such utter nonsense. If the current Nikon or the tamron lens aren't making magically perfect photos for you it's not the equipment-- it's the photographer with the problem. If it's all about razor edge sharpness then use software like NIK Sharpener Pro. Jeezus ... there are complete amateurs shooting brilliant photos with far less high-end glass that aren't sitting around waiting for the perfect lens, camera, etc. Just go shoot with what you have and quit believing it's all about the gear.

Neither one is making magically perfect photos for me because I have neither. I know it's nonsense because that was the point of my post. Jeezus.

There is a big difference between 28 and 24 mm so I don't think this lens should be compared to the 28-75 at all — they are of different categories.

The 28-75 was designed many years ago before the advent of high mp FF DSLRs. It's a decent performer on APS-C, but on a modern FF body, the edge and corners are not great. APS-C shooters would be better served by the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. FF users by the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8, the Sigma 24-70 or Nikon / Canon 24-70 f/2.8.

Photozone writes: "The Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP is a stellar lens when used on APS-C DSLRs but things aren't all that rosy anymore on a high MP full format DSLR."

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/418-tamron_2875_28_5d

The 28-75s edge and corner performance is impacted more by focus field curvature than softness. I don't think the review sites really test for that. Bad for taking pictures of brick walls, but in real world shooting its not as big of an issue.

That me laugh. Nice comment. :D

Can't wait for the dinosaurs to be left behind by the ones that we consider now "third party". Even if I'm a Canon guy, I'd enjoy a 2015 when a humorless chap would come with some statistic like:

*Market share 2015:*
Canon 5%
Nikon 5%
Others combined 10%
Innovative guyz 80%

Bah... No chance for that to happen, as long as there are people to slavishly buy Cloud licenses and throw double the money on "brand name" lenses that don't feature even things that are common for third party.

Your take, obviously, was perfectly diagnosed by yourself: no idea.
My take is based on testing them all, working in a photo equipment shop, seeing service operations and measurements for half a ton of lenses and... Oh, sorry, you were just in love with your brand! Then yes, I have no idea; I love some results given by various pieces of engineering, but I don't know hot to love the actual objects that much. Sorry for finding faults on your sweetheart :P

I have it for my 5DIII and love it. I haven't used either canon equivalent, so I can't speak to the AF speed comparison, but I feel it focuses plenty fast for me.

this "slow auto-focus" stuff is crap, and yet so many buy into it in search of the Holy Grail. "Slow" auto-focus by today's standards in equipment costing thousands of dollars is defined in milliseconds, which means it's not noticeable to humans. That is, until you read some whiner's internet post of pure speculation suggesting that such-n-such lens has slower AF than xyz brand or model. Then suddenly it's burned into your subconscious mind and you start believing that drivel. A professional will get spectacular results from something like this Tamron without seeking out test data that shows it being .0001 second slower to focus than something else. Good composition takes time -- someone who needs to throw his camera into a shot with the shutter already firing (aka professional sports/wildlife/photojournalist) can still get sharp shots with non-IS lenses and last-gen technology, so why amateurs make such a huge deal over this is ridiculous.

DPReview explanation:
"Slightly less-fast autofocus than Canon or Nikon equivalents (but far from slow)"

Anything but slow, you must have a bad copy

I couldn't agree more. The whole point of buying the Nikon version is 2.8 and lightning-fast AF. Lose either of those and no dice...sorry just not worth the money. I'd rather the price of the Nikon.

Frankly this bothers me in so many camera and lens reviews....AF speed and accuracy is almost an afterthought. It should be equally as important as image quality or mega-pixels because it determines whether you get the shot or not!!!

Curious. we all agree that AF is slowER than Canon II, but how can you call it slow?? I have the Canon fit and it is very fast, in line with what reviews say.

@mias78

The Tamron is fast enough and not that much slower than the canon/Nikon. Just look at the f-stopers video review of it. People are just trying to find a way to justify their emotional decision to stick with the more expensive Nikon/Canon versions.

Go to the Fuji forum. Some trolls there cry bloody murder while pixel peeping at 400%

Infrared, that's twice you are trying to make DPR accountable for others. Think with your head.

Then why aren't the Sony or Pentax mount lenses less costly. Why not put OIS in the lens and the user can choose to turn off in-camera shake reduction.

Gesture, i agree, sensor shift shines more at the telephoto end vs the wider side of lenses. So having the choice is good.

Gesture,

Nobody is looking to do you a favor. They are trying to sell product for as much as they can get for it.

