about | support
home
 

Search Used

Tamron 28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
121 249742 May 2, 2012
Recommended By Average Price
90% of reviewers $346.76
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
8.04
9.53
8.8
2875mm

Specifications:
Di: Digitally Integrated Design, is a designation Tamron puts on lenses featuring optical systems designed to meet the performance characteristics of digital SLR cameras.



The most compact and lightest in the history of fast zoom lenses. Thanks to the revolutionary downsizing "XR" technology employed by Tamron in the development of high-power zoom lenses such as the 28-200mm and 28-300mm, the dramatic compactness that makes this lens the world's smallest and lightest is achieved. Its compactness makes it look and feel like an ordinary standard zoom lens, yet the versatility that a fast constant maximum aperture offers will definitely reshape your
photographic horizons.

Model A09
Lens Construction (Groups/Elements) 14/16
Angle of View 75-32
Type of Zooming Rotation
Diaphragm Blade Number 7
Minimum Aperture F/32
Minimum Focus 0.33m (13") (entire zoom range)
Macro Mag. Ratio 1:3.9 (at 75mm)
Filter Diameter 67
Weight 510g (18.0oz.)
Diameter x Length 73mmx 92mm
(2.9in x 3.6in)
Accessory Lens hood
Mount Canon, Minolta, Nikon-D, Pentax


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8  next
      
krilov
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 27, 2007
Location: Turkey
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 17, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $280.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: sharp, sharp, great performance at high ISO, visual deptht at different colours and of course cheap
Cons:
the friction on the zoom ring is painful sometimes. You have to be very careful with the zoom.

I am using this lens with 400D. They are both a very good complement of eachother. A beautiful Combo. Get it and walk arround. I got second hand copy of this lens. the image quality is astonishing. I shot surprisingly impressive photos. I have used 17-40 L and 28-70 2.8 L and this lens is not far from them with respect to quality affairs my Tammy is serving better images than the Ls. Especially under the low lights the colour rendition is superb.

Mar 17, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add krilov to your Buddy List  
PrecisionPhoto
Offline
Image Upload: On



Registered: Oct 4, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1926
Review Date: Mar 2, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $339.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Small, Light, Sharper then Canon, Less expensive
Cons:
Not really. but just a bit more mm on both ends would be nice

I've had Tamron in the past when I did film and trust there lenses.


After switching to Canon I had both the Canon 24-70 and 24-105 and the Tamron 28-75 beats them both with first hand real world test I performed on them all.


Color is equal, contrast from the tammy was better, sharpness, the Tamron won by just a bit.


AF from the Tamron is just a hair under the speed of the Canon's and is accurate in low light.


The Tamron was a bit soft wide open @ 2.8 but any smaller it was killer sharp.


If you need weather sealing and IS then you know your choices.


But if your after IQ the Tamron 28-75mm is King and well built too.


The newer generation of lenses in the world of 3rd party are now equal or surpass Canon.


I'm very much a Canon red ring, L nut but this Tamron 28-75 stands out as a winner for Tamron similar to the Cinderella story.


Mar 2, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add PrecisionPhoto to your Buddy List  
Jim Schemel
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

Registered: Oct 17, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4785
Review Date: Jan 26, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Very sharp from 2.8 on/ Price /
Cons:
Hunts some in low light and you can hear it focus more so than the Canon USM

Got this lens in a trade for my 17-40L.I now feel that i have used it enough to write a review.Image quality is very good in terms of sharpness it is razor sharp even at 2.8.I have had the Canon 28-70L and in terms of sharpness this lens is equal.It does hunt a bit in low light and you can hear the motor focus more so than the Canon lenses.The 28-70L was super quiet and super fast focusing.Build quality is good but for the money this lens is a real keeper.Below is a link to a pic that i took with my 1D and this lens Settings were f3.2 1/320 at 75mm
-Jim

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2218/2090051498_d7ff6f5b9d_b.jpg


Jan 26, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Jim Schemel to your Buddy List  
ardtullaich
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3
Review Date: Dec 28, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros:
Cons:

Just bought this off ebay for 130 boxed and mint. Using it on my 1Dn mk II and ok it's a little slower than the ultrasonics but this thing is tack sharp wide open F2.8. I havn't talked my self in to L lenses yet having just up graded to the 1 Dn mk II from a 20d. THe 1dnmkII i paid 1500 brand new just before xmas. Tried all the sigmas and tokinas at this range and fstop none of them sharp as this wide open. Fantastic value lens . If you cant find used one just go and buy it new you wont regret it.

