Tamron 27-75 Arrived... first impressions

Let me summarize...... Arrrgggghhhh!!!!

Now that I have that off my chest... let me set the stage - it is an overcast day today...and the light is usually bright here so I normaly shoot ISO 100. Today I forgot to drop the ISO due to the conditions. This impacted the quality of the stopped down images because of...

1) I learned my tripod sucks - need to replace it before my trip in a couple of weeks.
2) I need a remote release - would love to know if these off brand ones work as well as the Conan ones - huge price difference.
3) IS really helps in situations like this. Wish this lens had it.
4) as a novelty - just to be different - this lens sems to be front focusing. Go Figure.
5) the lens seems soft - but that may be because of number 4....
6) Focus speed is as slow as the old bang around 28-200 Tamron I gave son which is many years old. I think I may be spoiled by USM and HSM.
7) Because of 1 + 2 and 4 I need to go reshoot some different subject matter in better light - and then I will post some examples.
8) I hate the timing of this because I just posted in a thread that people should not overlook 3rd party lenses. Dang! Common Tamron - don't let me down...

On the positive - the colors are better then my previous Tamrons. Contrast is good too. No complaints there.

I am attaching one photo just to show you what I am talking about. The camera indicated it was locked on to the gears of the center wheel. While there is a single blade grass sticking up in the area near the focus point - I can't beleive that for once this camera correctly picked this out as it is famous for giving me beautiful images of the chain link fences and the bleachers that surround soccer fields...

So I will head off again to give the lens a second chance... Need to make sure it was not operator error.

Cheers.

Given all the many possible issues that could impact on this image I'm not sure I'd have posted it and then implied the lens has a problem. I think it's more useful to make sure you check everything out first. There are enough people posting 'never touch a third party lens' because of imagined issues as it is!

At least you're heading off for another go, so best of luck.

Maybe it's front focusing because you have the special edition 27-75 one, that is 1mm wider than everybody else in the world

Just kidding with you.
I have this lens and love it, give it some time and do some more tests before making a final decision on it.

Yeah, you really need to go, and shoot more with it.
You need to get used to the lens. I know there are some times that I would hit the focus button (AFL) twice or so, so the lens will lock where I want it to..
As for IS... Bah..
I don't need no stinking IS... less on a big lens ... LOL.... j/k

I just got one for ~$13 shipped off of ebay, and it works great! I don't see how the Canon branded one could work any better. I'd assume the Canon is more durable than this one, as it feels kind of flimsy, but it works like a charm, and at that price, I can replace it without much distress if it ever breaks.

Okay - spent sometime in the yard during lunch and it did (or I did) better. While these lack in artistic quality... I am getting the feel a little better and making me feel better about this. Attached are a couple of shots both at f2.8 this time with ISO 400 so shutter speeds are better too. One is a 100% crop shot at 75mm. The other is just a normal point and shoot at 28mm at 2.8. This lenses sweet spot seems to be between f6 and f11 where it really shines.

As with most lenses, stop the aperature down a bit if you want the sharpest pictures that lense can take. Most lenses are soft at their widest aperature. Hopefully there's enough light to do that

I'm no expert but they good to me!!!

Jackal - thanks - actually this lens seems to have the best colors between f6 and f11. I have heard that some of Tamrons lenses tended to be soft wide open so that what I was testing for. I am going to test it against my other 2.8 lenses that hit 70mm tomorrow just to compare. But thanks for the advice.

One last Pic..... I am feeling better now. But seriously from the Canon only crowd.. what would I expect to be better if I were to exchange this for the 17-40L. I would be giving up one stop but getting much faster focusing. Optically, from what you see here in these first few shots - would spending the money give me dramatically optically more reliable results? The options are keep this lens and add a super wide prime - or swap this out for a 17-40L. I would prefer to stay fast in the mid range if I could learn to work with it's strengths - unless the 17-40l would not require the same learning curve. Thanks.

Ill do a comparison for you between 28-75/24-70/17-40

First build and design:

The hood and cap on the Tamron are fantastic, they seem more rugged then the Canon ones. I just wish there was some felt on the inside. The filter size is also better on the Tamron.
Size and weight the Tamron also wins, the 17-40 is nice but its supposed to be small...........So it's a tie between the 28-75 and 17-40 here. The Tamron is probably he smallest and lightest of all lenses in its range. Build quality is better on the Canon lenses. The Tamron is plasticy, but not a cheap plasticy feel. It has a tough build to it, but it still feels like plastic. Tamron does have a rep for poor QC at times, although it has calmed down, maybe they took notice?

