i am , it is a good lens if you get a good copy, there are some bad ones in circulation, very good performer comparable to the L counterpart for 1/3 of the cost
I agree, for 1//3 of the cost and 1/2 of the weight (of something like the 24-70L) you can get a 2.8 28-75 that really can be quite excellent. As far as bad copies, that seems to be true but I think it may be that many users don't realize how small a DOF you will have at F2.8 and 75mm at close range. Lens also has a 6 year warranty.
RA
Very nice lens, sharp as a tack, I use it on my 10D and Drebel and get great infocus pictures, I must say with my copy that if I use it in AV mode at F8 I get an Error 99 every once and a while, but when I shot in P mode it has never happened?
not sure why this happens, I have contacted the distibuter in Canada and they said to send it in so they can look at it, but it will be gone aprox 2 weeks with the shipping time. And I don't want to be with out it for that long right now, so I will probably send it in during the winter unless it gets worse.
Hmm. I am starting to wonder how would the coming up EF-S 17-85 compare to the Tamron. f4.5 - f5.6 + 3 stop of IS...... would this work better in low light? Sharpness (resolution/contrast technically) seems pretty good from MTF charts. Only place of losing out would be DOF and Bokeh? But you gain the wide angle that you cannot get from the Tamron. Zoom coverage is even better than Tamron. Any thoughts?
My dissenting opinion:
Mine was average in terms of sharpness, and bad in the corners, even stopped down. Zoom ring was stiff and focus very slow (18-55 was slightly faster on the 300D that I had then). I highly disliked the lens and its handling. It's a cheap F2.8 and that's about it for me. There's more to a lens than just being sharp. And then, you have to hope you're going to get a good one.
Don't buy if you can't try it beforehand, make sure it's a good copy and you like how it works.
I have one. To give you an idea of the quality, I also own 3 L lenses and I think the Tamron performs well enough that I will not be replacing it with the Canon 24-70 L anytime in the near future.
The zoom ring can be stiff at the start but becomes easier to adjust with some use. I really like this lens and I have no desire to replace it, even now that I've gotten 2 L lenses.
It is on my Rebel 75% of the time. The zoom range is ideal. I find it very sharp and it uses the same filter size as my 70-200 4L. Also a pretty decent macro lens.
It's as sharp as my Canon 85mm prime at f2.8, and holds contrast nearly as well in very high flare situations. Optically, it's top notch. Where Tamron cuts costs is that it's not weather-sealed and it doesn't have USM focusing--the mount is the equivalent of my Canon 50mm f1.8 Mark I or my Canon 24mm f2.8.
