One more from the 28-75 Tamron DiXR

I found this image on pbase...
If the bokeh is bad, I can live with it.
I love the sharpness.
http://misheli.image.p​base.com …30087893.little​rascal.jpg

My Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 produces very nice bokeh :

Oleg,

I agree with you 8)

What was the focal length you used in your pictures?

If you look at Dean's original photo ... apart from that the lady is really stunning ... what do you think of the bokeh?

Best regards,
Andy

The focal length was 75mm on both photographs.

Personally, I find the bokeh on Dean's photo quite nice. Anyway, it's not worse than the bokeh in the following picture (taken with my 70-200 f/2.8L at 145mm f/2.8) :

That's why I said ... maybe I'm nuts :P

I like the bokeh in your shot better, because the leaves are larger (closer to the monkey).
I find that in Dean's photo, the small harsh contrast draw my eye from the wonderful lady ... maybe that's why I didn't like it.

So I think the bokeh does not just depend on the lens, but also on the consistency of the background ... dang, that photography thing is even more complicated

Best regards,
Andy

Andythaler wrote:
So I think the bokeh does not just depend on the lens, but also on the consistency of the background ... dang, that photography thing is even more complicated

I think you're right - with more "uniform" background (without all the bright spots that is) the out-of-focus area is much more pleasing.

The Tamron 28-75 can't be beat. It is not far from L quality and Persian...I have to disagree with you, or at least question your sources. You say that this lens is prone to defects. Your post is the first one I think I've read that says anything about a defective copy. I've read nothing but GREAT things about this lens and I really could not be happier with mine! I love everything about it, including the $400 price tag! It was my first one as well. It is sharp, fairly fast to focus, nice wide 2.8 and I think has a nice, smooth bokeh. I haven't been disappointed with mine and I've used it for 2 weddings, 2 family portrait shoots and 1 Sr. portrait shoot....not a disappointed client yet either.

-daniel

Dsze, then you dont research much Olegis is another person who needed to change their lens, I have read of this problem on two FM reviews, I have also seen it once or twice in the FM forum.
One of my friends/classmates had a problem with his image quality.
I have seen comments in this regard on two or three other forums as well.

Either UPS likes ot throw boxes that have Tamron on them or Tamron has poor QA.

If I had a nickle for every time I heard "this is an awsome lens as long as you can get a good copy" I would be rich.

Hmm? Maybe I don't research enough. ...but if I had a nickel for everytime I read, "this is a great lens that rivals L lenses," I think I'd be ordering a MkII! I don't think there are any serious problems with Tamron lenses. Lets do a Poll? I'll start one, because I am curious now.

-daniel

I didnt say its a bad lens, It's an amazing lens from the pictures I have seen, it's just that there seem to be a bunch of bad copies out there.

I agree with you i havent used mien as much as you but its a great lens and cant see paying 3 times as much for its L counterpart the onyl people i ever see nocking this lens is someone that has its L coutner part and i understand that also cause if i paid a 1000 for the a lens and then one shows up for only 350something then i would kick myself int he butt or try to make it soudn worse then it ever will be...... althow if i had all L id probly be a disser of anything else...

Dude, can I introduce you to the full stop - ".". It makes sentences far more readable.

haha Ditto.

I don't think that is a fair characterization Primevci. I own the L counterpart, yes the L is better, how much better is subject to argument. It is the general consensus that the Tamron is close to or even equal in terms image quality. However, the L is substantially faster in terms of AF speed. I also noticed that my Tamron was somewhat prone to flare even with the hood on. I am not sure if it was my poor copy, but I can't judge based on a lens with faulty optics. Then there is build quality, I would say the Tamron is good and the L is amazing.

I cant justify paying an extra $1000 unless you are a pro or rich. However, the L is better, to say otherwise is nonsense. The Tamron is an awesome value. It has great optics, which is what really counts. Everything else is a luxury some are willing to pay for.

With regards to Persian Rice’s

My Canon 70-200 L f2.8 IS was defective right out of the box. I think that bad lens turn up no matter who is the manufacture. I believe it is more luck of the draw. I hope when I order 28-75 Tamron DiXR, I get lucky on the first try.

Yea sorry about the sentance structure i suck at it i have Dyslexia and it wasent found till later on in life, so i didnt do any good in the reading and writing area anyways i think ill stick to the smaller fourms, this place is turning into photosig and dpreview... But its cool... any time i try to make an argument thats the first thing attacked and i cant blame anyone its so easy with me anyways have a nice day and was just voicing my opnion..