My New Tamron 28-75mm - Oddly Befuddled

Hello!

I just wanted to post about this lens in case any other people were in the same situation I was in.

Up until about a month ago, I owned a Canon 24-70L that I was having problems with (my second copy, mind you) due to erratic focusing. I used the lens at weddings and realized that the focus would be everywhere UNLESS my subject was within 15 or so feet from me (I think Picturecrazy may have mentioned this before, though I could be mistaking). I sent the lens to Canon and the problem was not solved (and oddly enough, came back a bit softer at f/2.8 which wasn't a major problem since I am definitely not a pixel peeper, but was odd nonetheless). I sold the lens in exchange for a 35L, which I had borrowed from a friend and loved.

That left me needing a zoom for some security flexibility that I may need while shooting weddings or on hikes. I researched and researched and decided to go for the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I had owned this lens back as my first zoom when I had a Digital Rebel XT, and was a little worried because my first copy of the lens was bad (all photos appeared to have a fog over them), but seeing as I don't have many bookings until September, I could play the calibration game if need be.

The lens arrived yesterday and I only had a few minutes here and there to do some real-world testing, and when I loaded the photos onto my computer, I was astonished. The lens is razor sharp at f/2.8 (again, not a big deal to me but nice to know, for sure) with beautiful colors, quick reliable focus (my main issue with the L), nice contrast, nice bokeh... all for $380 from B&H. Although I'm more than satisfied with this beauty, I can't help but feel a little odd about it. Here I am with a third party zoom lens that is blowing me away much more than the 24-70L did... is it just me, or doesn't it seem that a $1200 lens should at least be able to focus reliably? I am not a lens basher because I do believe that I have more important things to worry about regarding my photography, but... what the heck? I understand sample variation is definitely a factor in many lenses, but I do not want to play the "going to try 10 before I settle on the one I think is best" game since being a full time graphic design student saps mst of my energy.

So, thank you, Tamron, for this amazing lens at an amazing price with a sweet 6 year warranty to top it all off. I hope this thread can offer some light for those considering the Tamron as a potential lens.

(Photos coming soon.... must eat!)

Can't argue, mine is a stonking lens and at f4 is better than the 24-105....

madhatter04 wrote in post #8370283
Hello!

I just wanted to post about this lens in case any other people were in the same situation I was in.

Up until about a month ago, I owned a Canon 24-70L that I was having problems with (my second copy, mind you) due to erratic focusing. I used the lens at weddings and realized that the focus would be everywhere UNLESS my subject was within 15 or so feet from me (I think Picturecrazy may have mentioned this before, though I could be mistaking). I sent the lens to Canon and the problem was not solved (and oddly enough, came back a bit softer at f/2.8 which wasn't a major problem since I am definitely not a pixel peeper, but was odd nonetheless). I sold the lens in exchange for a 35L, which I had borrowed from a friend and loved.

That left me needing a zoom for some security flexibility that I may need while shooting weddings or on hikes. I researched and researched and decided to go for the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I had owned this lens back as my first zoom when I had a Digital Rebel XT, and was a little worried because my first copy of the lens was bad (all photos appeared to have a fog over them), but seeing as I don't have many bookings until September, I could play the calibration game if need be.

The lens arrived yesterday and I only had a few minutes here and there to do some real-world testing, and when I loaded the photos onto my computer, I was astonished. The lens is razor sharp at f/2.8 (again, not a big deal to me but nice to know, for sure) with beautiful colors, quick reliable focus (my main issue with the L), nice contrast, nice bokeh... all for $380 from B&H. Although I'm more than satisfied with this beauty, I can't help but feel a little odd about it. Here I am with a third party zoom lens that is blowing me away much more than the 24-70L did... is it just me, or doesn't it seem that a $1200 lens should at least be able to focus reliably? I am not a lens basher because I do believe that I have more important things to worry about regarding my photography, but... what the heck? I understand sample variation is definitely a factor in many lenses, but I do not want to play the "going to try 10 before I settle on the one I think is best" game since being a full time graphic design student saps mst of my energy.

So, thank you, Tamron, for this amazing lens at an amazing price with a sweet 6 year warranty to top it all off. I hope this thread can offer some light for those considering the Tamron as a potential lens.