Dec 28, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add ardtullaich to your Buddy List  
DynaSport
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1660
Review Date: Dec 18, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Great image quality. Small for a 2.8 zoom. Great price.
Cons:
Focus may not be fast enough for some sports shooting. No FTM focusing.

I have had this lens a year now, so I feel qualified to review it. My copy is a very sharp lens. It is the sharpest zoom I have owned. It is also pretty small and fairly light for a 2.8 zoom lens.

The build quality will never be confused with a Canon L, but the photos it takes can be. I am very pleased with mine from a sharpness stand point. The ONLY thing I really miss with this lens is the fast and silent USM focusing of a Canon L. I have used this lens for some indoor HS basketball, but it is not really the best lens for that. For that type of usage I think the 85 1.8 would be better. Otherwise, this lens is on my camera most of the time. If the focal length works for you, and it does for me, buy with confidence. Sure, I'd love the Canon 24-70L, but it costs almost three times as much and is much larger and heavier as well. For me, I just couldn't justify the extra cost. I have not regretted my decision at all.


Dec 18, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add DynaSport to your Buddy List  
PJ Fish
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 24, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 18
Review Date: Nov 3, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: very good value for money-
Cons:
need usm --hsm motor--lacks better colour.

It is more than a best buy and has become Tamrons bread and butter product besides another tamron (17-50 f2,8) in short : i wish they could make a 70-200 f2,8 likewise as good !

..and furthermore ; i truely wish Tamron could make their own USM HSM motors built in for truely snappy pics..



Nov 3, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add PJ Fish to your Buddy List  
Crazy Fool
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 5, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
Review Date: Oct 22, 2007 Recommend? | Price paid: $400.00

Pros: Sharpness, size, weight
Cons:
28mm on crop not wide enough, some samples backfocus

I already rated this lens, but I'm drawn to write about it again following comparisons with my 24-70L.

This lens is simply a star, and I almost regret letting it go. In fact it was as sharp as my 50mm at f2.8 wide open.

The only things the much more expensive Canon 24-70L has over this are:

Much faster autofocus
Creamier bokeh
24mm
Better edges on full frame

The Tamron is MUCH smaller and lighter, and noticeably sharper.

I decided to upgrade due to the focus speed on my 10D. If Tamron upgrade to a usm equivalent, and if I get a 5D in future, I would consider this lens again.

I do miss the sharpness and size/weight very much. I actually trust this lens more than the 24-70L in harsh conditions, especially for landscapes with a crop camera. If all you want is a sharp zoom instead of a few primes, THIS IS IT BABY!!!


Oct 22, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Crazy Fool to your Buddy List  
dan727
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 31, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 721
Review Date: Sep 20, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $349.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: picture quality...very sharp even at F/2.8. Buy from a licensed dealer and get a 6 year warranty.
Cons:
28mm may make you miss some shots on the wide end, but there is always the Tamron 17-50!

So I own a Canon 70-200mm F/28L lens. To be honest there are some conditions you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between this Tamron and the L glass. Could just be my photography skills, but I am very impressed with this lens.

The only thing to not like about this lens is the 28-75 range. Some people may prefer it to be a little wider. I've got that covered by a Tokina 12-24mm... but something to consider. And as I mentioned above... Tamron also has the 17-50 but its about $75 more than this lens.

Otherwise this is an awesome lens to own and it stays on my 30D for the majority of the time.

Comes with a 6 year warranty. I have only owned this lens a short while, so I have not had to deal with Tamron regarding repairs. I would research that before taking the 6 year warranty into account.


