 |
|
|
kingoftheapes
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 70
|
|
Review Date: Apr 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $365.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
f2.8, low price, good build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
autofocus hunts in low light, not Canon, not wide enough on 1.6x crop cameras
|
|
|
I bought this lens due to all the great reviews on this website and others to replace my kit lens.
The f2.8 is useful with decent bokeh but 28mm wasn't wide enough for a general walk around lens for my digital Rebel XT.
f2.8 is definitely faster but not fast enough in low light indoor situations at ISO 100 or 200 to avoid camera shake (for me anyways). I know people shoot at ISO 800-1600 but it's too noisy for me.
In low light, the lens had trouble autofocusing and would continously "hunt."
Images taken outdoors seemed sharp and contrasty.
Returned it to the store and eagerly await the reviews on the new 17-55mm f2.8 IS from canon.
|
|
 Apr 11, 2006
|
|
JMann
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 65
|
|
Review Date: Apr 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
VALUE! for about $300, no other manufacture can touch this lens. Very light compared to oher lenses in the focus range and f/2.8.
|
|
Cons:
|
Huge auto-focus problems-- it is slow and I find that when focusing more than about 30 feet away, the focus is always off (wide open). My copy also has an issue with the sensor that measures focal length not working, so it really messes with autozooming flashes. (I am sending it in for service).
|
|
|
I bought this lens after reading reviews and compairing it to sample images taken with the sigma and tonika similar lenses to find that the tamrom blew them away. Now for two years, I have been shooting actors in dark theaters wide open with this lens. This lens produces terrific sharp images, but the autofocus sucks.
|
|
|
Apr 9, 2006
|
|
sixbysix
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 9, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 36
|
|
Review Date: Apr 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Where to begin? Build more solid than similar-priced lenses from Canon or Sigma, sharper than similarly priced lenses from Canon or Sigma, ideal standard zoom range.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lack of anything like USM or HSM means no whisper-quiet focusing at, more irritatingly, the need to flick the AF/MF switch for fine focus adjustment.
|
|
|
Talk about value for money! I understand it's probably subject to getting a good sample- as lens purchase always is- but the model I tried today was absolutely phenomenal. Tested on a 1Ds Mk. I, it's f8 matched my 50mm f1.4 for resolution, and at f2.8 it outresolved Canon's 28-105 USM II, 28-135 USM IS, Sigma's 24-60mm f2.8 and Tokina's 28-80mm f2.8 at *every* aperture down to f8. Particularly surprising to me was how much better across the frame this lens was than Canon's own standard zoom, which presented CA and poor edge sharpness even at f8. At f2.8-4, this lens is pretty hard to touch and at middle apertures it is as sharp as any zoom i've ever seen. At sub-£300, it has to be the best lens in its category and a considerable bargain. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Apr 8, 2006
|
|
GOVA
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Nov 23, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 956
|
|
Review Date: Apr 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $275.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Size and weight. It is sharp and works well for its great size.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I use this on 5D. I did sell 24-70L that I had used for 1.5 years. The Tamron is very small and light compared to L.
It performs superbly on 5D in terms of its sharpness, color reproduction and focus accuracy.
For the price, it is a gem. Period.
|
|
|
Apr 6, 2006
|
|
darryllessere
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price/Performance winner of the focal range. f/2.8 constant makes it very usable in all conditions. Excellent sharpness and contrast. If you like warm(er) looking images, this is the lens for you.
|
|
Cons:
|
Af could be a little better in low light. 28-75 on a crop cam makes this a lens you need room to work with. You will need a wide(er) lens in your bag.
|
|
|
When I first got into this, I went out and bought a bunch of primes (Sigma 20, Canon 35 & 50).
Sold them all and got the Tamron and have not looked back.
Every time I think about "upgrading" to say a Canon 24-70L, I just go back and look at what comes out of my camera (20D) with this lens and keep my money.
If you are looking for a fast (2.8) zoom in this range, you can not go wrong with the Tamron.
Just added the Tamron 17-35 to my kit and loving these lenses.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2006
|
|
robbiekhan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 28, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 259
|
|
Review Date: Mar 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Used on body: 300D
Vibrant colours
Very sharp at all apertures and has a close CF distance. Focusing in good light was accurate and fast but it's not USM/AF-S fast or quiet
Strong build quality, has a quality weight.
Metal Mount.
Centre pinch lens cap (WTF are Canon up to with this area ?)
Lens creep lock to stop creeping.
Price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Low light AF speed can hunt a bit in certain conditions
28mm not wide enough on 1.6x bodies, 1.5 ideal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2006
|
|
canonlight
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Feb 26, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 42
|
|
Review Date: Mar 10, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
F2.8 constant, Good focal range on a FF body for walkaround, Fairly sharp wide open, Good colors, Edge performance good, Price-point.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not good focal range on crop body, "Plasticky" feel (relative to L and EX glass), QC is an issue, Somewhat slow AF, Hunts in relatively low-light.
|
|
I've had two copies, one of which would not focus at 28mm and f2.8 on any subject 10 feet or further. Using the parfocal method helped. The lens is relatively sharp but the overall "build-feel" pales vis-a-vis L and EX glass. Overall a good lens, but the main reason I don't recommend it is because there are better options in this range. See more at www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2006
|
|
OkeyPlus
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 34
|
|
Review Date: Feb 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast, great image quality, good build quality, inexpensive
|
|
Cons:
|
Filters can get expensive, can't MF in AF mode
|
|
|
First off, I'm not a professional photographer, more like a very involved amateur. That said, my first priority in equipment is *always* image quality. And that's why I love my 28-75.
