about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: gabrielma  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add gabrielma to your Buddy List
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di Zoom AF

28-75mm
Review Date: Jul 3, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Reasonably priced, lightweight, comes with lens hood, fast focusing for a non-USM lens. Constant f/2.8 aperture throughout whole zoom range.
Cons:
Zoom ring is backwards (opposite way from Canon lenses)

Constant f/2.8 aperture throughout the zoom range, is sharp wide-open, and for about $300-400? Yes, please.

Perhaps Tamron may be guilty just like Canon and Sigma are of letting some bad copies slide through, but I got a good copy; a very very good copy. It is sharp wide open at both wide and long ends.

It is a bit heavier than the other permanent lens in my bag, the 17-40 L, and lighter than the one it is replacing, the 28-135 IS; when you zoom to 75mm, it's rather long, but it's not too long; about the size of the Tamron 75-300 LD collapsed.

The bokeh is not as good as Canon's found in its best lenses in the same range, but it is also not bad at all --rather neutral. The blur itself is very pleasing.

I would not replace high-end glass with this lens if you already own, for example, the Canon 24-70 L and are already used to its results, but I would highly recommend it --no doubt-- if you're on a budget, or even as a back-up to your expensive glass.

It's not the greatest lens ever built, but it is very impressive considering the price and weight (all that conventional glass that's been substituted!). I'm very happy with my copy.


 
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

ef75_300_1_
Review Date: Oct 31, 2003 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $230.00 | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: Image Stabilization, versatile.
Cons:
Very sloooooow autofocus in less than bright light conditions.

If I had money for the 75-200 f/2.8 L I'd buy it, but since I don't I bought this. The image quality of this lens is somewhere in between the 28-80 II and the 28-135 IS. Apparently my copy is a good one because all the pictures have decent contrast and good sharpness on print. With a 10D 100% crops are acceptable, but not up to par with the quality of, say, the 28-135 IS, which is also acceptable if you're used to L glass, and beautiful if you're used to such bad lenses as the 35-80, the 28-90, or Vivitar/Phoenix brands.

I sold my Tamron 70-300 LD Macro for this one because of the IS. I'm not used to focal lengths longer than 200mm, and without the IS I'd need a 400 or 800 ISO in moderately lighted conditions.

The focus is painfully slow, and will not work with low light, but overall this is a good performer, but don't expect too much from it. I like it, but again, if I had the money, I'd get a real lens and get the 70-200 L f/2.8


 
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

ef50mmf_14usm_1_
Review Date: Oct 31, 2003 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $350.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharpness, contrast, weight, full-time manual focus, metal mount
Cons:
Price, distance scale not too helpful

It beats any other lens I've ever used, and would even dare to rate it better than any Carl Zeiss T* 80mm (Hasselblad manual mount) I've ever used.

The only cons of this lens are blown away by the performance of this lens. Wide open it performs really well if properly manually focused in conjunction with an extension tube. Once stopped down to at least 2.8 the images are sharp, and exhibits exquisite "boukeh".

Fast, quiet autofocus, light and elegant.