Okay guys, i did a search and pretty much came up with a few scattered comments about each lens so it's dead to beat a dead horse. I'm trying to decide which one to get for my first walkaround lens. I don't want to carry a bunch of prime's around and change lenses all the time so that's out of the question.

From all the reviews i've read on the Tamron lens it seems like it kicks the canon 28-135 IS's butt in almost every aspect. The only 2 issues i found while trying it myself were the zoom felt kind of hard to zoom in/out (not as smooth as the canon). The second issue i'm worried about is shooting @ 2.8 all the time in low light, would that give you very shallow DOF all the time opposed to shooting maybe 3.5-4 with the Canon and using IS?

The tamron is quite a bit cheaper and lighter which is a definite plus so can any of you guys give me a definete answer especially on the shallow DOF problem shooting @ 2.8 all the time?

I have the Tamron and love it. It is used as my walk-around lens and also for portraits. It has exceeded my expectatiions especially for the price. Highly recommended.

Your comment about shallow DOF is right on--this is a potential limitation of the Tamron. But of course, you don't have to shoot at f/2.8 all the time.

IS is really neat, but as you probably know, it doesn't help a bit when it comes to subject movement--only camera movement. The only thing that'll stop subject movement is a faster shutter speed, and you can only use a faster shutter speed if you can let in more light, which means that the Tamron has the edge here.

I have the Tamron and think it's terrific. I used to have the Canon 28-135 but sold it.

--John

bassrun wrote:
Your comment about shallow DOF is right on--this is a potential limitation of the Tamron. But of course, you don't have to shoot at f/2.8 all the time.

IS is really neat, but as you probably know, it doesn't help a bit when it comes to subject movement--only camera movement. The only thing that'll stop subject movement is a faster shutter speed, and you can only use a faster shutter speed if you can let in more light, which means that the Tamron has the edge here.

I have the Tamron and think it's terrific. I used to have the Canon 28-135 but sold it.

--John

Both great reviews, i'm pretty new to photography and I don't really understand how the IS would help in a low light situation. Either way I'd probably have the aperture opened up all the way in a dark club, with the IS you can shoot slower shutter speeds which lets more light in.

I understand how this helps you get a better exposure but with slower shutter speeds you get less stop-action so even if the object is correctly exposed wouldn't it still be blurry (say a guitarist strumming in a dark club) Most the time in a dark club I assume i'd be shooting wide open aperture so that would go back to the 2.8 DOF problem again, what's the best solution?

Also, as far as the zoom being harder to move is this a normal Tamron attribute compared to a smoother zooming Canon lens? IT really bothered me that i had to twist fairly hard to get the lens to zoom in/out compared to the 28-135 lens. Oh yeah on more thing, is the IS a mechanical function or does it require electricity, i'm assuming the lens has it's own battery for the IS motor?

I don't remember my Tamron being tough to zoom (I'm at work now). Perhaps it's your particular sample, or maybe it needs some breaking in. I do remember the Canon 28-135 feeling very smooth and solid, so maybe the Tamron simply feels stiff by comparison.

You're absolutely right about the guitarist image. Of course, there are times when the image benefits from showing some motion (e.g., the guitarist!), and there are other times when shallow DOF can be used to advantage. But f/2.8 isn't nearly as radical as f/2 or f/1.4. With a faster lens (the Tamron) you can dial in either of these effects, whereas with the 28-135, you don't have the faster shutter speed option.

Of course, a higher ISO setting allows you to use a faster shutter speed or a smaller aperture, but then you're dealing with increased noise.

There's no ideal solution--everything is a compromise--but I'm very happy with my choice of the Tamron over the Canon.

--John

bassrun wrote:
I don't remember my Tamron being tough to zoom (I'm at work now). Perhaps it's your particular sample, or maybe it needs some breaking in. I do remember the Canon 28-135 feeling very smooth and solid, so maybe the Tamron simply feels stiff by comparison.

You're absolutely right about the guitarist image. Of course, there are times when the image benefits from showing some motion (e.g., the guitarist!), and there are other times when shallow DOF can be used to advantage. But f/2.8 isn't nearly as radical as f/2 or f/1.4. With a faster lens (the Tamron) you can dial in either of these effects, whereas with the 28-135, you don't have the faster shutter speed option.

