Any Tamron 28-75 users here?
I'm a Rebel XT shooter, and therefore a mere peon. But as a pretty satisfied user of the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, I couldn't help but read those comments about it being the poor man's Canon 24-70 L. So I wonder... how many of you actually DO use the Tamron on a 1D or 1Ds body? I'm just curious.
I have both the 28-75 tamron and canon 24-70 L 2.8. I primarily use the canon on the 1D and 1DsII and the tamron on the 20D. I have extensively compared the tamron to the canon on my 1DsII body and found very little difference in optical performance. Mechanically the canon wins but the tamron is a good lens mechanically. The only real optical differences are that the canon is very slightly sharper at the extreme corners and the tamron is a little better under back lit conditions. It handles flare a little better than the canon.
You'll find some camera snobs that turn their nose up about anything other than canon but don't listen to them. I don't thin some of them have even shot enough with either to make an honest evaluation. On the otherhand I own both and have shot thousands of frames professionally with both lenses and my clients have never known the difference.
I have the tamron lens and I think optically it's just great. However, the zoom ring has a long throw and is a bit stiff which I don't like. Also, while the focus is ok it's not nearly as accurate or as fast as USM. For most things this isn't a problem, but for fast moving action or sports you just can't beet USM focusing.
Of course when you factor in price, all the little problems can be ignored. It certainly is a great lens at a killer price.
Yes, it is an excellent lens and I have trouble telling a difference between that and my 17-40L, quality wise. I have not tried it with action shots per se, but it has done great with my 10D and my 1D M2. However images are softer when shot at full focal length, especially at wide open aperture (I frequently shoot at 2.8. Unless you test both that lens and the Canon L lens and see a difference worth noting, then I highly recommend that Tamron, regardless of what anyone else says.
Excellent lens. Especially when you consider the cost. I would probably rather have a 24-70L, but there is no way I can justify the difference in price.
A lot has been posted about good and bad copies of the Tamron. I must have lucked out. I tested mine against my 28mm Zeiss prime. I sold my CZ the next day. There wasn't enough of a difference (if there was any it was in the Tamrons' favor) to keep the CZ around.
I wish Tamron would come out with more primes....like a 21mm f/2.8 that would match the performance of the CZ.
J i m wrote:
Excellent lens. Especially when you consider the cost. I would
probably rather have a 24-70L, but there is no way I can justify
the difference in price.
A lot has been posted about good and bad copies of the Tamron. I
must have lucked out. I tested mine against my 28mm Zeiss prime. I
sold my CZ the next day. There wasn't enough of a difference (if
there was any it was in the Tamrons' favor) to keep the CZ around.
I wish Tamron would come out with more primes....like a 21mm f/2.8
that would match the performance of the CZ.
They really should take a leaf out Sigmas book and make the SP lens even better, by improving build and adding USM.
I have heard enough good reports on the Tamron to get one for my 1D2. Should be here tomorrow.
I had one with my D60 and used it for quite a while on my 1D Mk II. However, the action focus of the 1DMk II was too much for the Tamron. The lens is optically superb, but the USM focussing on the L lens is hard to beat. If only Canon would use that lens design with USM focus...
Don't anthropomorphize digital cameras. They don't like it.
My copy of the Tamron is quite astounding.
So much so that I let my 24-70L go because the Tamron ran rings around it optically.
I appreciate the " build quality" comments and whilst they are true I'm rather more concerned with the image quality.
I don't use my lenses as hand grenades so they're not gonna get a bashing.
I use a 28-75 on a 1DII and the optical quality is superb.
The only thing that bothers me some is the focus hunting. In low light situations, the focus can have problems to lock on the subject.
That's your camera, not your lens. Assuming two lenses have the same max aperature, lenses don't have anything to do with hunting in low light - focusing is the job of your camera's focusing system. Now comparing the Tamron to a USM 24-70, both will hunt in exactly the same situation but you'll probably notice the Tamron hunting more (it focuses a wee bit more slowly, and makes more noise).
I would concur with most here. The Tamron is fabulous value for money if you get a good copy. Unfortunately I had to return mine for calibration, but it came back spot on. I have a 24-70L also and its comparable optically to that. Been using it on the 1DSmkII and 10D. Superb results.
Thanks for the reply.
Problem is: in the same situation, the Canon 24-70L can LOCK on the subject.
The Tamron (wich I love) hunts and DOES NOT lock no matter how long I wait.
Same subject. Same light.
I use the 28-75 with my 1Ds and I am very happy. Not as nice as my 70-200 IS but it is just behind in terms of contrast and sharpness.
If I had to point out a negative it would be that focus is not as fast as my Canon and that the Tamron lens cap refuses to stay put.
Overall I would recommend it to anyone.
Whoops sorry, I just re-read the original message. I've never had problems in low light with my Tamron, but then again I haven't compared it side by side with a 24-70. Perhaps Canon lenses have some means of communicating better with the camera's focusing system?
The focussing mechanism needs contrast in order to function. This is why all lenses regardless of quality or price hunt on clear blues skies or flat walls of one color. I have found the Canon 24-70L to be a bit more contrasty than the Tamron and that, coupled with the way fast USM, gives it the edge.
Don't anthropomorphize digital cameras. They don't like it.
|Mig-17-1 by bbmach|
from Low Pass
|Rotting Gracefully by Mond|
from Natural Decay
|attic by wgjohnston|
from In the attic, or in the basement!
|Ox Bow Aspen by McFrost|
from cell phones - nature photographs