Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Question

I just realised this lens has macro. I am planning to buy it, and was curious what's the macro like on it? I have a sigma 70-300 APO and I like doing flower and insect shots. The sigma is nice, but cloesst focusing distance can be a pain. I'm planning to get tubes anyway.

So how is the Tamron 28-75, anybody that has sample shots they can share would be greatly appreciated. What about with tubes? How does it compare to the more expensive prime macro lenses (I am not planning to buy one at this time, but maybe in the future.) Will this lens do the job if your not all that serious about macro and just like having fun shooting flowers?

The Tamron has a close focus distance of 13.9" and its "Macro" magnification is 1:2.8. It isn't bad, I got these shots with it.

Its no Marco lens but if I can do this then its better than a "get by" lens!

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

crispypie wrote in post #2116370
Its no Marco lens but if I can do this then its better than a "get by" lens!

Hosted photo: posted by crispypie in
./showthread.php?p=211​6370&i=i18564950
forum: Canon Lenses

I see. That's pretty damn good.


Still, I am curious how this lens would do with tubes, if that's without it's pretty good.

If you want a walkaround "macro" zoom lens, the Sigma 1770 is by far your best bet, especially on a 1.6x body. It has a significantly better focal range, and it's reproduction ratio is 1:2 at 70mm (versus the Tamron which is 1:4 at 75mm). That's also a significant difference. And from my use of both, there isn't a whole lot difference in IQ even.

Canon EOS 350D Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD (IF)
1/320s f/4.0 at 75.0mm iso100

It's not a real macro, you can get close, but it's not a macro.
I've used it for close up stuff, but it's fairly limited if you are really into macros.

Tee Why wrote in post #2116804
It's not a real macro, you can get close, but it's not a macro.
I've used it for close up stuff, but it's fairly limited if you are really into macros.

I'm not really into macro. I do like shooting flowers and gettings ome insects on flowers though. I think this should do the trick though.

I don't really want the Sigma lens as it's more expensive and apparently less sharp. (I'm talking about the sigma 24-70.)

Great shot bluedog btw. So cute!

crispypie wrote in post #2116370
Its no Marco lens but if I can do this then its better than a "get by" lens!

The Tamron 28-75 is a macro lens. Same magnification as the 70-200 macro lenses.

Hellashot wrote in post #2117273
The Tamron 28-75 is a macro lens. Same magnification as the 70-200 macro lenses.

The 70-200 macro lenses? Huh?

Well a TRUE macro lens usually has 1:1 magnification, which this tamron does not have. So even though it carries the macro name on it, most macro folks would not consider this a macro lens. Although it sounds like it would be good for what the OP needs. I am sure it would work well with tubes also.


BTW BlueDog, that is an awesome shot.

Thanks for the compliments, wish sometimes I still had this lens.

These lens really shouldn't labeled Macro but instead Close Focusing _ that'd kinda be a lot to put on a lens so maybe thats why they use Macro.

For flower and stuff like in my photo above It'll do a jam up good job.

Bluedog_XT wrote in post #2117381
Thanks for the compliments, wish sometimes I still had this lens.

These lens really shouldn't labeled Macro but instead Close Focusing _ that'd kinda be a lot to put on a lens so maybe thats why they use Macro.

For flower and stuff like in my photo above It'll do a jam up good job.

Good to hear. Are 1:1 macro lenses all that good for flower shots, or only smaller things on flowers like insects and berry things?

Yes they are extremely good from what I've seen, even doing portraits. I'd love to have the Canon Macro 100mm f/2.8 but I'm just not into the true Macro stuff either.

great lens jagwire!