Cheapest noticeable upgrade to Tamron 28-75

Mag-1981 wrote in post #16171210
If I was to use The Digital Picture as a guide when buying lenses, I would have my camera body and no lenses at all. I tested all of my lenses and compared them against TDP results, and honestly, I really don't know where these guys do get their stuff from.

it's fairly accurate from my experience. Sometimes they are off, but I do think they put in effort to correct.

I do prefer photozone and lensrentals more, even dxomark. TDP is certainly good for quick references, but hardly the final word.

wombatHorror wrote in post #16171177
If you care about AF speed, jsut about any other option has faster to much faster AF than the 28-75 which is about as slow as any lens I've ever tried.

Thank you for backing me up about the wide end of the 28-75. It really is quite good there. As I am only looking for 'fast and wide' the prime most likely suits me better. That said, the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is the only lens mentioned so far that is head and shoulders above the 28-75 at f/2.8 and 24mm.

I agree with your comments about the 28-75 AF speed, at least when mounted on my 5D. On the 60D it is much, much better.

Tommy1957 wrote in post #16171335
Thank you for backing me up about the wide end of the 28-75. It really is quite good there. As I am only looking for 'fast and wide' the prime most likely suits me better. That said, the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is the only lens mentioned so far that is head and shoulders above the 28-75 at f/2.8 and 24mm.

I agree with your comments about the 28-75 AF speed, at least when mounted on my 5D. On the 60D it is much, much better.

I used to have the 24 1.4 II. I got it after getting fed up with 24-70 I and 24-105 (never mind 28-135!!) and not quite being satisfied with Tamron 28-75 either on the wide side on FF. But I solid it for the 24-70 II and haven't looked back.

Unless you really care about f/1.4-2.8 at 24mm, I think the 24-70 II is the ticket if you can afford the extra moola for it. f/4 and above the results are almost the same edge to edge only the 24-70 II actually has less purple fringing (well OK the prime does have less distortion) and even at f/2.8 they are basically the same in the center and mid although the prime might pull off far edges a touch better PLUS you get 25-70mm tossed in for free (well, OK, not exactly for FREE hah, and it does weigh a good bit more). The 24-70 f/4 IS is close to the same as the prime at f/8 too, although not really a match at f/4 so it sounds like this one wouldn't cut it for you.

Thanks for the experience with the 24L II. My initial problem was: shooting family/dinner gatherings at the table, in lousy light. My widest FF zoom is the 28-135. Not a good choice, I know. My only other option was the 35 f/2. It is just too long, and the DOF was too thin at f/2.8. I knew from the 28-135 that even 28 was not what I wanted, but I couldn't afford the 24-70II or the 24L II. Hence the 28-75. At least that gives me better IQ (than 35 2 or 28-135) and f/2.8. Right now I have to choose between the 28-75 on my 5D, which gives me f/2.8, but is not wide enough, and the 10-22 at 15mm or so, which gets me wide enough, but is f/4 at that zoom setting. And that forces me into the ISO 1600-3200 range, which does not help the IQ equation either. The 24L II would work perfectly for me, but I'd probably need f/2 to get the DOF I want. Maybe a bit smaller even. For straight-on face shots, I am sure f/2 would be quite sufficient.

msowsun wrote in post #16171205
Yes, the OP didn't mention it but I do believe he is using a crop camera so there are a lot of other options for him.

The Sigma 17-70, 17-50, Tamron 17-50, and Canon 17-55 are all worth considering.

Yes I'm on a crop hadn't thought it'd make much difference. I just assumed if a lens was made specifically to only fit the cheaper line of cameras, then it wasn't going to be that great.

wombatHorror wrote in post #16171214
I somewhat agree with that. Although they are still useful to an extent, but certainly I have found plenty that didn't match. They tend to really show almost all tamrons as dreadful, not sure why.

I find photozone.de results more often match what I see (although I tend to ignore his final star ratings and text since he does some weird things there, his charts seems pretty good though). Lens Rentals hasn't tested much, but they have tested many copies of whatever they have tested.

Photozone here I come.

ETA: Doh they don't have the 28-75 so I can't compare. ETA again nevermind they have it just nor for a crop.

travisvwright wrote in post #16173164
Photozone here I come.

ETA: Doh they don't have the 28-75 so I can't compare. ETA again nevermind they have it just nor for a crop.

Here is the photozone review of the 28-75. I own it, the lens, not the web-site. I bought it primarily based on this review, and lots of POTN recommendations. I am not disappointed. Shooting it on a cropper (that's why I bought it) means you get better vignetting and distortion numbers. Also you can ignore the border and edge decline in sharpness. This is a full-frame (5D) review.

http://www.photozone.d​e/reviews/418-tamron_2875_28_5d

Tommy1957 wrote in post #16173208
Here is the photozone review of the 28-75. I own it, the lens, not the web-site. I bought it primarily based on this review, and lots of POTN recommendations. I am not disappointed. Shooting it on a cropper (that's why I bought it) means you get better vignetting and distortion numbers. Also you can ignore the border and edge decline in sharpness. This is a full-frame (5D) review.

http://www.photozone.d​e/reviews/418-tamron_2875_28_5d

Thanks. I'm looking at center focus on the long end the 28-75 is better (on the MTF scale that I admittedly know nothing about except "higher is better") than anything but the 24-70 II which again is way out of my price range.

Well I guess I've got the indoor zoom covered as good as I can without spending a bunch more.

To add some viewpoint I'm mostly shooting people so I don't go below 40mm much, and VC/IS isn't really important. Also I haven't found the AF to be restrictively slow.

travisvwright wrote in post #16173229
Thanks. I'm looking at center focus on the long end the 28-75 is better (on the MTF scale that I admittedly know nothing about except "higher is better") than anything but the 24-70 II which again is way out of my price range.

Well I guess I've got the indoor zoom covered as good as I can without spending a bunch more.

To add some viewpoint I'm mostly shooting people so I don't go below 40mm much, and VC/IS isn't really important. Also I haven't found the AF to be restrictively slow.

My feelings about this lens, exactly. The AF is not real good on my 5D. In one-shot it is OK for casual use. I wouldn't try sports with that combination. I find it as good as my 28-135 USM on the 60D, however. I am talking AF, not IQ, here. I use it with confidence with center point only in AI-Servo. It gets the job done.

It's not going to get sharper shooting test charts, but if you get a canon 24-70 the AF will probably give you a real world difference because it tracks/locks faster.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16173309
It's not going to get sharper shooting test charts, but if you get a canon 24-70 the AF will probably give you a real world difference because it tracks/locks faster.

True. At nine times the price of my Tammy, I'll get by without it, though. Thanks. My ideal upgrade from the Tamron 28-75 is the EF 24mm f/1.4L II. Everyone has to dream!