Sharpness of Tamron SP lenses

I had a question asked about sharpness of recent Tamron lenses. so I made a couple of cull outs from photos I've shot this year. Both of these shots only have light global sharpening applied. Wood Frog shot with 6D and Red Fox shot with 60D.

Would I claim that the MTF of these lenses will oust a Zeiss? Absolutely not. Do I believe they can create magazine-quality images? Absolutely yes.

The main reason I don't own a 'good' mid-range zoom is that I already have a Tamron 28-75. While I admit to its shortcomings at f/2.8, at f/4 and narrower, it holds its own quite nicely against the big boys. IMHO, it is sharper at f/4, at any focal length, than the 24-105 is anywhere. It has much less distortion than: 24-70 2.8L, 24-70L II, 24-70 VC, 24-105, and is competitive with the 24-70L f/4. However, distortion is easily corrected, so not much of an advantage. All of the other lenses are sharper in the corners than my Tamron 28-75. That corner performance is quite expensive. I wish my Tammy were a bit better in the corners, and had IS, and were sharper at f/2.8. The only one of the above mentioned competitors that is a real upgrade is the 24-70L II, and it doesn't even come close to being worth the price of admission, to me. I'll stick to my 28-75. Yes, my Tamron lens is quite sharp.

Hi

what do you mean by

All of the other lenses are sharper in the corners than my 28-75. The mentioned Canon lenses ?

Thxs

ekkybedmond wrote in post #17310754
Hi

what do you mean by

All of the other lenses are sharper in the corners than my 28-75. The mentioned Canon lenses ?

Thxs

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Even the 24-105 is better in the deep corners than the 28-75. Of course, at f/4 and in the center 70% of the frame, the Tamron is sharper than the 24-105. The 24-70L II, is the best of the bunch, but I ain't paying that kind of money for big, heavy, relatively slow zoom.