Why didn't I get an L sooner?

[Doug Eddleman]

I just finished doing a quick "DavidP" cereal box test on my new Canon 28-70L to check for front, back focusing and to see how it performed at f2.8. Now this is how I would expect an L to perform! For kicks, I compared it to the lens I am replacing, a Tamron 28-300 3.5-4.5.

Both shots were taken on the tripod, mirror lockup, self-timer. The Canon was taken at f2.8, the Tamron was taken at f3.5. All I can say is HOLY COW! I knew the L would/should be better but I didn't expect it to be this much better. See for yourself below.

For all those contemplating skimping with a cheaper lens - you might want to think twice. I know I will never buy an inferior lens again - its just a waste of money.

Canon 28-70 f2.8



Tamron 28-300 f3.5



Doug

 

[elmo]

are you sure you were outside the Tamron's minimum focus distance? Wow.

I just finished doing a quick "DavidP" cereal box test on my new
Canon 28-70L to check for front, back focusing and to see how it
performed at f2.8. Now this is how I would expect an L to perform!
For kicks, I compared it to the lens I am replacing, a Tamron
28-300 3.5-4.5.

Both shots were taken on the tripod, mirror lockup, self-timer.
The Canon was taken at f2.8, the Tamron was taken at f3.5. All I
can say is HOLY COW! I knew the L would/should be better but I
didn't expect it to be this much better. See for yourself below.

For all those contemplating skimping with a cheaper lens - you
might want to think twice. I know I will never buy an inferior
lens again - its just a waste of money.

Canon 28-70 f2.8



Tamron 28-300 f3.5



Doug

 

[mikecol]

I just finished doing a quick "DavidP" cereal box test on my new
Canon 28-70L to check for front, back focusing and to see how it
performed at f2.8. Now this is how I would expect an L to perform!
For kicks, I compared it to the lens I am replacing, a Tamron
28-300 3.5-4.5.

Both shots were taken on the tripod, mirror lockup, self-timer.
The Canon was taken at f2.8, the Tamron was taken at f3.5. All I
can say is HOLY COW! I knew the L would/should be better but I
didn't expect it to be this much better. See for yourself below.

For all those contemplating skimping with a cheaper lens - you
might want to think twice. I know I will never buy an inferior
lens again - its just a waste of money.

Canon 28-70 f2.8



Tamron 28-300 f3.5



Doug

 

[Doug Eddleman]

are you sure you were outside the Tamron's minimum focus distance?
Wow.

Yep, took the picture at a 40mm, standing about 4 feet away. The reason I went L in the first place was that I started noticing that any picture I took below f8 looked blurry, no matter how high I set the ss. I am also starting to wonder if I have a bad copy, a friend of mine has the same lens has not had as much problems as me, but I'm not sure he ran a test like this.

Doug

 

[Nicholas J]

I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that Tamron picture was in focus. Are you sure? If it was then maybe you have a bad lens. It can't be that cr@p.
Can you post some more pictures taken with the tamron?

Nicholas

are you sure you were outside the Tamron's minimum focus distance?
Wow.

Yep, took the picture at a 40mm, standing about 4 feet away. The
reason I went L in the first place was that I started noticing that
any picture I took below f8 looked blurry, no matter how high I set
the ss. I am also starting to wonder if I have a bad copy, a
friend of mine has the same lens has not had as much problems as
me, but I'm not sure he ran a test like this.

Doug

 

[Doug Eddleman]

I do have a Canon 50mm f1.4 which I am very happy with, just my zoom was cheap. I never could narrow down the problem as most of the time I used the Tamron at f8 at which aperature it has acceptable sharpness. Whenever I got blurry pictures I assumed that it was hand shake or subject movement due to too slow of a shutter speed. The last session I took with the Tamron I used f5.6 with a ss of 1/200. I figured I get some decent sharp pictures with that fast of a ss. When I got the pictures downloaded to my computer they were almost all blurry. Hence, the search for a better lens wide open started and ended with my new 28-70L.

Doug

 

[Doug Eddleman]

Nicholas,

I was very suprised the first time I did a test on my Tamron at wide open. Judging by all the tests I have taken as well as actual photos I think there must be a problem with my lens, although without having multiple copies all I have to judge by is my particular lens.

Here is a crop from one of the blurry pictures that I took thinking that originally it was camera shake, but at a ss of 1/125 with a focal length of 50mm it should have been no problem. This was at f5.6.



Here is crop from the first test I performed a little while ago when I started suspecting that I had a problem (f4.0):



No matter what else I do, when I set the aperature lower than f5.6 I get really blurry pictures. With my 50mm, my Sigma 15-30, and now my Canon 28-70L I get very sharp photos.

Doug

Nicholas

are you sure you were outside the Tamron's minimum focus distance?
Wow.

