New Tammy 28-75 f/2.8

jblaschke wrote in post #7767785
Which Canon kit did you compare it with? Obviously, I'd expect the 24-70L to kick Tammy butt, but if you had the L then there'd be no reason for you to have the Tammy...

i was comparing it to the 18-55 kit lens. Not sure why the Tamron's color wasn't as vibrant.

fann wrote in post #7770226
i was comparing it to the 18-55 kit lens. Not sure why the Tamron's color wasn't as vibrant.

every third party lens i've owned was not as vibrant as canon lenses. and all that stuff about fixing it in post is bull !

ed rader

When I bought my 20D several years ago, the Tammy 28-75 was my first lens. Very good lens in every aspect. I still have it and use it on my 40D.

i had a 24-70L and sold it because i preferred the 24-105L. but my wife is our 2nd shooter and i needed something to duplicate in the 24-70 range for weddings. i thought i was being cheap because i didnt really want to spend a grand for another 24-70,,,,so,,,i baught a 28-75 because i wanted to be able to use it on the 40d and the 5d.

to be honest, i am blown away by the tammy. i would say its pretty darn close to the 24-70L. its darn sharp and the colors were great. it really is not a 28-75 lens as above 70mm is not very good at f/2.8...looks soft to me when above 70mm. but from 28-70,,,i would put it up against the canon and i think everyone would be hard pressed to determine which was which.

here is the tammy

jdlloyd67 wrote in post #7769211
Would the 50mm be your only lens? As much as I love my prime lenses, I personally couldn't live without at least one zoom lens.

yeah that'd be my only lense unfortunately...looks like i might go with the Tamron 28-75 as a starter, then maybe pick up prime in the future.

Mine had 2 problems when I got it. Unpredictable focus... sometimes it would nail it, sometimes it would be just a touch off. The other problem was halation at 75/2.8... Both only showed themselves wide open. By f4, you'd never know it sometimes misfocused or suffered from halation (blooming). At first I thought it was just soft at f2.8 at the long end but realized looking at inages that the it wasn't "soft" but was having a problem.

I sent it into to get fixed and it came back in 2 weeks a completely different lens. For one, I think it focuses faster although undeniably louder. (I really don't care).

The focusing hits it right on, every time. Secondly it is amazingly sharp from 28 to 75 wide open. I basically use it at 75 for 95% of my portraits.

I did some test shots comparing it to the 85 and, surprisingly to me, at f2.8 it is as sharp as the 85 unless you compare at 200% where the 85 is "just" ever so slightly sharper but you have to look hard. I really like what I get out of the Tamron, as well as all my other lenses, for that matter.

Maybe I have an exceptional 28-75 but it is an absolute steal at the price. Yes, it does have a different "color" than a Canon but I can't say one is right and the other is wrong... they are just slightly different and depending what you are shooting, the differences don't show themselves. When the differences do show themselves, mostly under mixed lighting, I have been able to "correct" it by using the temperature slider in ACR. I have not been tempted, in the slightest, by the Canon 24-70.

Next on my list is the 135L, although I'm not sure I would use it that much so it may not happen. A macro, maybe the Sigma 150 would be useful.

When I first got the Tamron 28-75 in 2005, I took it outside the office and shot this at f2.8 to make sure it was focusing properly and to check sharpness. I had read about all the "bad" copies out there. Well, this one shot told me everything I needed to know about the copy I received:

bohdank wrote in post #7771352
Mine had 2 problems when I got it. Unpredictable focus... sometimes it would nail it, sometimes it would be just a touch off. The other problem was halation at 75/2.8... Both only showed themselves wide open. By f4, you'd never know it sometimes misfocused or suffered from halation (blooming). At first I thought it was just soft at f2.8 at the long end but realized looking at inages that the it wasn't "soft" but was having a problem.

I sent it into to get fixed and it came back in 2 weeks a completely different lens. For one, I think it focuses faster although undeniably louder. (I really don't care).

Good to hear your positive experience with Tamron repair. Mine has been getting loose in its old age. I'm gonna send it in to see what they can do.

