Tamron 28-75 f/2.8: off-brand, full-frame thoughts

12/08/2008 11:40:25 AM · #1

I bought this lens with my full-frame D700 camera with only moderate expectations from this $350 lens. I've only owned very cheap third-party lenses before using my crop-sensor Rebel XT, so I can admit to being a bit of a brand snob.

I have to admit, I've been blown away. This fast walk-around lens is fantastic bang for the buck. I think the crux is that on a crop sensor the range would be less appealing to me. On my full-frame sensor, I find the range wonderful and I haven't really missed my $1059 Canon 24-105 f/4L. Sure, stabilization would be nice, but not really a necessity on this wide zoom.

So here's the deal - if you're thinking about full frame - first off you should have bought

MattO's 5D last week, and second, convince yourself that you'll save more than $500 by buying this lens over Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 for your crop.

Update: I've revised my opinion after a few weeks of use. I miss the uber-fast USM of my 24-105, and I'd rate this lens as slow-moderate focus speed. Other than that, it's great.

Message edited by author 2008-12-20 23:12:23.

Ken

Canon EOS-7D

12/08/2008 12:26:50 PM · #2

You get a lot of lens for the price, and one thing I really like about it is the light weight compared to the Canon 24-70 2.8.

pamelasue

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/08/2008 12:30:59 PM · #3

this is the default lens on my camera ... I just LOVE it! Since recently purchasing the 50D, I gave my XT to my boyfriend ... he wanted the Tammy to live on his camera and there was no way I was going to let that happen ... so I bought him his own Tammy for Christmas ... now we've got 2 of them!

12/08/2008 04:03:31 PM · #4

Originally posted by Ken:

You get a lot of lens for the price, and one thing I really like about it is the light weight compared to the Canon 24-70 2.8.

Hmm, the 3X price difference made me curious, so I looked at the Digital Picture comparison between the EF 24-70 and Tamron 28-75. From these samples the Tamron looks much worse.

Reading up a bit, it seems that with the L lens you pay for build quality, weather sealing, and of course, optical quality. Many say the Tamron has excellent optics but may vary more from copy to copy. I might have to perform some sharpness tests to see if mine looks as bad as the one from the above link...

None the less, mine has performed great "in the field" for me, even in dim lighting.

Mal37

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

12/08/2008 04:07:31 PM · #5

I love this lens on my 1DIII (1.3x crop). The only (minor) problem is that it once slipped out of calibration, leaving all images under f/5.6 unacceptably soft, but Tamron offers a great warranty, and they re-calibrated the lens quickly and accutately.

12/08/2008 04:28:32 PM · #6

When I started using Canon equipment this was my fast walk around lens. I used it for quite a while. But started working more for the sports dept at the newspaper. I found the focus speed quite slow on it once I bought the 24-70L Canon lens. That was the only downfall I had to it, and why its no longer in my bag.

Matt

Ken

Canon EOS-7D

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/08/2008 10:30:26 PM · #7

Originally posted by smurfguy:

Originally posted by Ken:
You get a lot of lens for the price, and one thing I really like about it is the light weight compared to the Canon 24-70 2.8.

Hmm, the 3X price difference made me curious, so I looked at the Digital Picture comparison between the EF 24-70 and Tamron 28-75. From these samples the Tamron looks much worse.

Reading up a bit, it seems that with the L lens you pay for build quality, weather sealing, and of course, optical quality. Many say the Tamron has excellent optics but may vary more from copy to copy. I might have to perform some sharpness tests to see if mine looks as bad as the one from the above link...

None the less, mine has performed great "in the field" for me, even in dim lighting.

On the test posted the lack of sharpness appears to be wide open or nearly wide open. My experience is limited to when my wife's camera and the Tamron are handy and I need a quick shot. Like you, now I'm tempted to do some tests and see how they actually compare. But even without testing, I can't think of a time that I was longing for the Canon glass.

Prash

Nikon D90

12/08/2008 11:14:06 PM · #8

Originally posted by Ken:

Originally posted by smurfguy:

Originally posted by Ken:
You get a lot of lens for the price, and one thing I really like about it is the light weight compared to the Canon 24-70 2.8.

Hmm, the 3X price difference made me curious, so I looked at the Digital Picture comparison between the EF 24-70 and Tamron 28-75. From these samples the Tamron looks much worse.

Reading up a bit, it seems that with the L lens you pay for build quality, weather sealing, and of course, optical quality. Many say the Tamron has excellent optics but may vary more from copy to copy. I might have to perform some sharpness tests to see if mine looks as bad as the one from the above link...

None the less, mine has performed great "in the field" for me, even in dim lighting.

