Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 slow AF annoyed you?

Yes the lens is a mixed bag on AF performance.
Yes indoors and low light is not this lenses strong suit.
Yes I have used it - extensively. Tens of thousand of frames.
Yes I have used the EF-S 17-55 and the 24-105 L as well.
Yes this lens is about $350 US.
Yes this makes it a bargain.
Yes this lens competes very well optically with lenses 2-3x it's cost.
Yes you notice the difference in performance when you use expensive glass.
Yes you can flip on a bunch of lights and use a canon flash for af assist.

Yes, it's probably not wise to go from a kit lens to a $1,000 lens.

If you are going to wear the lens out with heavy usage over the next year or 3, it makes good sense to get the best you can afford.

If it's a weekly , biweekly or monthly excercise then that $700 is probably spent elsewhere. A good printer for example.

Yes, you probably won't listen to any of this.

Yes you will probably be happy either way.

I am the great one and I approved this message. Hope it helps.

D

It really depends. Most wedding shooters don't find it slow. It isn't ring usm, but it isn't going to be a handicap for this type of use.

If you are shooting sports, however, forget it. It is not going to cut it. Children running, etc, is too fast for this lens. Best get a 24-70L or 24-105L for that.

"Slow" or "fast" is a relative term depending on usage. Some birders don't complain about the 100-400L having "slow" AF. I don't, but I am not a birder. But there are others who find it "slow." Understandable too, if the birder wants BIF. Then the 100-400L is slow.

--
--------------------

• Caterpillar

'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

I have this lens and I've been very happy with it. I haven't had much chance to shoot a lot of sports as I just got the camera and lens and the only sport I had to shoot was baseball which it really doesn't do well (too short). We took it to Disneyland and I was impressed with it's low light abilities. I took some very nice shots of the Aladdin show at California Adventure in low light and iso 1600 with no flash.

I haven't had the pleasure of using a USM lens but I can imagine that I would get much faster focusing with one, but I came from the P&S world so I think it's great.

Absorb the feedback and take one additional note. Look at how many people have this lens. Definitely focus speed is an issue but I don't believe there is anybody (outside of those with a bad copy) that would argue that the IQ isn't superb and that it's a very good value.

As a straight replacement for the kit lens, the Tammy 17-50 should be ideal.

You might also consider getting an external flash if you don't have one already, a 430EX or something. Then set a custom function on the camera so that the flash gives you AF assist but DOES NOT FIRE. That way you will get fast and accurate autofocus combined with natural-light photography; the best of both worlds. This depends on there actually being enough light in the room for natural-light photography of course

I used this lens recently at my Son's wedding. I took several shots inside the church (800iso 1/30, f2.8) and many at the reception and I didn't notice any problems with slow focussing. I haven't used it for any sports or fast moving subject yet so can't comments on how it will react in those situations.

Slow AF or not, Tamron worked fine for me until I got child last summer. I was even happy with it. Now Tamron lies in the box, 24-105 replaced it in March this year after I got tired of soft pictures. In my case, the price for soft images simply raised too high.

Yes, at 17mm I do get some front focus, It doesn't seem to be as bad as I've read about in other lenses. With group shots I use a smaller aperature so it also helps a little...

My tamron 28-75 is sharp at f2.8

If you want to shoot indoors, with no flash then I'd suggest the 28mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2 and maybe the 50mm f/1.8 / 1.4 primes. From experience chasing my 2 year old boy, the 50mm is too long for close-quarters shooting indoors.

The 28mm and 35mm are wider and as fast as the 50mm f/1.8. They would be more useful.

f/2.8 is not fast enough for moving kids, IMHO.

However, I will say that the Tamron (in my case 17-50) paired to the 430EX works very well indoors on kids.

Good luck!

king_arthur said:

Hi,

For those who read my other thread knew I am heavily considering this
lens to replace my Kit. Loved the overall review, don't mind the
range (Zoom & price) but two thing bugs me: slow AF and bad copies.
The later I can only cross my finger. Do you have experience with
this lens and it's slowness? I am taking pics of my baby girl in the
house. Low light, no Flash, she moves a lot. I have 430EX but I need
the camera to be ready ALL the time so external flash is not
practical. That's the reason I pick this one over others (around the
price). f/2.8 should be handy in the house.

Some people terms of "slow" are very different. Do you think I'll be
affected for my purpose? Thanks for any comments and samples.

k.a

Click to expand...

--
Peter Chung

I had the same Tamron lens, and changed bodies from the 300D to the 30D, and the lens seemed to focus much better/faster. I can't quantify it, but it did feel faster (or maybe I am getting slower

The AF on the 30D is alot better than the 300D, and I believe will take advantage of wider aperture f/2.8 for focusing as well (on the center point anyway).

Indulis Bernsteins said:

I had the same Tamron lens, and changed bodies from the 300D to the
30D, and the lens seemed to focus much better/faster. I can't
quantify it, but it did feel faster (or maybe I am getting slower

Click to expand...

--
Peter Chung

Wow, I'm very surprised about that. Anyone else think the 17-50 is a better choice over 28-75??? The only reason I don't go with that one is the range that is close to Kit lens. I don't have problem shooting with kit lens outdoor. I guess it's beneficial for me to try different range to see if I'm more of a wide lens guy or a long lens maniac

Thanks everyone.

k.a

That I don't know as I don't own a 5D. The 400D (I've got that one) shares the same AF from the 30D. I'd imagine that the 5D would be as good or better to AF with.

