Tamron 28-75 2.8 users/comments please

I still get the feeling that while you say people who compare the Tamron to the Canon haven't used one, that there might be a slight hint of 'I paid a lot for this Canon L so it better be incomparably better than the Tamron.' We know you got a bad example or two, but I *have* used the Canon and just didn't quite get the passion. It's heavy and very expensive and the image quality is not that much better. I'll absolutely agree on the AF point... but again, it's a lot of $ difference. Plus I just read review after review backing up what us Tamron 28-75 fans think. Just like that link I posted up top... they were .01-.02 points apart among a wide field of lenses.

DO buy the Tamron and use the crap out of it. You'll be pleasantly surprised. Besides, who wants razor sharp wedding photos anyways LOL

Thanks to all for all the response here. I purchased the Tamron today and I did a quick test against the Canon 28-135 IS lens I want to replace it due to my concerns about the sharpness while close to, or wide open.

While on a tripod in AV using the timer to fire the camera, I photographed a printed B&W sign. Both lens were tested at 28mm and at 75mm from F22 to wide open. The Tamron had slightly better contrast and was sharper at all settings except for F2.8. F22 was so close I will call that a tie. I also did two exposures on the Canon with the IS activated, one at F22 the other at F3.5 and found something very disturbing. When the IS was active, the images were the worst of all the images. The Tamron AF is slightly slower, but I think I can live with that.

I was really torn between the Canon 24-70 2.8L and the Tamron 28-75 2.8. Was the wider 4mm, faster AF, L glass, heavyer, more costly Canon the way to go? Or was the lighter, smaller, cheaper Tamron going to really meet all my needs? This is the first lens that I have purchased in the last 20 years that is not either a N@*%! or a Canon and after this quick test, I think it will have been a good purchase. The proof will really be next week when it is on its first job.

Thanks to all again.
Pete
http://www.memorablemo​ments.net

A very odd thing about image stabilizers is that they don't work as well on a tripod as they do handheld. I forget what the reason is for that.

I went with the Sigma 24-70 2.8 DX. . . sharp as a tack.

Adam although I understand your point, it's that I see a million posts by people that say the Tamron is as good or even better then the Canon. It isnt, and you cant argue that under any circumstances. Is the price difference worth it? I don't know, it's very arguable that it is not worth the difference. To me I see a big difference and If I can find the time I will create a head to head comparison sometime soon. But the fact is that there is a big difference in terms of image, performance and overall quality. That is what my point is.

There are two side of the story, one says the Canon is so much better because they paid so much more. The other side says that, at least in my view, the Tamron is closely comparable to the Canon and they glorify every point of the lens, even if it is weak. How many times have you heard the AF is pretty fast? Ive heard it quite a bit, but it is the slowest AF I have ever used. People say image quality is almost the same. Yes it is if you compare sharpness only, but the colours are really dull and there is very little contrast, all compared to the 24-70.

I recommend this lens 100% of the time to any amateur. But will say no to any pro, because this lens will cost you quite a few images because of its weak AF and will eat your time in PP because of the colour/contrast weakness. It is a great lens, I can't lie and say it's bad, my only argument is that it is not fair to compare it to the Canon.

BTW, Moments congrats on the purchase. I'm pretty sure you will be very happy......... Really depends on what you are expecting from it.

I have the Tamron Lens and use it for weddings all the time. I do have some "L" glass but it is that Tamron that stays attached to my 20D. While the AF is slow, you do learn where to fucus for quick AF. It does go slow and search where there is nothing in contrast. Anyway, I went to a Will Crockett seminar and he went through all of his equipment (he shoots with a Fuji S3 and Mamiya) and mentioned that you should not use inferior equipment. He said that he uses only the best Nikon VR lenses. However in the medium telephoto, he use the Tamron for his portraits. He did tel the audience of about 500 people that they were going to think he was nuts when he told them what lens he used and encouraged everyone not to take his word for it but to test one out. I'll tell you, I didn't think he was crazy, I have been using mine for 2 years now...Dean

Amen brotha!