Tamron 28-75 2.8 users/comments please

I’m a wedding photographer (approx 50+ weddings a year) that currently uses a 20D with a 16-35 2.8L, 28-135 IS, 70 -200 2.8L IS, 550ex, and Quantum T2 Flash. I use my Hasselblad system for all my formals and the digital system is for Photojournalism and reception candids. I'm looking to replace my Canon 28-135 IS lens for a F2.8 lens of similar length and weight. I thought the 28-135 would be a good lens with the IS, but I have been wishing for the versatility of a F2.8 lens instead. I have used the Canon 24-70 2.8L and it is very nice but heavy and expensive. So I have been considering the Tamron 28-75 XR DI F2.8 and would like to know if anyone has any real working experience with one. My concerns are sharpness wide open (my 28-135 has not been all that great wide open) weight, (I’m thinking it would stay on the camera most of the time) and focus speed. I have seen a few threads here but I’m looking for feedback from any other shooters that use the Tamron lens in the same situations as I do.

Thanks, Pete
http://www.memorablemo​ments.net

I bought one for the same reason, but was disappointed the AF indoors really seemed to have a difficult time and it was soft on one side. I've heard a lot of people say good things about that lens, but I wasn't that impressed. I wish there was a good canon lens in that range that wasn't so bulky, but there just isn't right now, so I stick with the wide angle zoom and primes.

I can't find any difference in visible quality between the Tamron and the Canon. I rented the Canon equivalent for a weekend shoot and took around 400 shots with it. The AF was slightly faster and a bit quieter, but the quality and contrast were pretty much dead even from everything I could tell. You'll find a LOT of people who really love this lens, and it's ratings are always excellent.

Take a look here: http://www.photozone.d​e/2Equipment/easytxt.h​tm#Zstd Notice that the Canon version beats the Tamron by such an incredibly small margin that it's as many of us have said, invisible to the naked eye. Compare that to the 28-135IS and you'll see there is a DEFINITE improvement in sharpness.

I think you should go for it. It's currently on sale at B&H for $329! That's dirt cheap for a lens of this optical quality. You could sell it on eBay for $300+ if you didn't like it, so there's little to lose.

Good luck!
Adam

I do not use my Tamron 28-75 Xr Di in the situations you do, but I have to say if I did I would be a little concerned with it lasting. That doesn't mean I'm not happy with it, but let's face it, the Canon feels like it is made to be abused. That aside, in my opinion the image quality is on par with the Canon 24-70L, is far less expensive, and is 25-30% lighter and more compact, if those are things that interest you.

There are definitely bad copies floating around, too, about 10% based on feedback on this forum, so if you do get one be sure and check it out thoroughly, especially wide open.

Good luck.

I bought mine specificly to have a zoom lens for indoor shots with less than desireable lighting. I love it. I have never had any quality issues. It pretty much lives on my camera except when I need that extra stop with the 50 or the reach of the 70-200. You won't regret buying it.

My copy's great, and it lives on my camera. The AF could be a little faster, and it could be a little quieter, but in general i'm very happy with it. This page of tests may be of some use to you.

I use this lens to take pictures of my 18-month-old toddler and find the AF to be a little slow for available light candid shots. A lot of the shots came out to be OoF. Attached with a speedlite, the lens' AF improves a little with the help of the AF-assist beam. Hope this helps.

Maybe your lens is one of the 10% bad copies redbird? I rarely get OOF pics, and it's almost always my own fault.

It could be user error as well. When my photography teacher picked up my old 300D/28-75 lens he took 3 pics, all were out of focus. He was used to a 10D at the time. I used it and they came out perfectly.

Well, my 18-month-old doesn't pose for picture session for more than a split sec. The OoF pictures were due to a moving subject. I do get some in-focus shots, though.

I too just bought the Tamron lens for weddings specifically but now I think it will be my every day choice for basic shooting as I think it really does a great job. I got mine at B&H for $369 and got a $40 rebate to boot. For the price, you really can't beat it!

Maureen
Lovin' My 20D......

Redbird,

some more food for thought...
... which AF mode did you select (one-shot/continuous?)
... which shutter speed?

I know that *I* have a hard time to get sharp available light photos indoors of my 2-year-old (or any other subject, btw) without a flash if my ISO is lower than 1600 ...

2.8 is fast, but it does not do miracles. At 75 mm focal length (with 1.6 crop: 120 mm equivalent), I find that I better use 1/200 than 1/125 to make sure to avoid motion blur ('shaky hands' here, unfortunately).

And the 'Sunny 16' rule has the emphasis on 'sunny'. It's not an 'Indoor 16' rule, alas.

Best regards,
Andy

Andy --

Thanks for the tips. I seldom take pictures of my toddler in available night these days. Nowadays, I mostly use the Speedlite and set the shutter at 1/200 and use variable aperture depending on situation.

So do I. I use the custom function ? on my 20D that sets the shutter speed to a constant 1/250 in Aperture priority mode when the flash is used. So when the light is good enough with ISO 800 (ISO 1600 gives too much noise for my liking, although it is usable, if it has to be) to get me to 1/125, I don't use the flash, if it's too slow, I just enable the flash and have a fast shutter.

Very helpful.

But I digress. Take a look at this example for a portrait with the Tamron 28-75@3.2 that isn't all bad, IMO. Flash was too strong, but I'm happy with the sharpness. Focus was on the eyes of the baby.

Best regards,
Andy

I'm sure the original poster won't mind. Nice picture and a cute baby boy indeed.

Back to the Tamron...I don't dare asking for faster AF given the already more than reasonable price.

Happy shooting!

You can not compare the Canon to the Tamron, take my word for it.
The Tamron is a great and cheap alternative, it is worth every penny of the $350 price tag, nothing more, nothing less. If you ask me to pay $450 for it, I would not.

If you are shooting a wedding, I would say you will be disappointed in two things with the lens. The AF really stinks, the colours are very neutral and is weak in the contrast department as well. I know you can "fix" these in Photoshop, but it will never be the same. Just from going through the portfolios of some of my peers who do weddings, both contrast and good colours seem to be important, which is what the Tamron will not give you.

I think when people say the lens is as good as the Canon is because, A, they probably have never used a 24-70, or B,they are comparing the image quality by sharpness. The Tamron is very very sharp, no question, but soft wide open.

The Tamron has two distinct advantages, size and price. In most other departments the lens is not as good as the Canon and in some is as good(sharpness, sharp throughout its entire zoom range). The build is not as good as the Canon, but it isnt really something to complain about, it's not that bad. If you are doing photography as a pro or for an income, don't buy the Tamron, it is a big compromise and will cost you both time(lots of PP to get the images to look right) and quality.

I have said this about this lens a million times, you get what you pay for.