Yep, took the picture at a 40mm, standing about 4 feet away. The
reason I went L in the first place was that I started noticing that
any picture I took below f8 looked blurry, no matter how high I set
the ss. I am also starting to wonder if I have a bad copy, a
friend of mine has the same lens has not had as much problems as
me, but I'm not sure he ran a test like this.

Doug

 

[WalterK]

I do have a Canon 50mm f1.4 which I am very happy with, just my
zoom was cheap. I never could narrow down the problem as most of
the time I used the Tamron at f8 at which aperature it has
acceptable sharpness. Whenever I got blurry pictures I assumed
that it was hand shake or subject movement due to too slow of a
shutter speed. The last session I took with the Tamron I used f5.6
with a ss of 1/200.

I don't think Tamron, as a manufacturer with a reasonably good rep, would sell a lens under their name that is as soft as your copy is at 5.6, or even wide open. Either something happened to the lens, or it was totally misaligned at the factory. The only other explanation I can think of is poor electrical communication through the lensmount contacts.

--
Walter K

 

[Nicholas J]

no way can the tamron be THAT bad. It has to be a bad copy. If I was you I'd send it back for a replacement.

Nicholas....

I was very suprised the first time I did a test on my Tamron at
wide open. Judging by all the tests I have taken as well as actual
photos I think there must be a problem with my lens, although
without having multiple copies all I have to judge by is my
particular lens.

Here is a crop from one of the blurry pictures that I took thinking
that originally it was camera shake, but at a ss of 1/125 with a
focal length of 50mm it should have been no problem. This was at
f5.6.



Here is crop from the first test I performed a little while ago
when I started suspecting that I had a problem (f4.0):



No matter what else I do, when I set the aperature lower than f5.6
I get really blurry pictures. With my 50mm, my Sigma 15-30, and
now my Canon 28-70L I get very sharp photos.

Doug

Nicholas

are you sure you were outside the Tamron's minimum focus distance?
Wow.

Yep, took the picture at a 40mm, standing about 4 feet away. The
reason I went L in the first place was that I started noticing that
any picture I took below f8 looked blurry, no matter how high I set
the ss. I am also starting to wonder if I have a bad copy, a
friend of mine has the same lens has not had as much problems as
me, but I'm not sure he ran a test like this.

Doug

 

[Forrest41926]

no way can the tamron be THAT bad. It has to be a bad copy. If I
was you I'd send it back for a replacement.

A bad copy of a bad lens. Although, yesterday, at a very large demonstration, I saw a reporter with some fancy EOS film camera ( looked like an EOS 3? ) and a Tamron 28-200. So megazooms can't be all that bad...

( He asked me how I liked my "10 to 35"... )

 

[PaulS95190]

I just finished doing a quick "DavidP" cereal box test on my new
Canon 28-70L to check for front, back focusing and to see how it
performed at f2.8. Now this is how I would expect an L to perform!
For kicks, I compared it to the lens I am replacing, a Tamron
28-300 3.5-4.5.

Both shots were taken on the tripod, mirror lockup, self-timer.
The Canon was taken at f2.8, the Tamron was taken at f3.5. All I
can say is HOLY COW! I knew the L would/should be better but I
didn't expect it to be this much better. See for yourself below.

For all those contemplating skimping with a cheaper lens - you
might want to think twice. I know I will never buy an inferior
lens again - its just a waste of money.

Canon 28-70 f2.8



Tamron 28-300 f3.5



Doug

 

[T. G. O'Meara Jr.]

no way can the tamron be THAT bad. It has to be a bad copy. If I
was you I'd send it back for a replacement.

A bad copy of a bad lens. Although, yesterday, at a very large
demonstration, I saw a reporter with some fancy EOS film camera (
looked like an EOS 3? ) and a Tamron 28-200. So megazooms can't be
all that bad...

Oh yes they can. Because he is a reporter or has a decent camera body does not mean he knows dip about lens performance.

( He asked me how I liked my "10 to 35"... )

Bingo.

--==Tom==--

 

[Don Schultz43010]

Hi Guys :

The Tamron has a Photodo rating of 2.6, Canon doesn't make a lens that bad but I still think something is wrong with your copy.
Don.

I just finished doing a quick "DavidP" cereal box test on my new
Canon 28-70L to check for front, back focusing and to see how it
performed at f2.8. Now this is how I would expect an L to perform!
For kicks, I compared it to the lens I am replacing, a Tamron
28-300 3.5-4.5.

Both shots were taken on the tripod, mirror lockup, self-timer.
The Canon was taken at f2.8, the Tamron was taken at f3.5. All I
can say is HOLY COW! I knew the L would/should be better but I
didn't expect it to be this much better. See for yourself below.

For all those contemplating skimping with a cheaper lens - you
might want to think twice. I know I will never buy an inferior
lens again - its just a waste of money.

