 |
|
|
pictrthis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 163
|
|
Review Date: Jul 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $305.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Awesome for the money!!!
|
|
Cons:
|
build quality could use a little improvement but not complaining!
|
|
|
Can't beat the amazing quality for the money. A must have if you're on a little bit of a budget like me. Go get one if you're thinking about it.
|
|
 Jul 18, 2006
|
|
TWong1200
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 13, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 174
|
|
Review Date: Jul 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $265.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
f/2.8 at all focal lengths, sharp lens
|
|
Cons:
|
non HSM.
|
|
|
Really excellent lens, for the money. Great value and is "L" quality, IMO. I wish it had HSM but still focuses fairly fast for not having it. Great bang for the buck. I love f/2.8 at all focal lengths.
|
|
|
Jul 8, 2006
|
|
hedredm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jun 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $330.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Good sharpness at all apertures, good AF, not too heavy, internal focusing
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus ring is too "short", barrel extends when zooming
|
|
|
I was a little apprehensive about buying this lens after reading posts about the QA problems that people have experienced, but I’m glad I got it. I’ve had it for about 3 months, and have had no problems with it. Auto focus is right on, and the sharpness is good even wide open.
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2006
|
|
open81
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 181
|
|
Review Date: Jun 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $430.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price/Value ratio, size, weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Moderate CA, AF hunts in low contrast areas.
|
|
|
I've tested this lens against a 24-70L, 35L, 50/1.8 and a 70-200/2.8L.
Tamron beats the 24-70L at 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 70mm in the center. In the corners, they are neck-to-neck. The Tamron is more contrasty but also shows more CA.
Against the 35L, the Tamron loses in both in the center and corners, but only by a hair.
The 50/1.8 beats the Tamron in both the center and corners. Ditto for the 70-200/2.8L.
The surprise here is the poor performance of the 35L, but maybe I have a bad copy. Anyway, for around $400 (got mine at a local store) the Tamron does not disappoint at all. It may not have the solid build of the 24-70L, but it is more than good enough for everyday use. I've noticed that the AF hunts more than the L lenses, but this shouldn't be a problem if there's more contrastly areas nearby. The same could be said about the CA issue, which can be easily corrected in PP.
So, all in all, if you're looking for a fast yet light walk-around zoom that doesn't give up image quality to lenses 3x its price, you can't go wrong with the Tamron 28-75.
|
|
|
Jun 1, 2006
|
|
gberger
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 216
|
|
Review Date: May 26, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $379.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
- Very sharp lens, continues to amaze me
- Value for the money
|
|
Cons:
|
Build qaulity not up to par with the best Canon lenses (can't have everything)
|
|
|
This is my second review of this lens, the first was posted soon after I bought it. Having given it some use since then, I feel compelled to come back here to tell everyone what a great lens this is. I take a fair amount of flower shots. When I put this lens on a tripod and stop it down to f/11 or f/16, the results are stunning. Don't get me wrong, it's extremely sharp at anything smaller than f/2.8, but I need depth of field so I'm frequently shooting at smaller apertures. I leave it to the professional reviewers to make comparisons to Canon's L lenses, all I can say is that this lens will knock your socks off without mugging your wallet.
|
|
|
May 26, 2006
|
|
CGrindahl
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10470
|
|
Review Date: May 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $309.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fine sharpness, fast, accurate focusing, good color and contrast, constant f/2.8, exceptional price/quality ratio, good size, excellent range for walking around on a cropped camera
|
|
Cons:
|
Movement while focusing can be distracting at first, but one gets used to it.
|
|
|
I likely own the most expensive copy of this well regarded lens due to the fact I dropped it on the pavement and ended up paying almost as much to repair it as I paid when I bought it new. Since it was my favorite walk around lens on a cropped Canon DSLR, it made sense for me to repair it. Happily, it came back in perfect condition with performance that remarkably seemed even better than when new. I assumed the calibration they did after reassembling the lens was spot on. Perhaps they figured it was the least they could do considering my investment in the lens...
I bought the lens based on fine reviews and the recommendation of a local salesman after the arrival of two L lenses ruined my tolerance for soft lenses like the Canon 28-135 IS I owned at the time. The Tamron proved to be a significant upgrade and I happily used it first on the Digital Rebel and then on a 20D. When I bought a 5D this spring I anticipated the loss of cropping on a full-frame camera, as well as the demand such a camera places on lenses, that the Tamron would need to be replaced. My concern over range proved justified, but what amazed me was the outstanding performance this lens offers on the 5D. The images are remarkably crisp and beautifully colored. I loved the honest width at 28mm even while I missed the length at 75mm, which was no longer cropped to 120mm.
