. This lens has had a hard life, looks like the dog's breakfast but it keeps on taking great images.


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

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

4,086 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why do people say the Tamron lenses are built cheap?
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 Mortspanx
848 guests, 349 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.