Canon 28-70 f2.8



Tamron 28-300 f3.5



Doug

 

[herb kauhry]

I've got a couple Tamrons in the closet. While they do not measure up to the L's I now own, mine are reasonably decent and no where near as bad as the example you provided. Tamron would not be in business if that was typical.

Something is (a) seriously fogged up or (b) seriously out of alignment.

Don

I just finished doing a quick "DavidP" cereal box test on my new
Canon 28-70L to check for front, back focusing and to see how it
performed at f2.8. Now this is how I would expect an L to perform!
For kicks, I compared it to the lens I am replacing, a Tamron
28-300 3.5-4.5.

Both shots were taken on the tripod, mirror lockup, self-timer.
The Canon was taken at f2.8, the Tamron was taken at f3.5. All I
can say is HOLY COW! I knew the L would/should be better but I
didn't expect it to be this much better. See for yourself below.

For all those contemplating skimping with a cheaper lens - you
might want to think twice. I know I will never buy an inferior
lens again - its just a waste of money.

Canon 28-70 f2.8



Tamron 28-300 f3.5



Doug

 

[Dave Knadler]

I just finished doing a quick "DavidP" cereal box test on my new
Canon 28-70L to check for front, back focusing and to see how it
performed at f2.8. Now this is how I would expect an L to perform!
For kicks, I compared it to the lens I am replacing, a Tamron
28-300 3.5-4.5.

Both shots were taken on the tripod, mirror lockup, self-timer.
The Canon was taken at f2.8, the Tamron was taken at f3.5. All I
can say is HOLY COW! I knew the L would/should be better but I
didn't expect it to be this much better. See for yourself below.

For all those contemplating skimping with a cheaper lens - you
might want to think twice. I know I will never buy an inferior
lens again - its just a waste of money.

Canon 28-70 f2.8



Tamron 28-300 f3.5



Doug

--
http://www.pbase.com/davek/

 

[Forrest41926]

Oh yes they can. Because he is a reporter or has a decent camera
body does not mean he knows dip about lens performance.

True ... but you would think his boss would.

( He asked me how I liked my "10 to 35"... )

Bingo.

Sigh. It's not like a fast ultrawide would be useful in photojournalism, huh? Even if he hadn't heard about it, they do put the range on the side of the lens, and he knew enough to realize it's not a 28 to 70!

 

[Jason Hutchinson]

I see 16-35s on PJ cameras a lot, although not as much as 70-200s, and usually the wedding guys have 28-70s. I see those 16-35s more than all the rest when they've got a mob of guys doing a moving interview as a high profile person is walking from here to there. Seems like you need that lens to get up by those video camera guys that like to be in your face.

Jason

Oh yes they can. Because he is a reporter or has a decent camera
body does not mean he knows dip about lens performance.

True ... but you would think his boss would.

( He asked me how I liked my "10 to 35"... )

Bingo.

Sigh. It's not like a fast ultrawide would be useful in
photojournalism, huh? Even if he hadn't heard about it, they do
put the range on the side of the lens, and he knew enough to
realize it's not a 28 to 70!

 

[SFLshooter]

I just finished doing a quick "DavidP" cereal box test on my new
Canon 28-70L to check for front, back focusing and to see how it
performed at f2.8. Now this is how I would expect an L to perform!
For kicks, I compared it to the lens I am replacing, a Tamron
28-300 3.5-4.5.

Both shots were taken on the tripod, mirror lockup, self-timer.
The Canon was taken at f2.8, the Tamron was taken at f3.5. All I
can say is HOLY COW! I knew the L would/should be better but I
didn't expect it to be this much better. See for yourself below.

For all those contemplating skimping with a cheaper lens - you
might want to think twice. I know I will never buy an inferior
lens again - its just a waste of money.

Canon 28-70 f2.8



Tamron 28-300 f3.5



Doug

--
http://www.pbase.com/davek/

 

[Paul Greenleaf]

to beat that Tamron! What a piece of Cr#%.

I just finished doing a quick "DavidP" cereal box test on my new
Canon 28-70L to check for front, back focusing and to see how it
performed at f2.8. Now this is how I would expect an L to perform!
For kicks, I compared it to the lens I am replacing, a Tamron
28-300 3.5-4.5.

Both shots were taken on the tripod, mirror lockup, self-timer.
The Canon was taken at f2.8, the Tamron was taken at f3.5. All I
can say is HOLY COW! I knew the L would/should be better but I
didn't expect it to be this much better. See for yourself below.

For all those contemplating skimping with a cheaper lens - you
might want to think twice. I know I will never buy an inferior
lens again - its just a waste of money.

Canon 28-70 f2.8



Tamron 28-300 f3.5



Doug

 

[Doug Eddleman]

After reading all the replies to this thread the general concensus seems to be that although the Canon 28-70L should blow the doors off the Tamron, the Tamron still should not perform as badly as it does. I found my warranty information and it has a 6 year warranty so I sent it in today. I'm curious as to how this will turn out and will post again when I have results.

Doug