Of course, a higher ISO setting allows you to use a faster shutter speed or a smaller aperture, but then you're dealing with increased noise.

There's no ideal solution--everything is a compromise--but I'm very happy with my choice of the Tamron over the Canon.

--John


The images shot with the Tamron at the store were very sharp as everyone said but the Canon really wasn't bad either. That being said where did you purchase your Tamron and do you know the cheapest place to pick one up?

Also can some of you Tamron owners post some great pics you took with that lens and if you have pics from the previous canon lens (assuming you owned both lenses) post some pics from the canon?

This is a recent comparison by bob atkins, his review includes a lot of comaprison pics. But as always with lenses it's hard to be objective because of the variations in lens quality between different examples. The best thing you can do is get down to a store and try them out. From the examples I've used and the reports posted here and elsewhere it does seem that the Tamron is a relatively consistent lens though. I haven't found the zoom to be particularly stiff.

Personally I'd recommend the Tamron wholeheartedly, the Canon lens has a longer length and isn't that far behind the Tamron on quality, so if you think you'll need that extra length I'd buy it. I don't think IS will help you out that much in a club setting compared to a lower stop but the extra range might.

I have had both and I am much more satisfied in general with the images from the 28-135...they actually have better contrast and saturation...there is something lacking in the tamron...at first glance it looks sharp, but when you really examine closely...it is not. at least at %100.

echelonphoto wrote:
I have had both and I am much more satisfied in general with the images from the 28-135...they actually have better contrast and saturation...there is something lacking in the tamron...at first glance it looks sharp, but when you really examine closely...it is not. at least at %100.

I tried the 28-135 again at frys again and it was kind of eh, not exactly sure what to think now.

*Rant about how frys is the worst store EVER, read if you want*

On another note frys is the most retarded store on the face of the earth. They had a 2 gig microdrive for 90 a/r so i bought it and when i went to checkout they tried to give me the drive in a silver static bag with a upc sticker on it. No box, manual, warranty card, NOTHING! They then tried to sell me a "travel kit" version for 65 dollars more which actually has the box/warranty and whatever else it SHOULD come with. After I refused they tried to tell me to send the UPC sticker in for the rebate leaving me...NOTHING for claimed 1 yr warranty.

Finally the stupid sales kid tells me they'll give me the inhouse fry's 1 yr warranty which will replace the drive if it fails on the spot so i agree and they print out my receipts. The cashier's manager then tells me to sign a piece of paper that he claims is the frys warranty but it says "This warranty is MANUFACTUERER ONLY" so i say WTF and get the overall manager. This retard then tells me he won't give me any warranty and tries to give me the whole story about how i should send a copy of the UPC for a rebate (which NEVER works) and send the plastic bag in if i need warranty work (yeah right i'm sure that will work)

I sat there for 35 minutes listening to their BS story about their grey market item and the sales kid has the nerve to tell me it's 100% legit and normal procedure. I asked him if he would go to Mcdonalds, order a burger and eat it if it was served from just the tray, he didn't answer so i said that he probably would. Here's the best part, he threatened to find me and kick my ass after he got off work

I left with my blood pressure about 50 points higher than when I entered, had them void the transaction and vowed never to shop at frys where they give you the 35 minute runaround with grey market items and BS warranty's that don't exist.

I compared the Tamron and 28-135 recently. The Tamron had less distortion, was sharper at wider apertures and (subjectively) had more contrasty/colorful images. The 28-135 pictures all seemed a bit dull in comparison. Different from other folks, so there could be sample variation in these lenses.

Mechanically I liked the Tamron better. It's lighter and smaller and seems better put together. The zoom/focus was smooth.

Unfortunately the Tamron (the one I had anyway) was soft at f2.8, negating one of the main benefits of selecting that lens.

As far as shooting at f2.8, it's not a problem at all. The ability to isolate your subject using DOF is one of the great benefits of the faster zooms and primes. Between f2 and f2.8 is ideal for portraits.