On the test posted the lack of sharpness appears to be wide open or nearly wide open. My experience is limited to when my wife's camera and the Tamron are handy and I need a quick shot. Like you, now I'm tempted to do some tests and see how they actually compare. But even without testing, I can't think of a time that I was longing for the Canon glass.

I feel that some of the online technical reviews are not as credible as one would expect. I would rather do the test myself.. the slight problem being the lack of both subject equipments. Also, as

GeneralE suggested in that other thread, some of these in-studio tests may not actually represent how a lens/body fares out in the field.

Afterall, who cares if an 'L' series lens can resolve two millimeter thick hair a tad better than a Tammy at the pixel level? Ultimately, its the appeal of a picture that gets a 'wow' from a viewer. and its quite possible that the same scene captured with two different lenses 'wow' a viewer if viewed separately.. and the tiny differences may become evident only when they are examined closely at a 100% crop.

Enjoy your Tammy,

smurfguy!!

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/08/2008 11:30:55 PM · #9

Originally posted by Prash:

Afterall, who cares if an 'L' series lens can resolve two millimeter thick hair a tad better than a Tammy at the pixel level? Ultimately, its the appeal of a picture that gets a 'wow' from a viewer. and its quite possible that the same scene captured with two different lenses 'wow' a viewer if viewed separately.. and the tiny differences may become evident only when they are examined closely at a 100% crop.

Enjoy your Tammy, smurfguy!!

I think you will see that full frame cameras and 1.3 crop cameras are more stressful on the lens. Take a look in the corners of most third party lens on a full frame camera, then look at the Nikon or Canon equiv. Besides build quality its the corner to corner sharpness that makes them worth the price.

Matt

Prash

Nikon D90

12/08/2008 11:40:35 PM · #10

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by Prash:

Afterall, who cares if an 'L' series lens can resolve two millimeter thick hair a tad better than a Tammy at the pixel level? Ultimately, its the appeal of a picture that gets a 'wow' from a viewer. and its quite possible that the same scene captured with two different lenses 'wow' a viewer if viewed separately.. and the tiny differences may become evident only when they are examined closely at a 100% crop.

Enjoy your Tammy, smurfguy!!

I think you will see that full frame cameras and 1.3 crop cameras are more stressful on the lens. Take a look in the corners of most third party lens on a full frame camera, then look at the Nikon or Canon equiv. Besides build quality its the corner to corner sharpness that makes them worth the price.

Matt

I agree. And I am not saying the sturdily built $600+ white beasts are not worth the price. What I am saying is that unless a perfect-across-the-frame-IQ matters to one (e.g. a professional or a serious serious enthusiast), there are still reasons left to be happy with an unbranded slightly technically inferior glass for a cheap amateur like me:-) In the same context, I am not sure if some of the lab testers of these equipment are a 100% diligent in their test setups. So a real test might actually come from a hands on experience like the one

smurfguy shared.. more so because for 3rd party lenses, the quality of the pieces may not be as consistent as of the branded ones. So the same lens in my hands may be much better than someone else's copy just because its a 'good copy'.

Rompy

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/08/2008 11:52:57 PM · #11

I really like the Tammy a lot on my 5D. At the moment, it's my only wide (no $ yet for any L glass), but I think it's great for the $.
I have a whole bunch of photos on my blog taken with the 5D/Tamron 28-75 combo (all of my Washington DC shots) including my Posthumous Blue Ribbon-winning Free Study shot! Sorry couldn't resist the brag :-) The actual quality of the uploads on the blog can be a little less than perfect in some cases, so imagine them sharper!

dmadden

Canon EOS-40D

Sigma 24-35mm f/2.0 DG HSM A

12/09/2008 12:02:58 AM · #12

I was kinda thinking the same thing

mattO, are u saying the full frame lens should perform better "optically" on aps-c sensors? Since the flaws are usually on the outer.

12/09/2008 12:20:35 AM · #13

Originally posted by dmadden:

I was kinda thinking the same thing mattO, are u saying the full frame lens should perform better "optically" on aps-c sensors? Since the flaws are usually on the outer.

The sweet spot of almost all glass is in the middle, always has been.........likely always will be. Thats the main reason why you see digital only optics made these days. They can be done cheaper by using less glass, while still retaining the sweet spot(the middle) and that covers the smaller sensors. So your question doesnt really have a correct answer.

Yes glass made for film or full frame sensors usually perform better on crop sensors, because you are just getting the sweet spot of very good glass. However digital only lens are built theoretically for the same thing.........but they may not always start with the best optics, unless you buy higher end stuff.

Cheap glass on good full frame sensor will be more evident then on a crop sensor. Ask anyone who has used cheap glass on a 1DsMKII about how poorly glass performs on it and toss the same glass on a 20D and it will be OK. The sensor out resolves the lens.

