Tamron 28-75

I've been shooting with my non VC Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for about a year, and love the lens.

Recently, my wife bought me a 70-200 f4, and I love it even more.

Now I've put the Tamron back on for a shoot, I'm noticing it's very soft when wide open. I know it's "normal" behaviour for a cheaper lens, but I'm not sure I've noticed it before - or if it simply didn't exist.

Is it possible for this to get worse over time? Can anything be done to combat it?

Lens isn't like food.. it doesn't degrade over time by just sitting there.
If the lens was mishandled during usage/storage, sure it may become damaged/misaligned, but taking your wording, lens do not get worse over time just by sitting still.

You may notice it being a little soft because you've been using the 70-200mm f/4 as it is a very sharp lens even at f/4.

You should compare pics you've taken with the Tamron now and prior to getting the Canon and you will likely see similar results.

sangjiny wrote in post #11083528
Lens isn't like food.. it doesn't degrade over time by just sitting there.
If the lens was mishandled during usage/storage, sure it may become damaged/misaligned, but taking your wording, lens do not get worse over time just by sitting still.

You may notice it being a little soft because you've been using the 70-200mm f/4 as it is a very sharp lens even at f/4.

You should compare pics you've taken with the Tamron now and prior to getting the Canon and you will likely see similar results.

I wasn't really picturing it rotting away like food - just wondering out loud, I guess. I was quite disappointed with the softness of the f2.8 shots I took with it, and don't remember noticing it before (I'll check when I get home).

Thanks,

Lenses don't stop working or malfunction by just sitting around..

Most lenses aren't at their best wide open but stop them down a stop or two then things heat up..

You know, sometimes paying more money does get you a better product. That should not be terribly surprising. Better performance at maximum aperture is a big part of where that extra money goes, that plus the fact that a tele-tele zoom is technically simpler to build than a wide-tele zoom.

Is it soft because it missed focus? Might wanna check that bit.

Is the expectation level higher now due to the new 70-200? When I first got 70-200L f/4, I was surprised by the IQ when compared against 24-105L at the same FL.

OP: check your archive to see if there is an actual change or expectation change?

liupublic wrote in post #11088665
Is the expectation level higher now due to the new 70-200? When I first got 70-200L f/4, I was surprised by the IQ when compared against 24-105L at the same FL.

Surprised in which direction?

But remember that it's still technically easier to build a tele-tele zoom than a wide-tele zoom, and tele lenses in general are easier to build than a wide lens. So one should always expect IQ compromises when lenses or zooms dip below 50mm, given equivalent quality levels (Canon L compared to Canon L, Zeiss compared to Zeiss, et cetera)

I didn't get chance to export and get them online, but I've definitely got a big difference in quality between a wide open shot taken with my 7D and 28-75 Tammy in Feb, as compared to a shot taken this weekend. Focus shouldn't have been an issue, as I was switching from the Tammy to the 70-200 this weekend, with no other camera setting changes, and the 70-200 was sharp.

Tammy has been stored on a shelf when not in use, and certainly no rough or unusual usage that I know of.

I'll get some examples processed later this evening to demonstrate though ... make sure I'm not going crazy.

RDKirk wrote in post #11088728
Surprised in which direction?

But remember that it's still technically easier to build a tele-tele zoom than a wide-tele zoom, and tele lenses in general are easier to build than a wide lens. So one should always expect IQ compromises when lenses or zooms dip below 50mm, given equivalent quality levels (Canon L compared to Canon L, Zeiss compared to Zeiss, et cetera)

Picture IQ from 70-200L f/4 was significantly better than 24-105 at 70-105. Although I should not have been too surprised given the test results from various sites.

70-200L F/4 IS really makes other lens look bad. AF speed, IQ, IS, weight, size and build quality.

Any change in MA settings on the 7d? Or just readjust the focussing.

liupublic wrote in post #11089481
Picture IQ from 70-200L f/4 was significantly better than 24-105 at 70-105. Although I should not have been too surprised given the test results from various sites.

70-200L F/4 IS really makes other lens look bad. AF speed, IQ, IS, weight, size and build quality.

What "other" lenses are you referring to??

yogestee wrote in post #11092473
What "other" lenses are you referring to??

Comparing to 70-200L f4 IS,
70-300IS, 70-300DO IS, Sigma 70-200 f2.8, Tamron 70-200 f2.8 all come up just a bit short in term of IQ. Other lens have some technical advantages, but 70-200 f4 IS just has a great combination of things I prefer/need. Excellent IQ, light, great IS. It's small enough to fit in bag that I can take to the baseball game.

24-105L has impressive all around function as well, but ultimately IQ simply can't compare with 70-200 f4 IS at the same FL.

Do I wish I have a 70-200 2.8 IS II L lens? Of course, but I serious doubt that I will take it out nearly as much. Size/weight alone will force me to choose which lens to keep in the bag. Right now, all 4 of my lenses can stay in a back bag that I can hike for 3-4hrs along with my 3/5 yrs old.