The Tamron 17-50 is newer than the 28-75, but is for cropped cameras only whereas the 28-75 can be used on FF and Cropped cameras. I'd suggest trying each one out and see which one works better for you.

king_arthur said:

Wow, I'm very surprised about that. Anyone else think the 17-50 is a
better choice over 28-75??? The only reason I don't go with that one
is the range that is close to Kit lens. I don't have problem shooting
with kit lens outdoor. I guess it's beneficial for me to try
different range to see if I'm more of a wide lens guy or a long lens
maniac

Thanks everyone.

k.a

Click to expand...

--
Peter Chung

Jep, could be. It was way too late, however, to return the lens when I finally noticed the problem.

king_arthur said:

That's the reason I pick this one over others (around the
price). f/2.8 should be handy in the house.

Click to expand...

While the Tamron's AF speed is 'ok', it does suffer a bit under low light conditions. On my 300D it is a bit slower than my 20D, and outdoors it's alright... but NOT made for TRACKING action. For general purpose photography, no worries. For action/tracking, it can't keep up compared to truly fast AF performer (like a Canon 85/1.8, for example).

Also, make sure you understand just how much light f/2.8 can really gather. Unless your home is extremely well lit, you'll find yourself up against ISO1600 in order to obtain hand-holdable shutter speeds, indoors. For most indoor (non-pro sports lighting) venues, f/2.8 isn't as fast as you'll practically need. No doubt, it's better than getting stuck at f/4, but it's only on the cusp of being very useful, so don't get your hopes up too high that f/2.8 will satisfy, in a significant way, your desire to shoot indoors without flash.

-m

Hmmmm... After reading all comments I'm a bit confused now. The Tammy is still on top of my list (second with the 17-50). It really makes me wonder, Is there anything else out there? Canon 17-50 f/2.8 is sweet but so expensive

Thanks all

k.a

As a general rule all 3rd party makers AF is going to be a bit slower than it's canon equiv. If you are going to spend MOST of your time indoors the 17-50 range will get more play than the 28-75 - you just run out of room trying to take a picture of the family grouped shoulder to shoulder 4-5 across....

In your kitchen.

The Sigma/Tamron 17/18-50 f/2.8's are both great choices for the money.

I find you dont get a LOT of play in the 50-80 range. Whatever shot you would have composed at 75mm is do-able at 50mm.

Just foot zoom yourself in a bit.

Hope this helps.

I bought it as an alternative to my 24-70L which is quite fast for AF. When I need that (seldom, in truth), I use the L, when I want to carry a very good lens for IQ that is small, lighter--just not quite as wide--I settle on the 28-75. I will continue to use the L on tripod, when I want wider than 28, when I need a faster AF---but generally use the 28-75 more. Glad I bought it this Spring--I just really didn't expect it to have such good IQ or I probably would have bought it sooner--but I still love my 24-70 smile .

Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries

Re> After reading all comments I'm a bit confused now.

Not surprising, because picking lenses is complicated, and it keeps getting worse.

Beware of unrealistic expectations.

One of the megatives of digital photography is the belief of newcomers that equipment is magical.

Light is light, and optics are optics, and sensor speed, while miraculous, is still not the saviour of all photographs.

Before you go buying, spend some time "looking at the light" and this may help.

Indoors, once you get away from areas lit from the windows, look at how dull and non-contrasty the light is.

When you are shooting in very low contrast light, there's no sparkle to the shots, and they just look dull.

And use your current camera/lens combo to measure the light in various places around the house.

Set your camera at ISO 800 and set the camera at Aperture priority and f4, and then go point the camera everywhere you might want to shoot.

Whatever shutter speeds show up in your viewfinder are the shutter speeds you's use at f2.8 whent he camera is set to ISO 400.

This will let you get an idea of what shutterspeeds, and thus how easy it is to handhold the camera, if you bought a f2.8 lens.

As for autofocus speed -- we managed to get along for years without autofocus. Newcomers think perfectly accurate autofocus is a given; experienced photographers think autofocus is a great bonus, but still needs human control.

Which brings us back to unrealistic expectations -- it really is asking a lot to have autofocus track a kid with smooth skin and nothing really to focus on, in low contrast light, in the dim inside of a house, shooting at an aperture with no depth of field.

But you might be pleasantly surprised at how easy it is to manually focus on a kid.

Regardless, shooting in lousy light is a challenge.

Pick a non-zoom lens (get a 35mm f2, a 50mm f1,.8, and an 85mm f1.8 to cover more or less the 28-75mm range) and the extra f stop woill make it easier to focus, but it won't solve depth of field problems, and it won't solve flat lighting problems.

The differences between autofocus speeds is miniscule -- how often these differences matter is a good question. I'm not sure a crawling baby is a problem, although you'd be better off getting the kid to decent light, or bringing decent light to the kid.

Photographing a dog running toward you is one of those times it's worth spending extra for high speed autofocus, but the baby is a lot slower than that.

As for the 28-75 Tamron -- I'm thinking of buying one becausae it seems bargain priced, because Photography Monthly magazine gave it a great rating in a multi-lens test (including the Canon 15-55 f2.8), and the focal length selection seems very good on my XT for portraits of doags and their humans.

BAK