it's a very good lens, sharp at large apertures, doesn't vignette too much. However, as it gets used, the plastic build suffers a bit, at least on my copy, the background blur got uneven, and even the sharpness of the subject was sometimes not as good as I remembered when I bought it.
I take care of my gear, I didn't bang that lens around a lot... I just used it for 2 years.
AF can be tricky at 28mm, I remember it front-focused often at wideangle.
The rubber band on the zoom ring get loose quite fast, and it can't be cured... unless you use double sided tape (funny but true).
It's very light, I miss that on my 24-70. But shooting at 24mm is nice so I accept the compromise.
It's basically optically very good, sharpest at it's long end. I've used one since my D30, and it's still going strong with my 1DII. I could get a canon 24-70, but every time I try one I realise that i'm not really gaining anything optically, and that i'm not really limited by the Tamron.
So yes, a good buy. I also use one on my Eos 3 and it works very nicely full frame. I'd say for the money, and the fact that the Tamron guarantee is very good (7 years if I remember correctly) you can't go wrong with it.
I g;anced at some "standard zoom" lens tests from the British magazine Photogrpahy Monthly earlier today, and the Tamron 28-75 got a very positive review compared to anything -- best on offer was the Sigma 18-55.
Cesare Ferrari wrote:
It's basically optically very good, sharpest at it's long end. I've
used one since my D30, and it's still going strong with my 1DII. I
could get a canon 24-70, but every time I try one I realise that i'm
not really gaining anything optically, and that i'm not really
limited by the Tamron.
I have owned the 24-70L since Dec. 2002 when it came out. I love the lens--but its big, heavy, obtrusive. I bought the Tamron 28-75 last Spring. I admit I use it 90% of the time. Today I was selecting lenses for a day trip to the NC mts and pulled out the 24-70L. Then I went back and got the Tammy--there is so little difference in IQ (at some FL the Tammy is sharper corner to corner) and the L 'may' be a bit more contrasty--but I shoot RAW--so its moot. The L AF faster in low light--and its build is 'slighter' (though for may circumstances this is better), but I can't tell the difference in my processed RAW shots. If I'm going to shoot low light I generally carry a fast prime anyhow--but the TAmmy will AF--just slower.
So yes, a good buy. I also use one on my Eos 3 and it works very
nicely full frame. I'd say for the money, and the fact that the
Tamron guarantee is very good (7 years if I remember correctly) you
can't go wrong with it.
probably asked already a few times.. but anyway..
how does the cheap tamron 28-75mm f2.8 compares against the canon
24-70mm? It's for using on a 5d, not crop camera.
i haveused the tamron, i have not used the 24-70L, but from what I have read and seen, etc. etc. I would say that the L focuses much more quickly and probably more accurately, the L has better contrast, only rare copies of the L are actually as sharp or sharper than the tamron, the L weighs a ton more and is much larger and costs waaaay more.
for indoor basketball under the net the L 100% for sure, otherwise is the extra 4mm at the wide and a bit better contrast (for quite possibly slightly worse sharpness even) worth many hundreds of dollars more??
The 28-75 is the workhorse lens on my XT. I'm quite pleased with the build quality of mine; not having had any of the negative issues mentioned earlier here.
Absolutely no problems with it. Produces excellent images.
I am very happy with my Tamron 28-75. I still have "L glass envy" when I am around pros, but I couldn't justify the price difference for my casual use.
I love the relatively small size for a f/2.8 lens.
I wore out a Canon 20D with my Tamron 28-70 as my main walk around lens (several years of constant use and over 100,000 images). Still going strong (light, bright, and sharp) on my 40D now. Even if it were to gradually die, I could buy at least 2 more before I'd have caught up in price with a comparable Canon lens.
at this point i've pretty much gone all L, EXCEPT at the 17-50 and 28-75 range where I am tamron (and 50mm and macro), if I stick APS-C this won't change, if I go FF, it might not change either although I might give the 24-105 a look.
in fact, I even went from L TO tamron in this range dumping my 17-40L.
I am very happy with my Tamron 28-75. I still have "L glass envy"
when I am around pros, but I couldn't justify the price difference
for my casual use.
I love the relatively small size for a f/2.8 lens.
T2875 is my most used lens on Kodak SLR/c. Th image quality is superb. If hand held, there is no need to go for any prime in its range. If you want better image quality, go for prime + tripod.
However, I find I'm more and more wanting a Canon 24-70 or a 24-105. When traveling, often 24mm is very desirable. Also, when tripod is not welcomed, IS is in need. I've tried Sigma 24-70 DG MACRO, but returned it for a serious focusing problem, also the image quality is inferior when shooting range is less than 3M.
The problem of canon 24-70 and 24-105 is the price.
As far as the plastic issue, I'd say don't worry. You need a very special working habit to make that a real problem. If you've really developed that habit, believe me, you'd have broken your camera(s) before broken the lens, yes, any modern digital camera.
By the way, get a 50mm/1.4 no matter what. You want the speed? you want the bokeh? That's the best answer.
I bought a 28-75 a week ago, my sample hunts like crazy at 75 mm, almost no matter what lightconditions and contrast I let it AF on. If I zoom out just a little, to maybe 70mm, the AF works well. My testshots have been generally nice and sharp, but they seem to miss on exposure quite a bit, with maybe 30% of the shots underexposed (I have shot with a 1DII in P mode) I see one comment mentioning AF inconsistency at 28mm, mine is very good there...
Should I send it in for service?
Never owned the Canon but I recently bought the Tamron.
I can only speak for my copy. It has better IQ than the copies Photozone tested.
It is very sharp wide open at all focal lengths, incuding 28mm, but does have a problem, under certain conditons, at 75mm. It does not focus accurately at the long end, from medium distances to infinity. At first I thought it was just soft at 75mm f2.8 but after a great deal of devising tests to isolate the problem, I am sure it is misfocussing. I recently put it on a tripod and AF'd on a church steeple about a mile away, then took the same shot, using Liveview to manually focus a second shot. Both on a 40D, both with very high shutter speeds. The second shot was clearly better and actually very sharp.
btw... the focussing issue is completely masked by stopping down to f4 which led me to think it was just soft at the long end.
It doesnt hunt at all... in the short 3 weeks I have had it, under all kinds of lighting, it hasn't hunted once.
Assuming the problem can be fixed without messing up the already first rate IQ, this lens is going to be very very hard to beat at any price.
I am going to send it for calibration in a month or so, once it gets colder and I am less apt to be shooting.
I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Mine is very sharp at all focal length and aperture. Light compared to Canon's 24-70L, but build quality is (as expected) not as good.
I won't sell if for twice its price - it's that good.
I used to have 3 good copies of T28-70 with Nikon mount (to fit FF Kodak SLR/n and SLR 14n) and 2 copies with Canon mount (to complement 5Ds).
Very good lens (sharp,contrasty,lightweight,built quality acceptable for the price) provided you didn't spot a badly assembled copy (I chose those 3+2 from 7+5 tested)
Try it first on you camera before you buy.Good luck.
|Splash by rajeev22675|
from This should win!
|a lost person by dalgo|
from - Fond Memories - (in BW Only)
|Cerulean Sukhoi by cjf2|
|Diver's Watch-2757 by vbuhay|