Tamron 28-75 2.8 - Is it as good as L in terms of IQ ?

I currently have an XSI and 50 1.8. I prefer primes, but was looking for a zoom that would deliver close to prime quality to add to my kit and was thinking about the Tarmon. I actually like the 28-75 range and prefer it to lenses like the 17-50 (as I tend to shoot more portraiture). I have read enough to assume that the Tamron is close to if not equal to L glass in terms of IQ, but than again there is also people who say otherwise. While most reviews speak highly of the Tamron, MTF charts don't equate to real world shooting so I would love some unbiased feedback on this lens based on my needs.

Thanks,
Daniel

It's a first-class lens - great IQ throughout the range and perfect for people photography and portraiture. I use it outdoors and also in my home studio, and it never lets me down. Its main drawback is that it doesn't have USM. Focusing is a bit slower (and noisier) than its "L" counterparts. Even so, the lens does a good job with moving subjects. I mainly photograph children and animals, and the focusing has never been a problem for me. I've owned this lens for several years now and don't feel the need to "upgrade" it. I'm very satisfied with its performance.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I believe people get hung up on the price. The tamron doesn't use USM (ultrasonic wave-type focuser) for autofocus. This includes any Canon lens that does not have "USM" in its name, including many of their consumer lenses.

Wave-type focusing (Nikon has its own version, I forget what they call it) is EXPENSIVE, but it's fast and virtually silent. The reason this Tamron has virtually the same optical quality as the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L at a MUCH lower price is primarily that it doesn't have USM.

Well, visible in pictures and visible in test charts are different things sometimes. And the Tamron might or might not use the actual same glass as the Canon but the way that it's held together and the precision with which it moves also plays a role.

The Tamron is IMHO an example of a lens that has the money invested in large aperture. If you need the aperture and can't afford the Canon there isn't much choice. But saying that it has the same IQ when you go start looking at pictures picked to show a difference, no.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

The Tammy performed brilliantly when I used it with my 40D, but then I upgraded to the L once I went full frame. Optically there was hardly any difference (if any), but the L offers other characteristics that the Tammy doesn't have. It's a stellar lens. You can see a load of portraits I've taken with the Tamron here - hopefully that will help you in your decision making.

However, the 28mm on the wide can be limiting on a crop so bear that in mind.

I have tamron. recently picked 24-105mm and 35L. At f4 can't see any difference at all between any of them. At f2.8 it is still pretty good on 5d. haven't tested it on 5dmk2 yet.

Mine wasn't anwhere near a L lens in IQ.At F5.6 is was VERY GOOD but at F2.8 is was soft,and it was slow to focus so NO it's not anywhere near any L lens I shoot with.It's a decent BUDGET lens,that's it.

As usual, focusing is Tamron's weak link. The 28-75 really struggles in low light.

IQ is good, but not quite up to the L competition.

Other things (ie focus and build) aside, its IQ does very well. Compared to my 70-200 at f/2.8, it compares pretty well in center sharpness but the borders are much less sharp (this from full frame - your crop will fare better in the borders). Stopped down to f/4 and above, it gets better across the frame and very L-like. Your 50mm stopped down to f/5.6, however, is outstanding - I don't think you will find the Tamron any better than your 50 at these apertures. The problem with the Tamron is copy variation. If you buy new, be prepared for the possibility that you may not get a good one the first time. I got mine used from someone who replaced it with a 24-70L and she said IQ is the same, she just needed the L-build and USM focusing for her use.

If you aren't photographing subjects that require super fast focus, then why pay 3-4 times the amount of the Canon L. I love Canon L series but if there is something close with very little difference, I'm giving it a try. The Tammy is outstanding in IQ.

the image quality is very good, not as sharp as L. I prefer it to the 24-105mm F4L, simply because 2.8 is usable for me. What I dont like is the focus ring and zoom. I was doing video, and zooming in was terrible. when done slowly, there's a jerky movement.

Other than that, I can definitely live with the quality and features for the price. I would prefer the 24-70, but they simply dont offer an IS version, and it doesnt make sense to pay that much and not have the feature.

I have this lens and it produces sharp images on my Rebel and 5d at f2.8
It has very close IQ compare to my two non-expensive L. 17-40 and 70-200.
It took some time to learn how to focus with this lens on Rebel. Don't know why but it was not always accurate at very begining. It also seems to be very accurate for close ups and portraits and less accurate sometimes for distance shots.
On 5d it is free of any of these issues.
For low light it will struggle sometimes to focus at running kids. Under bright light it might struggle with continius AF and burst shooting mode if I take pictures of running horses.
I would not recommend it for indoor sports, but as portrait, landscape and close up lens on Rebel it is almost perfect.

Tamron seems to put all the R&D money into the glass elements but had nothing left for everything else. As a result, you get great IQ with f2.8 speed but with a body build like a cream puff. Not very confidence inspiring when using it.

I can only say the tactile feel is abit better than mid-low range Canon lenses. AF motor is on par with the micro-motor USM. A bit noisy but adequate. No where as good as the ring-type USM found in better Canon Lenses.

Verdict: For the money, this lens is darn good. Just don't fondle it too much.

I really liked what I got out of my 28-75, but it did struggle in low light or in backlit situations. For the price especially, it's awesome.

I shot this with it:

sold my 24-70L for it and i didnt regret it at all.

optically it was great i would say equal if not a little better than my L.

AF speed and build on the other hand not so much.