Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 for E-Mount Sample Gallery

Try the A7 III

Lol because of a potential evf? Nice try Tim.

I think you will never able to buy a new camera ...

I own an old Sony SLT A57 camera dated at 2012, I didn't notice that much of a difference from 1.4M dot to 2.36 dot EVF. It provides more than what an OVF can provide. Histogram in the viewfinder for instance.

^^^ yes. is your monitor calibrated? @SebKocen

As you know, that is likely not a function of the lens.

TEdolph

It seems reasonably sharp at the focus point at f/2.8, except maybe at very very short distance (the cat's eye for instance), and it seems sharp to me at f/8 at the wide end, maybe not at 75, but it's not surprising. What did you expect ? Zeiss contrast and colors ? Voigtlander sunstars ? A sharp lens edge to edge at every aperture ?

Well Mike...

If you don't like it, you can get the 24-70 f4 or the 24-105 f4 or the 24-70GM

Oh wait...

the 24-70f4 is not much better than the kit with corners pretty much soft regardless of your f settings (also not a 2.8)

The 24-105, is 500-600 more, and is no f2.8, and the tamron is just as sharp at f4.

And then there is the GM.... costs almost 3x as much, is 300g heavier. If you had the tamron and the GM, which would you leave the house with most often? Is that "better" IQ SOOOOO good that you would use it as much or more than the tamron?

Oh well...

How much faith do you have that Canon will be “all in” when it comes to mirrorless? Or, will Canon continue to serve both mirrorless with two to four lenses per year and DSLR with a similar number? If so, this leaves mirrorless wide open for Sony who is designing 500MM f/4 & 600MM f/4 Pro lenses and releasing bodies at a rate at least 2.5 times faster than Canon.

Just look back four years and project that forward another four…. Sony will be in dominant Camera, Lens, Technology and Solutions for both Stills and Video. As long as Sony products are reliable and easy to use, people who get paid for their work will move to Sony immediately.

FrequencyDancer - Sony in 2017 and 2018 is the #1 Imaging company in the world. There is a change coming to consumer/Pro cameras as Canons CEO has said they are deemphasizing photography in favor of office automation and other products since they see photography as a shrinking/losing industry. Sony on the other hand is already diversified, especially in the imaging industry (Far Beyond Canon) from Movies, Broadcast TV, Etc. and Sony is enthusiastic about photography (the opposite of Canon).

There's already a strong movement of people from Canon to Sony. I'm one of them. It won't be too much longer for the flood gates to fully burst open with Sonys rapid release of great quality cameras and lenses and Canons normal five year dormant cycle. The signs are all there. Sorry Frequency - You offer NO FACTS to support your opinion. and you know what they say about opinions...

Hmmm A quick look up of annual corporate actual revenue numbers and projections on the internet -

Canon FY 17 = 4,080BY FY 18 FCST = 4,300BY
Sony FY 16 = 7,603BY FY 17 ACT = 8,544BY FY 18 FCST = 10,200BY

Let me see... If I were going to pick a company which is performing better, it surely wouldn't be Canon. Don't let that door keep hitting you in the head over and over again. I'm sure it hurts after a while...

Although I expect them to put more effort into full frame, the M-series may give you an idea as to the answer, and that is that lens development will not be nearly as fast as in Sony's first five years, although they will get a bit of a boost due to third parties simply adding a Canon mirrorless mount version to their already-released lenses.

Looking at the photo you cite, only some of his eyelashes are in focus, due to shallow DOF. The eyelashes that are in focus look sharp enough, without looking *sharpened*.

@TheRealYeats - In terms of shallow DOF, I shot most of my portrait shots at f/2.2 using eye AF on my a7rIII. I rarely have any out of focus issues. I'm not sure what the photographer was using for those shots....my observations are strictly based on my experiences with both 55mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8.

@ TheRealYeats - Perhaps this video can put things in perspective here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEZZWiHXTXY

In conclusion, it sounds like this Tamron is sharper than the Sony 24-105mm f/4. There's definitely some focusing issues according to the comment section.

Just found another video showing the focusing problem with this lens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njUJFsJBqxQ

Definitely worth the wait for the firmware update.

@Edgar_in_Indy - Here is the direct quote from Dpreview" We did have a handful of images that were slightly front-focused throughout the course of shooting our sample gallery, but nothing terribly out of the ordinary or resembling a complete focus fail that required restarting the camera or removing and re-mounting the lens."

I guess we are definitely looking at a different gallery. LOL!

I'm not gonna go through the gallery again, but looking through it initially I was impressed at the sharpness in most of the shots.

@Edgar_in_Indy - First of all, I'm not sure what kind of photo equipment you are using now...anyhow, there people that makes random comments on this cite that they have no clue what the hack they are talking about. People who actually own and used Sony a7rIII plus the 55mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8 know what a superior lens can produce. If you have not seen samples from these lenses, I would advise you to look at them. The sample gallery for this Tamron is one of the worst (sharpness) I've seen being a Canon, Nikon, Fuji plus Sony user myself.

On top of that, DpReview staff never even bother to mention the front focus issue they've encountered until now. This to me is a bunch of BS!