(Photos coming soon.... must eat!)

it may be just you....and loyd . so your comment really does come off as a bash since this lens is so widely used by pros and amateurs that don't report the focussing issues you and loyd mention.

i've owned my 24-70L for three years and it focussing reliably at all focal lengths. i've also owned the tamron. i'd say sharpness is a wash between the two lenses but my keeper rate is higher with the canon especially in low light.

also the colors and contrast are better from the canon as well as the bokeh.

follow up your post in six months and let us know how you like the tamron...if you still own it, that is .

ed rader

I'm a firm believer in using "whatever works for you" and if you were fortunate and got a properly functioning 24-70L, may it bring you all the joy you deserve. I, however, was not that lucky, nor am I lucky enough to be able to financially cover having multiple L lenses. The 35mm f/1.4 works very well for me and my shooting style (and I love primes) and the Tamron 28-75mm seems to be a good fit for a good price, which is certainly a plus for me. Lenses are but tools, and students/people like me can appreciate them immensely when they come at a good price

A lot of people laud the Tamron until they get it in not-so-good light. That's when the micromotor is a let down.

So I hear. I never owned it.

Lucky you. Mine sucks at F2.8,it's not until about F5 that it's really good.
Paul

I'm glad you have a copy of the tamron that you are pleased with. I've owned a lot of standard zooms on both croppers and FF cameras and my experience has not been the same as yours.

While I at one time had a very nice performing Tamron 17-50 F/2.8, I've had two 28-75 F/2.8's that were abysmal at or near wide open. My most recent tamron 28-75 was not usable until F/4 - F/5.6 which defeats the purpose of a F/2.8 zoom for me. I very much wanted it to be a decent performer as the range is good and the small size and weight is a pleasure, unfortunately it was not meant to be. Twice bitten I'm shy and won't be trying a third one.

You do see a lot of focusing issue threads around the 24-70L, especially back focusing @ 24mm. I've owned one brick and I found it to be absolutely stellar. Sharp (even wide open), best colors I've seen from a zoom, reliable. Too bad about the size/weight/hood you can wear as a hat. I truly regret trading the 24-70L, hindsight is 20/20.

So, congrats on a great Tamron, a great bargain, and finding something that works well for you. I've tried a couple of times, perhaps it's just not for me.

I've had my Tammy for 3 years now and absolutely love it. Sometimes 3rd party lenses are the way to go.

Dorman wrote in post #8370697
While I at one time had a very nice performing Tamron 17-50 F/2.8, I've had two 28-75 F/2.8's that were abysmal at or near wide open. My most recent tamron 28-75 was not usable until F/4 - F/5.6 which defeats the purpose of a F/2.8 zoom for me. I very much wanted it to be a decent performer as the range is good and the small size and weight is a pleasure, unfortunately it was not meant to be. Twice bitten I'm shy and won't be trying a third one.

You do see a lot of focusing issue threads around the 24-70L, especially back focusing @ 24mm. I've owned one brick and I found it to be absolutely stellar. Sharp (even wide open), best colors I've seen from a zoom, reliable. Too bad about the size/weight/hood you can wear as a hat. I truly regret trading the 24-70L, hindsight is 20/20.

^ A lovely story! Well, not lovely that your lenses didn't function properly but I am very glad you got a good 24-70 while it lasted! lol.

As I said, the first copy of the Tamron I had waaaay back in... uh.. 2005 I think was miserable. Every photo looked like there was a fog over the image. I dismissed it as me being a newbie and not knowing what I was doing until I asked my photography professor to try it and she said "Wargh!! Something's very wrong!"

I'm supposed to be cleaning but I'm sneaking around the house with my camera. Must... clean! Will post photos soon... depending on how long cleaning my abyss of a bedroom will take.

cdifoto wrote in post #8370634
A lot of people laud the Tamron until they get it in not-so-good light. That's when the micromotor is a let down.

So I hear. I never owned it.

I can agree with that. My Tamron's AF is not so accurate in light that requires ISO 1600 and f2.8. Neither is my Sigma 30 1.4, though. Strangely enough, my little Canon 18-55 seems to be my best focuser

This Tamron lens has a bit of a stigma that it can't seem to shake because the price is so low compared to 24-70L. Anyone who has one knows that it's awesome. It's just a shame that a low sticker price brings with it some skepticism.

I guess I'm one of the lucky ones because my 28-75 works good for me.

madhatter04 wrote in post #8370746
^ A lovely story! Well, not lovely that your lenses didn't function properly but I am very glad you got a good 24-70 while it lasted! lol.

As I said, the first copy of the Tamron I had waaaay back in... uh.. 2005 I think was miserable. Every photo looked like there was a fog over the image. "

Sounds like both of the ones I've bought and subsequently sold. They were really F/5.6 lenses for me. My 2nd Tamron experience was with the 17-50 which was a cracking good lens, razor sharp wide open. It rivaled the two 17-55 IS lenses I had after it.

That bad one didn't even look right at f/8. LoL. I remember posting the images on here way back when saying "Hey, I think there's something wrong..." and everyone responding "It's bad technique! Yer a newb!" Alright, back to cleaning so I can finally post.

I just ordered the 28-75 because the canon is just too much money for me. I hope I get a great copy too. I should have it next week.