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

delhi wrote in post #13779207
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.


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

I disagree. I shoot in some pretty harsh environments and climate. Both my Tamron zooms (17-50mm and 28-75mm) have taken a pounding over the years. My 28-75mm is over seven years old and still works brilliantly. My 17-50mm, which is five years old, looks like a dog's dinner and still works like the day I bought it.

My 28-75 was the first lens I got after the kit lens, and I got an excellent copy. I could tell right away what images came from the Tamron and which came from the kit. Sharp even wide open. When I got a 70-200 f4 nonIS and found that my Tamron was every bit as sharp I truly realized how good the lens was, and what all the "hype" was about. Focus charts and pixel peeping don't really account for things like copy variation, lens to body variation, a bad copy, etc. Notice how you have many say its sharp wide open and some say its soft wide open. Copies vary, but its obvious, people who get a good copy (and seems like most do) hold it in high regard

delhi wrote in post #13779207
Tamron seems to put all the R&D money into the glass elements but had nothing left for everything else.

I get that feeling too. They use plastic as much as possible and slow focusing mechanisms to keep costs down, but they have nice glass.
Well regarded optics they have out: 17-50, 28-75, 70-200, 60mm, 90mm, 70-300VC, even the 180mm.
Just wish they'd put USD on the 70-200 already!

close, given a sharp copy