Anyone tried the Tamron 28-300 VC yet?

I was wondering how the VC compared to IS or OS? Also wondering about the IQ of this lens. What other lenses would you compare the IQ with? Is this lens fast enough to freeze a widely jumping fish in very bright light with a polarizer?

I'd be interested as well also.

Although I've noticed lenses (regardless of manufacturer) that cover such a large range, tend to sacrifice in the IQ department. Quantity over quality I suppose.

nw85887 wrote in post #4332085
I'd be interested as well also.

Although I've noticed lenses (regardless of manufacturer) that cover such a large range, tend to sacrifice in the IQ department. Quantity over quality I suppose.

Nikon's 18-200 VC and Sigma's 18-200 OS have disproved this.

fishcall wrote in post #4331980
I was wondering how the VC compared to IS or OS? Also wondering about the IQ of this lens. What other lenses would you compare the IQ with? Is this lens fast enough to freeze a widely jumping fish in very bright light with a polarizer?

The Tamron VC unit is, from what I'm gathering from initial reports, extremely good. Apparently buttery smooth (unlike the Sigma OS's jumpy start) and very effective. Maybe Tamron's delay in its release contributed to this. As to IQ per se, the jury still seems out. Not many seem to have it quite yet, and cumulative user reviews are important. I think it will be a good to very good performer though. Tamron makes some nice optics. As for using a CP filter, it in all likelihood will struggle with AF since you're losing an additional 2 stops of light to the already slow lens. For example, the Sigma OS lens at 200mm f6.3 won't AF with the CP correctly. I expect the same with the Di lens. You can get AF though at the wider FL's with a CP.

nw85887 wrote in post #4332085
I'd be interested as well also.
Although I've noticed lenses (regardless of manufacturer) that cover such a large range, tend to sacrifice in the IQ department. Quantity over quality I suppose.

While it's true that every lens choice is a compromise, these "compromise" superzooms are actually impressive, all things considered. Optical engineering has greatly improved over the years and these lenses are showing some strong results. I'm extremely pleased with the IQ and OS performance of the Sigma 18-200.

fishcall wrote in post #4331980
I was wondering how the VC compared to IS or OS? Also wondering about the IQ of this lens. What other lenses would you compare the IQ with? Is this lens fast enough to freeze a widely jumping fish in very bright light with a polarizer?

The first one I tried had a front focus problem that was really visible at the 28mm focal length. Shooting at 28mm /f3.5, everything 2 inches in front of subject was extremely sharp while the subject was oof. The subject was a small figurine approx. 1.5 feet from camera. Outdoor test shots of a power pole approx. 50 feet away also showed front focus at all focal lengths. I exchanged the lens and will be checking the new one out later on.

The lens has the typical fit and finish of all tamron lens. It is surprisingly light and compact, barely larger than the 28-75 2.8 lens and has 67mm filter threads. The lens does creep and has a lock feature to keep the lens retracted to the 28mm setting.

I guess the ability to catch a jumping fish will depend on camera settings and shooting conditions as well as the speed of the fish. The variable aperture range is 3.5-6.3. Wide open at 28mm = 3.5, at 50mm = 4.5, at 100mm = 5.6, at 200mm = 5.6 and at 300mm = 6.3.

I am shooting with a 5D and for comparison shots, the 100-400L.

I really like the idea of this lens. I do not mind overlap in a system when it gives me extra flexibility and convenience. This would be my new everyday/walkaround lens for family functions/parties without needing to lug all the glass (well, I would still carry the thrifty fifty and the fish ).

Peace
Mark

I'm very interested in this lense being that my Tamron 17-50 2.8 has been an outstanding performer. I will have consider the 28-300 VC being in the market for more range and something with IS. I just hope the reviews are good ! My alternative is the Canon 70-300 IS.

Hello All, sorry about the delay.

I do not have any pics to post since I was not pleased with the second copy of this lens either.

I will say that the AF was fast and the vibration control was great. I just could not accept the front focus issue. I debated whether or not to return the lens or send it to Tamron for calibration and decided to return it.

Peace
Mark

I got to try this lens out (but unfortunately not very long as a family emergency happened).

Used it in dim/poor light conditions so haven't been able to tell how well it does in good conditions.

On my XTI, it was soft past 250mm. Overall, its decent. The VC works and snaps on quickly. It is not 17-50 optics but for a travel lens not bad. I've been looking for a travel zoom to complement my 17-50 and this might be it.

There are sample pics from at least 3 posters (me included) with 100% versions up already on dpreview.

The cutover from f/5.6 to f/6.3 occurs around 250mm.

blssdwlf wrote in post #4352310
It is not 17-50 optics...

Thats what I was hoping for. 17-50 IQ with VC and in this range would have been awesome.

nw85887 wrote in post #4368033
Thats what I was hoping for. 17-50 IQ with VC and in this range would have been awesome.

Hehe yeah that would have been awesome.

Another forum member on dpreview posted this morning some daytime shots with it (full size no less) and they're pretty nice. The lens can be quite sharp in some pixel peeping for people shooting (look at the later posts where he has people/kids).

http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1029&messag​e=25715751

Happy Thanksgiving, y'all!

I like it. Posted my user review here .

I received mine on Friday of last week, a b-day present to myself -a little retail therapy is always good.

I think for the money this lens is an outstanding value. The build quality feels very solid and the VC (IS) is OUTSTANDING. I haven't shot enough with it to pass a final judgement, but so far I am very satisfied with it.

I will say that on the negative side, it is a little soft zoomed out at 300mm. I really like the fact that the lens isn't digital only, so when I finally get a full frame body, I can use this lens.

The only other negatives I have noticed so far are that, like my Tamron 18-200, the autofocus hunts in low light, and it's a slow autofocus compared to Canon glass, and that I've noticed some inconsistent metering with the lens. In other words, sometimes, I get one out of a few images (shooting A/V w/my 40D) that are darker than the rest. I'm not sure if the lens is causing this or if the metering on my 40D may be out of spec, but I've noticed it more with this lens than my others.

I do like the contrast and sharpness of the images quite a bit (before 300mm) and I plan on testing some more off of a tripod and stopping down more to see what I can find.

At this point, I can recommend the Tammy 28-300 VC. It's a lot of bang for the buck and a whole lot more convenient than my 70-200L brick.

Best,

Michael

Hi Michael, I'm also very interested with this lens and also using Canon 40D. I am also considering canon 70-200mm F.4L IS USM which I think is better bang for the buck compared to the 2.8 version.

Just wondering if you don't mind posting pics for the Tamron and Canon. So we all can compare the differences. Thanks in the advanced!!!

J

I had the Tamron 28-300VC and liked it more than the Tamron 18-250, for the addition of the VC. Nice. However, then I picked up an 18-200 OS in a shop and shot a few frames. At home, it turned out that the Sigma smoked the Tamron for IQ, even with the reduced range (e.g. view Sig at 150% vs Tam at 100%). So I ordered a Sigma, hoping the copy I got was as good as the shop's (I'm in South Africa, but ordered from the US, saving about 45%). And my copy's just as sweet. I think the QC issues at Sigma may have been worked out after initial outcry. I wonder if folks buying newer ones are having issues like others initially...

And the wide end of the Sigma is worth a lot more than the additional 100mm at the long end. I suppose 200mm is faster than the 200mm on the Sigma, though.

I'd post images, but connectivity is expensive here!

Adam
jeskelife.org

Oh, I should have said my test was wide open and stopped down, on a couple of subjects, though still quite quick and dirty. The results were still quite clearly on the side of the Sigma.