I'm still looking for a walk around lens with a bit longer range, but I've yet to find a lens that holds up to this particular Tamron. Frankly, the thought of spending over a thousand dollars for the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS to gain 30 mm on the Tamron seems an unnecessary extravagance. I don't know how my lens alignment will be modified as I work more with the 5D, but it is hard to imagine that this Tamron will not remain in my kit. It is that good!
|
|
|
May 23, 2006
|
|
jflame
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, constant 2.8 apature, light weight, and inexpencive
|
|
Cons:
|
focus ring spins during AF (not a big deal), AF is a little loud
|
|
|
I love this lens! It’s on my camera about 90% of the time. It is a little soft at f2.8, but very sharp at f4 and up. A little USM and f2.8 is very usable. The focal length (44-120mm on a 1.6 camera) is great for a walk around lens and is perfect portraits too. I can't stress how great this lens is. The best $350 I have spent. Highly recommended!
|
|
|
May 16, 2006
|
|
timbop
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Dec 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 6046
|
|
Review Date: Apr 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp + reliable + fast + inexpensive= excellent value
|
|
Cons:
|
A little soft below f/4, but still very acceptable
|
|
|
I have been using this little gem for 4 months now, and I have to say it is an excellent value. Before purchasing it I read many reviews that mentioned concerns about quality concerns, and that you have to "watch out" for bad copies. In response to that, I bought the in-store demo copy to be sure I was "getting a good one". After using it 90% of the time with absolutely no focusing issues, I started wondering about the true percentage of "bad" copies that are out there. After going back and reading many reviews I noticed an interesting pattern: most of the reviewers mention that their copy was great but you have to watch out for a bad one. Interesting. To be certain, some have had problems with focusing issues (which Tamron does resolve BTW)- but in most of the reviews that advise caution there was nothing wrong with the owner's copy.
My personal experience has been that this lens is an overall superb performer:
- Using it at f/4 images are tack sharp with nice contrast and good bokeh. I compared it to shots from a 17-40L I borrowed and the L glass at f/4 was not as sharp
- color, contrast, and bokeh are nice
- On a 20D I have no problem taking stop action indoor sports shots
- As a general walking around lens it just shines, provided you can back up some for architecture shots
- It is a little soft below f/4, but that just makes it absolutely perfect for portraits
- The center pinch cap is a nice touch, allowing removal of the lens cap with the hood in place
It balances very nicely on a 300D and 20D, and in general gives me almost everything I would need. For wide landscapes it is a little too narrow, but any 28mm lens would be!
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2006
|
|
peterlemon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 3, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great balance on D70 not too heavy but build is good, sharp, consistent results, good contrast. f2.8 throughout the zoom.
|
|
Cons:
|
None yet. Maybe the range because it only starts at 28mm but I knew that when I bought it - I'll keep an eye out for the forthcoming 17-50 f2.8
|
|
|
While I can't afford and have never used "pro" glass such as Nikon's 17-55 and so I can't compare, I have to say that both Tamron lenses that I own (I've also got the 11-18 as well as this 28-75) are excellent. A good balance between quality and weight and both give superb results. I've read that people have had issues with getting "bad" copies of this lens but I have to say based on my previous experience with Tamron I will be looking forward to seeing a few reviews on the upcomng 17-50 f2.8 as this will complete a nice little range of lenses for a reasonable price.
The lens feels nice and "tight" which I prefer to my Nikon 18-70 which is a bit sloppy (admitedly it's 2 years old, the Tamron will probably loosen up a little). Autofocus is quick even if not "HSM", there is a zoom lock, manual focus is easy and accurate, colours are punchy, good contrast and of course f2.8 through the range. If I had all my gear stolen in one go and needed to go shooting tomorrow I would have no hesitation in going buying another one of these.
|
|
|
Apr 3, 2006
|
|
ocsurfer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 3, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Mar 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $379.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
optics, price
|
|
Cons:
|
build
|
|
|
The build quality is a bit lacking, but not terrible. The price is right and the optics are superb. I am not sure why people are too upset about the focusing issues, just send it in to Tamron and it will come back better then ever. This may not be an L glass in build quality, but optically it is darn close!
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2006
|
|
Canonised
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 11, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Mar 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, useful range including macro capability for general photography, f2.8 through range is a feature not found in most zooms. Quality of output is good to outstanding.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lousy back cap that comes loose, noisy focussing, focus ring moves during AF, overal build can be better but still good for the price.
|
|
|
I have this lens for about two weeks and have been using it everyday. Wanted to acquire this lens for sometime since I tried the Canon L 24-70mm. I did not want that lens for its size and weight and knew that this Tamron existed. Was willing to bet on this lens to see if it come up to my hopeful expectation. It has. The lens has been faithfully good for difficult shots in bad lighting. The f2.8 is proving to be a real winner for me so far. On my 20D it becomes a standard 50mm to telephoto range. This focal range is most useful for photojournalism and portraiture.
My immediate grouses is the noisy focussing (which I am fine with really), moving focussing ring (which is a bit of a bother as the ring must not be obstructed when focussing or it will potentially burn out the motor). The awful back lens cover which is a pain to use when trying to change lens.