Conclusion, I have to say that although Tamron is plasticy and can be flawed at times, it's other features give it the slight edge.

Quality and performance:

This where you see why you pay the extra money for L lenses. Both Canons wide open are sharper then the Tamron, not by much, but are slightly better. Within their sweet spots, they are almost all identically sharp, good on Tamron's part, because of its much lower price. Tamron produces cool and sometimes pale images while you get warm saturated ones from the Canon's, the 17-40 is the best at it here, closely followed by the 24-70, but they both lap the Tamron, twice. Honestly distortion isn't an issue. There is some, but for their focal lengths they all perform quite superb.
Bokeh on all lenses are acceptable, the Canon's win by a small margin.

Focusing. Well, we might as well not mention the Tamron here, it can't compare to the L's let alone a nifty fifty. The 24-70 is fastest and most accurate. The 17-40 is very nice as well, but on the rare occasion might hunt. The Tamron is smooth, but it's horrendously slow, loud if you care, and hunts alot. I give it credit for one thing, it focuses right once it catches the subject, if it ever gets there.
You also don't get FTM, but a begger can't be a chooser, dude you didn't pay that much.

Conclusion, it's a shoot-out between the heavyweight Canon's and a lonely skinny little featherweight who sometimes throws a punch if he can get his arms up.

Price:

Tamron - Great
17-40- Great for what you are getting
24-70 - If you are looking for the best in its class, you gotta live with it, it's probably not worth its price tag, but it out performs everything in its class.

What to get, If money was no object, buy the 24-70, it's the best of the group. The 17-40 is very much worth the price tag and if you are looking for consistent high performance, its one of the best bang for the buck lenses. The Tamron, is it worth it? yes. You get every penny worth for $300 you spent, but you only get a $300 lens. $300 is a lot of money, but in the photography world will get you a little more then a slice of bread. The Tamron fills the niche of the amateur on a budget who wants sharpness, it wont give you anything else, it's convenient and sharp. The pictures wont pop and scream "look at me" unless you up the saturation by 25 points and warm the image up. It will have a hard time focusing on anything that moves or isn't wearing a shirt with scribble all over it.

Cheers

thanks.... I am going to end up spending a grand either way. I spend 80% of my time shoot at 100mm plus. I should own stock in Sigma and Canon so I could recoup at least a little I have invested in those companies. This lens is very much a casual use lens. I travel the world and it will come with me - but a lot of these places I will not be getting back to so I want the shots to work. There is no chance to run back over there and retake - it has be to right once. I am thinking of adding the 17-40 L and let the two duke it out. I have an 85 1.8 and a 50 1.4... so I don't need the upper range. Thanks for the well explained and unbiased recommendation - it is really appreciated. Hopefully I will be able to return the favour someday. Cheers!

Just to show that the lens can perform beautifully (even my "faulty" lens).

Went to the plant nursery (or whatever you call it) to see what flowers, bushes and tree's I want for our house. This flower sure made me feel good... love the colors and thinking of getting it plus some purple ones to make it stand out even more.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

That plant really is alive ... a lesser lens would portray it as dull and one dimensional. Good lenses certainly have an ability to show 3D. Nice one!

Petra - beautiful shot. I went and did some shooting at the local farmes market today and I am getting more comfortable. Compared the the older Tamron lens I gave my son it absolutely has better color saturation and contrast - vast improvements. Your picture also shows this too. It is the focusing I was a little disappointed in. I have a large canon prime and it is really quick and accurate - but for the price I paid I expected it. What suckered me was the Sigma 70-200 HSM I bought recently. It is nearly as fast as the Canon Prime - and quieter. If a shot is out of focus it is my fault from movement on my side. And everything is in it's sweet spot - the only softness is at 70mm at 2.8. I guess I got my expectations up a little too high. And the reviews warned me too. This lens is just causing me to slow down and be a little more deliberate. It is not a bad lens. In fact - for the money - it is a very good lens. The difference here is I didn't need to learn how to make the Sigma sing.... the Tamron and I are having to learn how to be in the same key - but we will get there. I am still not going to spend $1200 on a walk around zoom. I will go to a couple of primes first. Thanks for the shot - it is wonderful.