This lens is on my 350D 99% of the time, and the only other lenses I'd consider using are those that our outside its range.
My favorite feature is the 2.8 aperture across the range. Note that it's plenty sharp wide open.
Colors are good, a bit warmer than Canon lenses in my opinion.
Not sure what else to say - I just wanted to recommend a great lens.
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2006
|
|
judhi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 9, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, f/2.8 at all range, affordable
|
|
Cons:
|
focus hunts on low light
|
|
|
Sharp and very acceptable result even at f/2.8 . Most of Canon L lens owner for the similar range wouldn't agree with me but I have tried myself and the quality is comparable!
Combined with my Canon 20D, it is a best pair for indoor shooting without flash. Many of my friends who are on Nikon also have this lens and happy with it.
|
|
|
Feb 1, 2006
|
|
Simon S
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 21, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great sharpness and Contrast
Well made
Light weight
Fast enough to focus but a bit hunty in low light.
Tamron seem to care for there customers!
|
|
Cons:
|
Tamron's QA department need a wake up call!
|
|
|
This is a lens I bought to replace an aging Canon 35-70 lens I dropped on the floor and trashed it.The Tamron gives great sharpness throughout the range and seems to peak quite early at around f4.5.
This is a great lens is the ideal walk around lens and the fidelity of the colours seem spot on.
This will stay in my collection a long time.
|
|
|
Feb 1, 2006
|
|
colucier
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $375.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent sharpness and image contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Color accuracy not as good as the higher end "L" lenses.
|
|
|
I have a 70-200 f/4 L that I have been comparing this lens to. There seems to be no discernable difference in the image sharpness between the two lenses. As far as color accuracy and saturation, I find that the 70-200 is better. However, for the money, I found this lens to be my best option at the price point for a medium range lens.
Would definitely recommend this lens.
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2006
|
|
aldiss
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 21, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price/Image quality ratio, extremely sharp at F8.0 on the whole frame (20D), very good at F2.8, light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality is correct but could have been better. A bit of flare in difficult conditions but not too much. AF hunts in low light.
|
|
|
This is my main axe on my 20D. I've had it for over a year now.
It's a real 28mm prime that can zoom...
it's a good interior lens even if I use manual focus as the autofocus hunts to much. I also like the lens as a portrait lens (75mm F2.8)... it will never compete with a 85 F1.8 but it's still damn good.
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2006
|
|
In2Photos
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 12, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Jan 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, light, sharp, best bang for the buck, comes with a hood.
|
|
Cons:
|
No full time manual.
|
|
|
I bought this lens used from a local shop. I have no idea why anyone would want to sell this lens. I absolutely love it. I use it more than any other lens. My wife uses it as well. Most of our shots have been indoors, since we picked it up in winter and have an 8 month baby.
When looking for a lens in this range do not hesitate to get the Tamron.
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2006
|
|
Hudspeth
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fantastic lens for the money, no greater value.
|
|
Cons:
|
build isn't great... meh...
|
|
|
Ok... listen.... Whenever you do something for the first time, you're bound to make some mistakes.... I did so I don't want you to make he same ones. I'm new to the DSLR game so I bought the rebel with the kit lens. Do yourself a favor and buy your camera without the lens and buy this lens to mount on your camera. Cannon will charge you $125 for that kit lens and it's not worth the effort it takes to throw it in the garbage.
This lens is great..... it will make you a better photographer and you'll be able to laugh at your friends that still use point and shoot cameras. Final word of caution, it you buy another lens.... make sure it's a "L" because the picture quality of this lens with spoil you.
Chuck
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2006
|
|
KKwan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Dec 27, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp, 2.8L, good price, light
|
|
Cons:
|
focus is not fast as L lens
|
|
|
As others said, this is poor man's L lens. That is true. It is sharp even at f/2.8. This is my second Tamron lens. My first one is 17-35mm. Both lens are very sharp. This lens focus accurate and fast, but not fast as USM lens. I have Canon 28-135mm IS lens. I will miss the IS and extra 60mm range, but this lens' quality is far better.
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2005
|
|
oldwarrior
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 14, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Dec 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, size, weight! Did I mention image quality???
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
Ever since I moved to Canon DSLR (Rebel and Rebel XT) I have been looking for an all purpose lens (have 17-40L but find this too wide most of the time). I moved from 28-105 to 28-135 to 24-70L but was not happy with any of these lenses. A friend recommended trying the Tamron 28-75 and all I can say is WOW!!! I have never been a believer in third party lenses, but I have now changed my mind. This lense was sharper than the 24-70L (which I have now sold) at every stop and focal length and much lighter and easier to carry around, it also has similar image quality to my 50 F1.8. Comparisons were done in my portrait studio (800ws and 2 400ws studio lights) under controlled lighting conditions. Some people talk about build quality, while I understand this is an issue for some, it is not an issue for me. The 24-70L has superior build quality without question. If the Tamron breaks I am just going to buy another one because I just simply love the image quality, size and feel of the lense on my camera, period!! This review is in no way meant to bash Canon or L lenses, I wouldn't trade my 17-40L or 70-200L for anything else out there. I just wanted to let others know that if you are looking for a walk around zoom, to give this lense a chance, you will not be disappointed. This is coming from someone who, until recently, never gave a third party lense a second look.
|
|
|
Dec 4, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
175
|
328878
|
Jun 16, 2010
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
85% of reviewers
|
$357.83
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.96
|
9.21
|
8.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