Matt

12/09/2008 10:57:48 PM · #14

Originally posted by MattO:

You're right Matt, after playing a bit more, I find that focus speed is quite a bit slower (and louder) than my 24-105's USM.

I also tried some test shots, and found that, unless you're incredibly careful with your setup, your results are meaningless. =) And I don't have time to be meticulous. Still, I'm quite happy with the Tamron for now. For the price, I can't complain.

12/20/2008 08:55:07 PM · #15

I still think this lens is great for the money, but I'm getting more frustrated with the focus speed.

Being Saturday, I followed my quick-moving daughter around our house this morning. It was early and still fairly dim, and this lens had a hard time getting good focus. I came away with a fairly small number of keepers.

Strictly in focus speed, my Rebel XT and 24-105 rocked the pants off my D700 and Tamron 28-75. That's a fairly disappointing realization, since the D700 is supposed to have such an awesome AF engine. I'm hoping it's entirely a factor of the lens.

What's disappointing is that (from what I can tell) Nikon has only one standard zoom with a high-speed (USM-equivalent) focus motor - their $1400 24-70 f/2.8. Canon has three options: the 28-135, which has IS and USM for a modest $400, on top of two high-end options: 24-105 IS f/4 and 24-70 f/2.8, which are around $1000. =/ Please tell me I'm wrong!

ETA: Oops - forgot to add, I've read two reviews that the Nikkor 24-120 is crap (one actually used the phrase POS), so I'm not considering it, and I'm naturally not interested in DX lenses.

Message edited by author 2008-12-20 21:06:20.

12/20/2008 09:20:25 PM · #16

Originally posted by smurfguy:

And welcome to the world of High dollar Nikon lens. Its THE reason why I never bought into the Nikon system. Finding and affording good glass in the Nikon world can be very expensive. And yes the disappointment in the Tamron lens comes when you start shooting action and add low light and its wow did I really buy this?

Matt

12/20/2008 09:55:11 PM · #17

Originally posted by MattO:

And welcome to the world of High dollar Nikon lens.

Blast - if only I knew this a month ago - apparently you're the type who looks before you leap. =D

I'm within the return period for both/either the camera and lens. I'm torn because I love the D700's features, but if I can only afford cheap glass for it, what's the point? Maybe I should rent the Nikon 24-70 and see what it can really do, then decide if I start saving or backtrack. Sigma's got a $900 24-70 f/2.8 HSM coming out in January...

This is all your fault, Matt - why didn't you list your 5D a week earlier? =D You sold it for a much lower price than you originally PM'd me.

12/20/2008 10:04:32 PM · #18

Originally posted by smurfguy:

Originally posted by MattO:
And welcome to the world of High dollar Nikon lens.

Blast - if only I knew this a month ago - apparently you're the type who looks before you leap. =D

I'm within the return period for both/either the camera and lens. I'm torn because I love the D700's features, but if I can only afford cheap glass for it, what's the point? Maybe I should rent the Nikon 24-70 and see what it can really do, then decide if I start saving or backtrack. Sigma's got a $900 24-70 f/2.8 HSM coming out in January...

This is all your fault, Matt - why didn't you list your 5D a week earlier? =D You sold it for a much lower price than you originally PM'd me.

Yeah the market got saturated with them just after I listed mine.........I had to get rid of it before the market really fell out. But I still got $1475 for the camera and grip. I had found the camera I wanted to replace it, and decided to take a bit of a hit to get the deals done before one of them went away.

BTW the 5D is going for even less then I sold mine for now.........its not too late to come back to the White side. :D Although I dont think I'll sell you the sigma back just yet.

Matt

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

12/20/2008 11:01:24 PM · #19

See for yourself: here's an audio file of my Tamron 28-75 focusing on a dark object. It adjusts 4 times before snapping the shot about 0.9 seconds after I hit the shutter.

It'll typically adjust 2-3 times even on slightly lighter subjects, and sometimes seems to get lost and take about 1-2 seconds.

Sadly, my Nikkor 50mm 1.4 only does slightly better, and sometimes picks the wrong direction to focus (closer vs farther).

Hmm... better rent the 24-70 so I can see if there is hope, or if I should switch back. I'm simply amazed as so many people cite AF as one of Nikon's strengths.

ETA: I can't complain too much, though - dim lighting is difficult for any lens, and this lens still gives me shots like this:

Message edited by author 2008-12-21 00:35:19.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

12/21/2008 11:43:46 AM · #20

You might try some of the newer AF-S lenses. The two lenses that you're using are known to be slow at focusing.

The fastest focusing lens I have is my 18-200 VR. It's also the only one I have that's AF-S. Maybe not what you want if you're trying to shoot in the dark, since it's only f/3.5-5.6, but its not $1500, either.