IS in no way compensates for a slow lens. It doesn't stop subject motion and it doesn't help you get a nice blurred background.

there is something lacking in the tamron...at first glance it looks sharp, but when you really examine closely...it is not. at least at %100.

I don't know about you, but I consider this to be pretty darned sharp. This is a 100% crop of a picture taken with the Tamron at 55mm and f/3.5 (apologies to everyone who has already seen this picture a dozen times):



All I can imagine is that you were looking at some shots taken at f/2.8, where it is a bit soft (f/3.5 at 75mm was also soft on my copy). The 28-135 is very mediocre in comparison, unless you are shooting at f/8 all the time.

My 28-135mm was also EHHHHH. Nothing special at all.

My Tamron seems like a really nice lens for the $$$.

I have noticed that you really need to shoot a white card and use custom white balance with the Tamron to get good color. That doesn't bother me as I like to do it anyways.

Here's two very similar shots. One shot with the 135F2L and one with the Tamron. Both shots were shot using the custom white balance from a white card.

Tamron 28-75 at 57mm 1/400 F4.0 iso200




Canon 135F2L 1/1250 F2.0 iso200



Admittedly the 135mm shot is better and also shot wide open, but for color comparisons sake, it doesn't really matter. The Tamron does well for what it costs as long as you use a custom white balance.

Jack

Not to confuse the 28-75 vs. 28-135 debate more, but I was also looking for a walk around lens in this range and found a used, but in good condition 28-80 L f/2.8-4 for a decent price. It would still be more than either the 28-75 or 28-135 and also would be slower than the Tamron. However, I had read in a few places that the color and sharpness of the 28-80 is close to that of the much higher priced 24-70 and if that were true it would seem that it would be a better choice than either the 28-75 or 28-135 is the price is decent.

Like I said I have tried my best to find info on the 28-80, but being an older lens it seems like there is less discussion... any info or suggestions are appreciated.

Thanks,
William

MidMadn wrote:
My 28-135mm was also EHHHHH. Nothing special at all.

My Tamron seems like a really nice lens for the $$$.

I have noticed that you really need to shoot a white card and use custom white balance with the Tamron to get good color. That doesn't bother me as I like to do it anyways.

Here's two very similar shots. One shot with the 135F2L and one with the Tamron. Both shots were shot using the custom white balance from a white card.

Tamron 28-75 at 57mm 1/400 F4.0 iso200




Canon 135F2L 1/1250 F2.0 iso200



Admittedly the 135mm shot is better and also shot wide open, but for color comparisons sake, it doesn't really matter. The Tamron does well for what it costs as long as you use a custom white balance.

Jack


Honestly i can't tell a huge difference between the 2 pics, they both look like pretty good shots. I ended up buying the canon just cause i personally liked the way it felt better and shooting at 2.8 with the tamron (which is where it seems to have the advantage) didn't seem to appeal to me very much. The IS feature on the canon also impressed me when i used it on a 20D and i've had some problems with camera shake before.

I guess i'll give it a shot and if i hate it then i'll switch to the 28-75 or maybe a 17-40L when I can afford it. Thanks for all the input from all you guys, the Tamron is definetely an awesome lens but a lot of people still shoot the 28-135 so I guess i'll just see what my preference is.

Note that that example shot from the Canon is the 135 f/2 L lens, not the 28-135.

Hi. I am looking to get another zoom lens & these are two I am looking at right now. In your tests between the Tamron & canon lenses which had the faster & more accurate focus? I know the canon 28-135 IS has USM. How good is the Tamron in this area?

Thanks

tony

I have the 28-135 and the Tamron 28-75 and I find that the Tamron focuses more slowly and has a tendency to hunt in low light. Despite this, I've stopped using the Canon; the optical quality of the Tamron is that good. Now I just have to get around to selling the Canon.

Not to sound off topic, but if you are planning on shooting in a dark club, f/2.8 may not be fast enough to get good shutter speeds. Maybe you should consider an 85 f/1.8 for that purpose. Inexpensive, sharp, quick to focus, contrasty, fast. I find that indoor shooting in less than optimal light requires ultra high iso's or a fast lens. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to be able to shoot iso 400 even indoors unless I HAVE to bump to 800.