Will submit another review in 6 months when I have stretched the legs on this lens. Thanks for reading.
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2006
|
|
seanmclennan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 16, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. Fast. Focus lock. Good lens hood. No surprizes.
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic body. Slightly slower AF performance compared to a Canon L lens. Noisy AF compared to USM lenses.
|
|
|
This is the first lens I bought for my transition to digital about 1.5 years ago. It rocks.
It's a fast 2.8...perfect coverage for my 20D. Love the hood. It goes on easy and snaps perfectly in place. (wish my 70-200 2.8 L's hood would do that..I hate that hood)
I've shot over 75,000 shots on my 20D...at least 45,000 were with this lens. It performs. Period. I don't get false focus locks. I don't get excessive AF hunting..even in low light.
It's been man-handled and put in dangers way more than once. Caught by a flying hockey stick and clipped by a puck. Hit once with a soccer ball...and dropped twice from 2 feet onto carpeted floor.
I was impressed when I bought it...and a year and a half later, I really am still impressed with it.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2006
|
|
bushwacker
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 11, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 717
|
|
Review Date: Feb 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $399.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Pin sharp @ f/4.0 to f/22
|
|
Cons:
|
extremely soft and unusable @ f/2.8, f3.2 & f/3.5!!!
|
|
|
=================
Here's my review
=================
Been using this lens for a year on a 20D body.
==========
Optics:
==========
28mm @ f/2.8 to f/22 = excellent sharpness
50mm @ f/2.8 to f/3.5 = SOFT & unusable!!!
60mm @ f/2.8 to f/3.5 = SOFT & unusable!!!
75mm @ f/2.8 to f/3.5 = SOFT & unusable!!!
From f/4.0 to f22.00 at all focal length, it has an excellent sharpness nice bokeh even at f/4.0.
You wonder how sharp? if you have a CANON 50mm 1.8 @ f/2.8 that's what you get with this Tamron at f/4.0 all the way to f/22.
At f/2.8 to f/22 settings this lens shines only at 28mm ALL SHARP!!!
as for all focal lengths f/4.0 is your best bet!!! wider than that you'll get soft unusable images--except for 28mm.
============
Handling:
============
good metal mount
nice zoom lock
|
|
|
Feb 5, 2006
|
|
ukcolin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
I liked the size and weight of the lens. My copy was sharp right through to f/2.8. The build quality was acceptable.
|
|
Cons:
|
My copy would not focus correctly on my Canon 300D body. Returned to the shop.
|
|
|
If this lens had focused correctly it would have been excellent. My copy though was unusable due to focus problems. If you go for this lens make sure the shop will allow you to return it. This would not be a lens to buy where you have no right of return.
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2006
|
|
Bonjour43MA
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 1, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 781
|
|
Review Date: Dec 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast aperture, good build quality for a consumer-grade zoom lens, price, reasonably fast AF, SHARP (when you get a good copy). light compared to other lenses in the same zoom range.
|
|
Cons:
|
1st copy was bad and had to go back to the store to get a 2nd copy - poor quality control on Tamron's part, not AF-S, wish it was a bit wider, color's a bit warm so use Pre-WB instead.
|
|
Again with the quality control issue that's been associated with this lens, Tamron REALLY needs to have this figured out or they'll scare all the potential customers away.
Bought the lesn based on glowing reviews on this site and on some photog sites, I kinda knew there was a good chance that I might have to do a few more runs to the store to get a good copy and unfortunately that's what happend.
1st copy was soft at f2.8, overexposed everything and the hood was too tight to put it on smoothly. Took it back to the store and tried out another copy and immediately I saw the difference between the two, even the sales clerk was surpirsed at how big of a difference it was.
Did some more tests after I got home and wow, the "good" copy totally blew my mind as to how sharp the images were. I compared them to the ones taken with the Nikkor 50 f1.8 (known for its sharpness and low price as well), and what do you know, they're SO close that you couldn't tell them apart if it wasn't for the warmer color of the Tamron glass.
Overall I'm very happy with this lens but for potential buyers - beware that you might have to go through a few copies to find a good one, or you migt have to ship it back to Tamron for re-calibration.
Highly recommended for its low price, great sharpness, excellent optics and reasonably fast AF - but only if you get a good copy 
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2005
|
|
cliftonbean
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Dec 12, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $240.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great Sharpness,Good range,best lens for the money
|
|
Cons:
|
not L lense,not much more to complain about
|
|
|
Can't complain much about this lens. It is great took it on a spin last week at a college Graduation. this lens performed great even in low lighting situations. Blew up alot of 8x10 prints of my neice all a can say is WOW!!!!! the colors were right on and the sharpness was unheard of for a non L lense
Very happpy with this one,stays on my 350D all the time
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
121
|
233889
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