Your criticisms fall flat when you're comparing a budget zoom lens to very well regarded prime lenses. How well does that 85mm do at 28mm?

The pictures look great to me for what the lens is, and yes, I've used plenty of sharp camera/lens combos and I've perused countless photo galleries from other people, so gear-snobbery isn't going to get your anywhere with me. Your nitpickery simply doesn't make sense at this price point.

And why complain that a budget lens doesn't squeeze every last drop of resolution out of a $3000 42MP body? This isn't a $2000+ lens, like Sony's own competing lens. The price is literally less than half. Hello? Hello?

Edgar_in_Indy - My initial comment was about the fact that the images were soft. I used the prime lenses examples as a benchmark to show how far off the image quality was. I disagree with your price point argument among other things. First of all, you can buy the Sony 28mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 for about a thousand dollar. Either one of the lens I mentioned produce excellent quality. Also, since we can't judge the Tamron lens at the present time due to defect, that should be another debate when they've come up with a fix. In fact, their promotional images by Tamron were way sharper....I too was ready to order this lens. So when I saw these samples, I was just shock and I make the comments above...continue below.

However, you left your comment in a very sarcastic way...looking at different gallery...was totally uncalled for. This left me an impression that you have no clue what sharpness meant. Remember, I have/had Nikon, Canon, Fuji, and Sony. I've seen sharp images produced by many zoom lenses, and this Tamron example is really bad. Anyhow, my point was that if anyone who had used sharp lenses from any camp would not say that these images are sharp, period.

Call me anything you like, but that doesn't change the fact that you are full of it. Also, people who actually know how to look at photos know that too. So save it before you embarrass yourself even further. BTW, sharpness isn't everything in photography in case you don't know...going to gallery looking at photos..lol!!!

Samyang started to make FE lenses and now other companies also making FE lenses for Sony.

Oh please stop. You gonna make me cry any second now.

I haven't shot any video with this lens, but I had zero issues with the focus completely failing as shown in a number of YouTube videos. I did have a handful of images front-focused, but not to the extent that would alarm me or make me think our copy of the lens is suspect.

I thought that the front-focussing issues will only be in SLRs ..in mirrorless I suppose we dont need any AF adjustment as the same sensor is used for AF and image.

@carey..... I thought one of the benefits of on sensor AF was elimination of back/front focusing. (?)

In theory, yes, there should never be misses. But I've experienced (albeit very rarely) situations where an on-sensor system failed. It's far more common on many DSLRs (though our Nikon D5 seems nearly as reliable as an on-sensor system, to be honest).

This photo from this year's CP+ show had a green box confirming focus, but I was disappointed when I got back to my computer and saw it had missed: https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/0625716055/DSC00577.acr.jpeg

@mgblack74 It appears to me the difference is with on-sensor pdaf. A green box verifies the focus, but the camera will issue precise movement instructions which may or may not yet be carried out before the shutter fires. This is an educated guess only.

I saw a report that changing shutter to focus priority would help. I always prefer that setting anyway to guarantee focus over timing.

There is also AF-C vs AF-S focusing difference in which AF-S will perform a final cdaf focus confirmation rather than trusting pdaf precision. (I’m talking stills here, I know there was a video discussion.)

@CareyRose.. thanks for the confirmation. Seems like there can be some exceptions!

Sometimes the camera will focus on bokeh balls or other out of focus elements that appear to have a sharp edge or two. The more AF points you have and the smaller they are the easier it is to confuse them.

@ fjbyrne - I agree with you completely!

Most comments seemed positive to me, as a non Sony user, wouldn't know what every random user name is using and I'm not about to go check all their profiles.

I disagree, what do you care either way?

Got a source for these facts?

Gotta love those people who don't want others to have things that they themselves don't find useful. Very nice people.

Try getting a better phone with a nice screen. I'm sorry that your phone has bad screen resolution.

A lot of phone and tablet displays are higher DPI AND are better calibrated than the average mundane desktop display that a lot of people still happily use. So please explain why the former is *totally* useless for the purpose of evaluating a pic on DPR, to the point where you have to be an ass about a suggestion that doesn't affect you in the least. Think of it like common human decency.

Of course I can get an excellent evaluation of images if there are 1:1 views available for my phones' pixels. My phone has a avery neturally calibrated 5"+ 1920x1280 screen. Bettee than most mundane computer LCDs.

I believe you mean when the full pictures are shown to fill the entire screen? Yes that's super hard to evaluate anything, but a Note 8 screen really gets me an excellent full view of 12-24mp images. (Where focus is, where sharpness fails, CA, shading, DR, colour), the 5DSR files? I can't make up of anything without a 100%

It's not like it's hard to zoom in on a phone/tablet either, the more streamlined OS and the fact that pinch to zoom is so intuitive means it's probably quicker for some than pixel peeping on old computers (like work systems etc.). I would never argue it's preferable to a nice desktop, but I dunno why Gary here would go out of his way to argue against it.

at snapa... I have a 10.5 inch ipad pro. Assessing photos on it can be done well enough. It would definitely be nice to be able to have the image info when you are curious about the settings.