As an Olympus DSLR user, I had to pay twice what Nikon, Canon, etc. users had to pay for the Sigma 70-300, when it was rebadged and sold as an Olympus lens. Why? Because on Olympus the 70-300 was 140-600 equivalent.

Nobody at Sony is thinking, "Is it FAIR to charge the same price for a non-stabilized lens as a stabilized lens?" Nor are they losing sleep over it, so please don't you lose sleep over it either.

Because the OIS-disabled version only accounts for a fraction of the overall production and have to be fitted with something to compensate for the missing OIS elements.

Why don't they just sell the OIS version to SONY and Pentax users? Because some technologically inclined photographers (most people) will leave the OIS on and got blurry shots and blame the lens. Bad publicity travels fast.

It's all relative. This lens is clearly competing against Canon and Nikon's respective 24-70mm lenses, which are priced at $2000.

Thus, relatively speaking, $1300 is cheap. (Plus it has vibration compensation).

@Josh152

You are correct of course (about glue being used by Canon (and others too)).

However, the difference is one doesn't come across reports (well, I never have) of Canon or Nikon front elements fall off inside the lens barrel because the glue didn't work (as has been the case with Tamron; which just adds to the perception of "cheap" alternative and "cheap" in the negative sense).

Regards,
plevyadophy

Just go a flickr and search for the Tamron lens under groups. You will find a group for the lens with many shots posted and you can see for yourself how it compares. I did and I can tell you now it is indistinguishable from the Canon and Nikon lenses.

If you are colorblind, then its maybe indistinguishable from Canikon. Most people are to certain degree, photographers included.

Tho as question was about colors, no its not Canon or Nikon, but colors are good. Better than Tamron had before. I think thats good enough. Anyway, you can make color profile to match it to Canon or Nikon lens, if you are bothered by natural colors from that lens.

Contrast seems ok, its better than before too.

Overall, probably one of best lens Tamron made so far.

@Josh152

The Nikon 24-70 has a solid metal barrel that most expect from a professional grade lens. Same with the Canon 24-70, AFAIK, whereas the Tamron uses mostly high quality plastics, so I don't think it's quite correct to say that build quality is just as good.

Also, APS-C buyers looking for a longer standard zoom option at the expense of the wide end could consider it.
36mm equivalent is still somewhat wide, and being able to get to 105mm equivalent could be useful. I've seen quite a few APS-C users running around with the Tamron 28-75...

Because I almost NEVER shoot in the 18-24 range (I have an 18-105 lens), and the Nikon 24-120 F4 is too slow for that much $$$. Vast majority of my shots using the 18-105, are 24mm and above.

And for the umpteen times that blogs, reviews, and message board folk state "but APS-C users should buy the 17-50 instead!" I say BULLHOCKEY! :) If I shot wide very often, I would use a dedicated WA lens like a 10-22 or something. And 50mm is just way too limiting on the long end IMO. If I were shooting around 50, I would just use my 50mm prime and get a sharpness and speed boost.

The 24-70 puts me in a range that I personally shoot almost all the time. I would even prefer 24-85 or 90, just for a little more reach, but hey, just glad we have this option!

Yeah a lens in this zoom range coupled with something like a 10-24 is a popular kit for an APS-C DSLR. Especially among those who have aspirations of going FF one day.

When I had my Olympus film cameras my standard lens was a 35-105 Zuiko zoom. It was a very sharp lens but this was 30 years ago!

As such I tend to agree on aps-c starting at 36mm equivalent limits the appeal.

What I don't understand though is not is aps-c application but why full frame users like lenses like this that stop at 70mm.

When standard zooms first came out you even got 35-70 lenses simply because it was hard optically to make one with a wider range but again this was 30 years ago.

Why is the 70mm "long" end a standard these days? 85mm was considered the minimum for portraits so surely something like a 28-85 or 28-90 would be far more useful leaving wider to something like a 20mm prime?

I agree with BJN, why would an APS-C shooter purchase a standard zoom that starts at 36mm-38mm for $1300 when they when there are far less expensive with great optics that start at 26mm-28mm, depending on whether you shoot Nikon / Pentax / Sony (1.5 X crop) or Canon (1.6 X crop)?

70-200mm lenses are kind of nice on APS-C for the added reach. Standard zooms are not at all nice because you lose the wide end. This is a FF lens with limited appeal for APS-C shooters. Not to mention the fact that it has a huge 82mm front filter thread making it large for smaller APS-C cameras.