Sep 20, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add dan727 to your Buddy List  
toma7
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 31, 2007
Location: Austria
Posts: 0
Review Date: Sep 19, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: f2.8, sharp, price, color, light
Cons:
build, hunts in low light
Sep 19, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add toma7 to your Buddy List  
CarusoPhoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 30, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 54
Review Date: Aug 2, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $330.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharpness, size, color reproduction, consistent f/2.8 aperture, price
Cons:
Back cap not swappable with Canon AF lenses

Let me start by saying I didn't want to like this lens. I've been a Canon lens purist since my first camera. I've always considered second party lenses to be inferior and not worth my time. Recently, however, I acquired another body (EOS 1). I wanted a dedicated walk around lens for it, since I'd been alternating my 24-70L between my digital and this new body. Unfortunately, my funds are a bit limited at them moment, so I wasn't able to purchase another 24-70L as I would have liked. So I began an extensive search for a lens that would fit my needs AND budget.

After a while, I started leaning toward the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. However, although I got close to purchasing one several times, I just couldn't pull the trigger. It seemed good enough, but I just wasn't convinced. Then just by accident, I read a review of the Tamron. The review went on and on about the performance and sharpness of the lens. I thought it was all just hot air. Then I saw a second review that stated the same thing. I became intrigued. I started my research. I went to several different sources and a clear picture began to emerge: this is a lens that a lot of people really like. This is a lens that consistently gets compared to my beloved 24-70L, and consistently holds its own--or even out performs it. At first I thought it unfair to compare it to the 24-70L, but then I saw sample images. I saw sharpness tests. I was impressed.

So I took the plunge, and I'm so glad I did. As soon as it arrived, the first thing I noticed was that it did not feel like a cheap lens. I had expected it to be feather-light and almost flimsy. Instead, it feel substantial. It also came with a lens hood.

I threw it on my 400D and fired off some shots and took a look. I was very happy with the results. The color reproduction was great. And so was the sharpness. Just for my own edification, I set up my tripod and made some test shots with the Tamron and then the same shots with the 24-70L. The first go 'round was done at f/5.6. I made exposures at 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 70mm with each camera. I had a friend rename the files so I wouldn't know which shots came from which camera, so I couldn't claim bias either way. I then examined the shots. It didn't take nit-picky scrutiny to see the differences. After I selected the photos I found to be sharper in each group, my friend gave me the exif data on each one.

Here is what I found:

First Impression--At 25% magnification on my screen, all the photos looked fantastic. This puzzled me because I figured I'd be able to spot the 24-70L right away. I really couldn't tell the difference.

Then I zoomed in to 100% and the fun really began.

28mm--The difference in sharpness was very pronounced at this focal length. One photo was the clear winner, and that was the Tamron, particularly in center sharpness.

35mm--Again, one of the photos was a clear winner, and again it was the Tamron.

50mm--For the third time, the Tamron's sharpness outperformed the Canon. I was beginning to really develop an affinity for this little baby.

70mm--At this length, the photos were pretty comparable. I picked one, however, and, to my surprise, it was the Tamron once again.

-----

After these tests I felt like a heretic. I had preferred the Tamron lens over the Canon in each trial. Granted, there are more I need to do, from wide open to fully stopped down. But this initial test has made me very happy.

I have seen no evidence of CA so far, and given Tamron's claims, I would have been surprised if I had.

The AF is a touch on the loud side (no USM), but it works well and is accurate. A bit of noise from the AF is nothing to complain about when one sees the results in the photos.

It's not weather sealed like the 24-70L, but that is not as important to me as to someone who is out in extreme weather with some regularity.

Finally, given the fact that this lens is just a third of the price of the 24-70L, and given that I am so impressed with the results, I'd have to say this is one of the better purchases I've made in a long, long time.

I know all Tamron lenses do not perform this admirably, just like all Canons are not "L" class. However, I will certainly add them to my research when I have a new need for a lens.