And why is that you won't think that one can do an assessment of image on a mobile device such as an ipad? And why exactly is it a waste of time? A filled screen with an image provides you with a good global view on lighting and composition, while zooming in at the critical focus point to 50% and 100% can easily allow a user to determine sharpness.

@fat fish. Yep, I'd gladly double everyone else's taxes if it went to me too! Thanks for your suggestion....

I use both zooms and primes. My legs like being just legs.

Yes, zoom or different focal are not needed.

Just take your 35mm standard and move your feets to have 16-300mm angle of view,
and perspective doesn't matter too ....

@cirtapfotos
You can make your legs maintain the perspective between shooting something at 200mm and coming close and shooting at 28mm? And no angles change? No distortion? Your legs are amazing. Or you're just full of S.

People have become physics-dumb as of late.

It probably could go 24mm for same size and cost if they dropped the tele to 60mm. But then "I could never use a standard zoom that only goes to 60mm" would happen instead.

tkbslc/ Physically not possible. Having 24mm already increase the size and weight. Tamron 28-75 is way thinner than Canon 24-70mm F4. Tamorn is 67mm and Canon is 77mm. From 28 to 24 is a huge change.

Probably got upset when clicking the link does not change the 28 to become 24.

Tamron explained that they cannot make a 24-70 that is smaller than the GM version. So either you get a lens that is bulky and more expensive, or a lightweight and cheaper alternative. Since they target the lower price segment, we already know how it will turn out.

Okay, jst13, don't buy it.

I agree it's a lot easier for me to spend twice as much on a lens instead of taking a few steps back.

Heaven forbid people move their feet...

Moving your feet will change the perspective. It is _not_ the same as changing focal length.

It won't change it THAT much. We aren't taking 24 and 50mm here

knappe duivel, we're talking about roughly a 10 degree angle of view difference on the diagonal overall, and even less just vertical and horizontal.. If it was 50mm vs 24mm or even 24mm vs 18mm then yes, but 24-28 is really just a few steps, unless you can't step back a few feet (which happens, but is rare)

The difference between 24 and 28mm when it comes to FOV is leaning back. Literally, leaning back. If it's perspective, then yes, there is visual difference. 28mm to me is a happy medium between 24 & 35. It's about compromise.

The 28mm is 17% longer, so if your focus distance is 100 metres you will need to step back 17 metres. You still won't get the same picture though because the angle of view and perspective will be different.

Consequently, the difference between an FF 24mm and 28mm is essentially small, however, that's also relative. As a wedding photographer, a wide angle group shot would mean that I would take more than just a few steps back which just MIGHT be an issue on 28mm. Perspective difference is almost imperceptible and I always keep a separate wide-angle zoom with me anyways. =)

Eh, you can get used to it. My standard everyday zoom is the Sigma 18-35mm which in about 29-56mm in full frame terms. Sure, few times it wasn't wide enough but this range is pretty good and if you really need you can take two shots for stitching later. For the price and weight this Tamron is good deal.

jst13 We're NOT 28mm fans, that's actually a silly statement. We're just stating that the focal length at its widest is far FAR from being a dealbreaker. With someone like you who seem to have all brands of cameras and all kinds of mounts and all sorts of lenses on their Gear List, it's a wonder why you even made that statement. Or are you just a camera gear hoarder?

"no SuperPerformance needed on Sony"

Can't tell if this is bad English or a weird jab at Sony.

24-600..i want 24-2000 like the P900 at 50 grams.

24-85 is too ambitious, 24-70 is much common and standard. From what I have read from early testers it seems this lens is not sharp at edges at F2.8 wide open with strong vignetting until stop down to F4.0 at least. That would be a bigger problem. Also not sure how it performs at 85mm side. In comparison my Canon EF 24-70L/2.8 II already pretty sharp at edges wide open at f2.8 and sharpness cross entire focal length.

Nevertheless you cannot ask too much for a F2.8 zoom at $800 price.

For many photos taken at 2.8, eg. portraits or cat photos with intentionally narrow depth of field, the vignetting and loss of sharpness at the edges are not that relevant.

Agreed in those usages. But edge sharpness and vignetting matter in low-light hand-held indoor or landscape/cityscape type photos, such as

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/37996141232/in/album-72157662042216928/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/24253500197/in/album-72157662042216928/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/24253502407/in/album-72157662042216928/

EF 24-70L/2.8 II is outstanding and itself is not big and heavy (noticeably lighter than FE 24-70 GM) but it's not a native lens and has to on an adapter, then together the size/weight is basically the same as FE 24-70 GM. Canon version is better at 70mm side and wide open from what I have seen.

@MikeRan thanks for the update and the link!

Tamron has made an official statement. See my comment above.

Tamron is not like some others who fixes problems in the next versions, they have already issued a press release about the issue:

https://www.tamron.co.jp/news/press_release/20180530.html

That’s almost exactly what I said before.

Do you need the F1.4? Otherwise you can save a lot of weight with the Batis or loxia lenses.

There is also the Tokina Firin with AF