Questions for Tamron 28-75 Owners...

I am strongly considering buying a Tamron 28-75, and I have a few questions for those who own one.

Questions only apply to those who shoot FF. Thanks.


1) Are you satisfied with your 28-75?
2) Did you own/try the Canon 24-70L before buying the Tamron? How do they compare in your opinion?
3) Did you buy your Tamron new or used?
4) If bought NEW, was it sharp at F2.8 straight out of the box?
5) If it was not sharp, did you send it in for calibration or exchange it until you got a sharp copy? If you calibrated, are you happy with the post-calibration results? If you exchanged it, how many exchanges did you make until you got a good copy?
6) If you bought new, where did you buy your Tamron from?
7) If you have a sharp, excellent copy, are you looking to sell it?


Thanks.

1) Yes...although I experienced a little barrel distortion at 28mm on a 40D.

2) No, but I have since "upgraded" to the L. IMHO, for portraits they are identical IQ wise. I don't tend to inspect the edges closely, but some have said the Tammy is softer - it was non-issue on my copy anyway as far as I know. The L gives you better build quality, faster focussing, weather sealing and a bit more on the wide end...otherwise they are the same (according to my 2 copies).

3) New

4) Yes, VERY sharp wide open.

5) N/A

6) Unhelpful to you...London.

7) Again unhelpful to you because of location....but yes.

In summary, if the L's other qualities are not important, the Tammy will not disappoint. It really is a stunner...esp on full frame.

I've had my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for around six years. I bought it from a camera store in Australia. It worked great on my work issued 1D MkII and at that time my personal 350D. Now on my 20D and 50D it's still a wonderful lens.

It's OK at f/2.8 and with a bit of post processing sharpening images are sharp. By f/3.5 it's sharp as a tack and post processing sharpening isn't neccessary.

No plans to sell it at this time.

1) Yes, quite happy. I don't see any compelling reason to replace it short of winning the lottery.
2) Not specifically. I did try Canon's older 28-70 f/2.8 and loved that, which is what inspired me to get the Tamron (since it's also a constant f/2.8, similar focal length, and good quality for much less money.)
3) Bought one new, used it a couple years, sold it thinking I didn't need it anymore, but regretted that choice and bought a used one from a friend.
4) Yes, both copies I've owned were nice and sharp
5) n/a
6) Amazon first time, then from a friend when I got the used one, which he previously nabbed on Craigslist
7) Not selling, no.

1. Yes, it's probably the lens I shoot with the most.

2. Yes, I rented a 24-70 it was a nice lens, exactly what you expect from an L. I think the canon AF was definitely faster, though the Tamron is orders of magnitudes faster than either my 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 so it's not exactly SLOW af. The Canon was much heavier, which wasn't a huge deal, but also not what I wanted from my general utility lens.

3. New

4. Yes. Very. Some corner vignetting and softness at extremes of the frame wide open.

5. N/A

6. Adorama

7. Nope.

1) Are you satisfied with your 28-75?

YES! In my eyes the best 2.8 zoom on a tight budget.

2) Did you own/try the Canon 24-70L before buying the Tamron? How do they compare in your opinion?

No. But in reviewing images shot by both before my choice to get the Tammy comes close to the brick if not equals it in many that I have seen.

3) Did you buy your Tamron new or used?

Used.

4) If bought NEW, was it sharp at F2.8 straight out of the box?

N/A

5) If it was not sharp, did you send it in for calibration or exchange it until you got a sharp copy? If you calibrated, are you happy with the post-calibration results? If you exchanged it, how many exchanges did you make until you got a good copy?

N/A, mine was sharp at 2.8 when I got it.

6) If you bought new, where did you buy your Tamron from?

N/A

7) If you have a sharp, excellent copy, are you looking to sell it?

No.

1) yes

2) no... Nothing I have seen suggests the 24-70 has better IQ

3) new

4) not at 75mm

5) sent it in. Fixed on first try.

6) local dealer

7) no

It is good lens on FF, I have it new, from local store, but I found them on eBay, 2.8 is very sharp if object is in focus.
Not willing to sell it.

The Wife originally got the Tammy for wedding photography with the 50D. We looked at the 24-70L, but couldn't justify the price. The Tammy has been sharp out of the box, and is (along with the 70-200 2.8 IS L) her wedding workhorse. She uses it heavily on the 5D II. It's light, convenient and easy to use. We never have a problem with focus. In low-light conditions we use AF-assist from our Canon speedlites. The *only* real issue with the lens is that it vignettes some on the FF body. Since it's used mostly for weddings and portraiture, that'd be added in post anyway, so vignetting is a non-issue for us. But it could be for others.

Edit: Not sure where it was bought without checking records. Either Amazon, B&H or Adorama, since that's where the bulk of our camera purchases come from.

For the people that bought the lens new at a local store, was the lens tested at the store before leaving with it. I'm curious if the lens should be tested at the store. Thanks.

I just bought it last week from abes of main (the cheapest that i can find)before reading the reviews from POTN members and Lens IQ between tamron and canon L lens. I decided to take a bite. It has 6 years warranty, and 1/3 of the price compare to canon L lens. I think you will love it

P.S I am using it on Full Frame camera body (classic 5D)

I guess this is why sharp, minty copies are hard to come by on the FS forum.

Bump?

Answers are:

1) Mostly happy. The IQ is fantastic except it is a little prone to flare. The focus speed is pretty slow. The build quality is ok (no damage in 4 years) but I would ideally like something a bit more solid.

2) Didn't try the 24-70L but tried the Sigma 24-70 (non HSM). The IQ on the Tamron was much better. This was at least on the two copies I tested. I know that there is some variation in the Tamron and Sigma lenses so I would have bought the best of the two. In this case it was the Tamron.

3) Bought new.

4) The lens was sharp straight out of the box. I have got consistently great results on a 20D, 1DmkIIN, and 1DmkIV.

5) N/A

6) Bought it locally in South Australia.....

7) No.

8) (from EdW) Yes I tested the lens in the store before purchasing. I was looking at both the Sigma 24-70 and Tamron 28-75 so I got a copy of each from the store and made some test shots at various appertures and focal lengths. I then bought the best one which turned out to be the Tamron.

The copy that I have is great. I do a lot of studio photography and this is my main lens and is used in lieu of my 70-200f2.8L (my studio is large enough to use this). Sigma 50f1.4 or 16-35f2.8L As I mentioned the only draw backs are flare, focus speed, and build quality. Given the price of the lens vs. the Canon it is by far the best buy. If I had unlimited funds I would have bought the Canon. As I live in the real world then the Tamron was an obviousl choice.

1) Yes.
2) No I didn't test a 24-70 before buying. But I have borrowed a friends after I purchased the Tamron. The Canon focuses quieter and slight faster. The Corner sharpness on a 5D2 is better on the Canon. The Canon has a better feel and build quality, but that comes at a hefty (weight wise and lens cost) price. Image quality is better wide open on the Canon, but ever so slightly.
3) Bought new 6 years ago.
4) It was sharp out of the box on the 300D and 40D. My 5D2 was a little soft, did MA on it at -3 to make it sharp. 2.8 is sharp enough, especially after typical post processing. Like someone above said, 3.5 and lower and it is tack sharp. To be honest though, my friends 24-70 was similar.
5) N/A
6) B&H
7) Doubt it.