All right, buckaroos, here are some examples of what the new Tammy hath wrought. The Wife still isn't letting me get near her lens (she actually tried to claim my 50mm 1.8 mk I when it arrived in the mail today as well!) but I assisted her on a boudoir shoot yesterday. The Tammy stayed on her 50D the whole time.

Now, keep in mind the strobist lighting was hit-and-miss, and the Tammy hasn't been microadjusted for her camera. Even so, I think the results are nice (warning: lingerie at the other end of the link. Nothing scandalous, but just be forewarned): Lisa On Location

My "go-to" lens on my 50D is the 28-75 f/2.8 Tamron. Mine was actually made in Japan. Yes, the color is different than any of my Canon lenses. No, the build quality is not that of an 'L'. Yes, I paid less than $400, including tax. Will I be holding on to it. YES!

I my be misunderstanding the nature of the statement, but the lens "FF factor" of 1.6 does yield a 80mm FOV with a 50mm lens. But the important thought on using a "portrait" lens of 80mm+ length is to avoid perspective distortion of facial features. The crop factor only deals with FOV, not the perspective distortion. Therefore, IMO, a wide lens (<50mm) for portraiture is still going to make noses look overly large et al.

tinner18 wrote in post #7772675
I my be misunderstanding the nature of the statement, but the lens "FF factor" of 1.6 does yield a 80mm FOV with a 50mm lens. But the important thought on using a "portrait" lens of 80mm+ length is to avoid perspective distortion of facial features. The crop factor only deals with FOV, not the perspective distortion. Therefore, IMO, a wide lens (<50mm) for portraiture is still going to make noses look overly large et al.

That is incorrect--perspective is everything to do with subject to focal plane distance, and relative distance of all objects. If you keep your two cameras in the same spot (one Full Frame, and another 1.6x), and shot a subject at the same distance from the camera, the perspective would be identical. Hence the relative size of the nose, the rest of the head, et al remain the same. What differs is the size of the subject in relation to the frame (angle of view).

In order to fill the frame identically with a 1.6x and the same 50mm lens on a full frame, you have to move the full frame camera closer to the subject, and that changes the perspective and creates the distortion you described.

The "effective" FOV of a 50mm on a 1.6x sensor is 80mm. Which means that if you didn't move and simply switched to full frame sensor, you need a 80mm to get identical framing. And since your subject to focal plane distance didn't change, there is no difference in perspective.

So in essence, the lens specifications are specified for a standard full-frame 35mm sensor. When you use a 50mm lens on a sensor that uses only a part of the imaging circle, you have to multiply it by the crop sensor factor to get your effective (or true) focal length.

See this thread for a good explanation: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=672913

Gratuitous comment: I *love* my Tammy 28-75. I may even be the only one who *almost* likes the motor chirp...in reading all the reviews about the horrendous noise I built up a fantasy that it GROANED slowly. Actually, it's a rather quick electrical sound -- almost endearing, really!

fann wrote in post #7767710
i had this lens before.. i liked it but doing a side by side comparison of this lens against my canon kit lens and the color reproduction wasn't as good. It seemed that the Tamron had duller colors. I dunno if it was just my copy though.

HUH..I had the 28-75 for a long time..then i got my 24-70L. the Tamron matches EVERY aspect in IQ my 24-70L has, it was razor sharp wide open, colors and contrast were GREAT..I cant see a crappy kit lens comparing to the 28-75 at all.

I find that my Tammy 28-75 is an excellent landscape lens because it really brings out the blue in the sky. I have used it countless times at Disney and everyone always comments on how beautiful the blue sky is in the shots. Case in point...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I love mine. It was recommended to me as a good budget normal zoom on FF, and I couldn't agree more. I'm honestly surprised how sharp it is at all FL wide open. Any OOF shots I've ever seen with this lens have been my own fault, because I know what it can do.

I rented the 24-70L thinking it would blow the Tamron away. It doesn't. Granted, it's a bit warmer and focuses quieter, but it's also a lot heavier and three times as expensive. Contrast on the Tamron is about equal, and that's what's most important to me anyway.