Aug 2, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add CarusoPhoto to your Buddy List  
Peter Cheuk
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 29, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
Review Date: May 25, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very Sharp, compact, still sharp at f2.8, relatively low vignette and CA and easily corrected by PS, very useful macro 1:3.9
Cons:
none

I use it on Canon 5D, taken over 1000 photos in various situations with different needs. Very sharp from centre to extreme corner even viewed at Apple iMac 24 inches monitor (1920x1200), remember 5D is full-frame, indisguishable image quality from my Canon 28-300 f3.5-5.6 L IS at same zoom range and Canon 50 f1.4, vignette and CA are minor and easily corrected by PS, in indoor without flash to capture motion like, moving kids in underground railway station or fish/jelly fish in aquarium, using it at f2.8 at ISO3200 and then clear the noise by software like Noise Ninja with some USM in PS still give sharp and pleasant image even in the 24 inches monitor, at f16 very noticable fall in image quality compared with f5.6/8, dropped on floor once soon after purchase from 3 ft contained in a thin leather bag but still remained intact, with Tamron 1.4x converter, losing some contrast but easily corrected in PS, still sharp with much enhanced macro, with Tamron 2x, losing further contrast with high tendency to overexposure, but still within correctable range in PS editing without signature loss of quality after editing, still sufficiently decent and respectable quality for flower close up due to further enhanced macro ratio, thus a very versatile and compact lens, strongly recommended

Other lens owned:
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS
Canon 28-300 f3,5-5,6 IS
Canon 50 f1.4
Sigma 12-24 f4-5.6
Sigma 150 f2.8 macro
Tamron 200-500 f5.6-6.3


May 25, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Peter Cheuk to your Buddy List  
Ken Marshall
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 21, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: Apr 26, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp. Fast lens, great in low light. Light.
Cons:
None really other than it can hunt a little in low light but only slightly.

I sold my Canon 28-135mm IS lens. And so glad I did. The optics on this lens is far better. It's a smoother zoom action too.

Okay, the build quality isn't as good but I don't tend to knock and kick my lenses around anyway so the build quality is totally okay for normal day to day use. In fact based on some reviews I've read I was very pleasantly surprised at how robust it felt.

I bought this lens on ebay for 175 in as new condition. I sold my Canon 28-135 on ebay for 280. I've got a sharper and faster lens and over 100 in my wallet. I'm very happy.


Apr 26, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Ken Marshall to your Buddy List  
paparazzinick
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7381
Review Date: Apr 26, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $320.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: light, sharp, colors are nice (close to nikkor quality) and inexpensive.
Cons:
focus is ok not great but not bad

I got this lens as a backup to my Nikkor 28-70 2.8 and well, I might end up selling my nikkor and getting something else. I mainly got this for my assistant to use and I stole it from her. It is very sharp, (if you get a good copy) and it is very light. Focus is decent, better than I thought and not many problems wide open.

get one. I use it for weddings and would not think twice about getting another one if this broke on me.


Apr 26, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add paparazzinick to your Buddy List  
Richard H. Kra
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 26, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1
Review Date: Apr 26, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $229.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: For a daily carry lens, in this price range, it's unbeatable. I have owned the lens for over a year after purchasing "as slightly" used off Ebay. I use it almost daily and truly enjoy it.
Cons:
None at this time.



Apr 26, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Richard H. Kra to your Buddy List  
Andrei Todea
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 3
Review Date: Apr 17, 2007 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 3 

Pros: Cheap, light, fast AF (for a nonAFS lens), good bokeh
Cons:
Soft

Softer than Nikon 18-70 DX (at same aperture).
F/2.8 usable for family shots but not pro.
Bokeh much better than other lenses in this price range.

I decided to sell it the next day.
Sold (after using ir for a day) for almost 20% less.

Do not recommend.
If there is a real QC problem, testing some copies in the store may not be a bad idea though.


Apr 17, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Andrei Todea to your Buddy List  
KbKnight
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 8, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 20
Review Date: Apr 14, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $375.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Very sharp, inexpensive, 2.8 through entire focal range, excellent image quality
Cons:
Not rugged. Mediocre focusing speed. Sometimes hunts in low light.

This is a great value lens. The image quality is outstanding for a lens in this price range. There are some things that could be better about it, but for the price in this focal range, and considering it's a 2.8 lens, it's impossible to beat.

Apr 14, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add KbKnight to your Buddy List  




Tamron 28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
121 249742 May 2, 2012
Recommended By Average Price
90% of reviewers $346.76
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
8.04
9.53
8.8
2875mm


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8  next