p.41 #3 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Shot the Tammy 28-75, 70-300 and Zeiss ZF 25/2.8 side by side today, cause I got an opportunity that I didn’t expect and it’s what I happened to have in my bag. I only mention this, cause while editing the Tammy 28-75 was surprisingly close to the ZF, needing just a bit more clarity (though all had too much, I was in a hurry.)
All in all found it pretty impressive for the zoom. The Tammy 70-300 was the clear dog, but given its price not surprising. Hope they bring a matching shirt tele zoom out soon.
A few from the Tammy:
p.41 #6 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Mathieu18 wrote:
Shot the Tammy 28-75, 70-300 and Zeiss ZF 25/2.8 side by side today, cause I got an opportunity that I didn’t expect and it’s what I happened to have in my bag. I only mention this, cause while editing the Tammy 28-75 was surprisingly close to the ZF, needing just a bit more clarity (though all had too much, I was in a hurry.)
All in all found it pretty impressive for the zoom. The Tammy 70-300 was the clear dog, but given its price not surprising. Hope they bring a matching shirt tele zoom out soon.
A few from the Tammy:...Show more →
_____
Holy Toledo, that B-17 s armed to the hilt! Flying Fortress not, Flying Porcupine.
I was enormously excited about this lens, especially after the "GM performance" claims by Tamron. One thing I can say so far - Tamron didn't do themselves a favor with that. It is a budget competitor and it is a nice one.
For me, it does a fine job so far and it is a lens that I will actually carry around quite a lot due to its size.
I like: size, weight, price, center and midframe performance, close focus feature at both ends of the zoom range, AF
I don't like: build quality, flare performance, bokeh, vignetting, border performance at macro distance
It was about to be expected that the extreme specs will have a price. 28mm instead of the usual 24mm are one of them and easily acceptable for many applications. The other compromises have to be considered more carefully.
On the practical side of things, I enjoyed the lens and the results quite a lot. I have used this lens as a wedding guest and it performed very good in that scenario.
I am currently enjoying my holidays but I will try to provide a few updates on the review soon....Show more →
I received my copy yesterday. It is well centered and center sharpness is nice. As far as I can compare it to Janniks shots my copy is very comparable in the results. The performance at 50 seems to be slightly better but worse at 75.
But my copy shows some chromatic abberations at FL28 and it gets much better with more FL or slower aperture.
@Jannik Peters: Did you turned the CA-correction of the raw-processor "on" in your test?
Edit: I was testing with an a7RII and here are a screenshot of the same corner but CA-correction turned on (top) and off (bottom).
p.41 #8 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
It still uses a built in profile. Turn on correction in camera?
sebbe wrote:
I received my copy yesterday. It is well centered and center sharpness is nice. As far as I can compare it to Janniks shots my copy is very comparable in the results. The performance at 50 seems to be slightly better but worse at 75.
But my copy shows some chromatic abberations at FL28 and it gets much better with more FL or slower aperture.
@Jannik Peters@: Did you turned the CA-correction of the raw-processor "on" in your test?
Edit: I was testing with an a7RII and here are a screenshot of the same corner but CA-correction turned on (top) and off (bottom). ...Show more →
p.41 #9 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Yes I think so. I can't see it on the camera LCD. And it looks rather like a mixture between astigmatism and CA. It is not visible in the center. Maybe one of the correction elements is slightly decentered?
It's nothing I'm worry about. As it only really visible with fast aperture at the lower focal lengths. How is it with your copy Mathieu?
Mathieu18 wrote:
It still uses a built in profile. Turn on correction in camera?
p.41 #10 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Looks like you're using DxO maybe? I get the message in Adobe that the lens has a built in profile for correcting CA, so I don't see any, but doesn't mean it's not there. No obvious halos from its removal etc though.
p.41 #11 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Folks do me a favor in LR pick the Sony 28-75 A Mount lens profile. I think this is a Tammy design. In C1 it’s tge best profile so far. This lens has moustache distortion and will be tough to fix. I shot Big Bronco this morning. Corners are around 5.6 but more towards F8 and on center it’s quite good at 2.8 for 28,35,50 but 75 really needs F4. It also has some serious vignetting till F8 it clears completely out at all focal lengths but 5.6 is still good.
This lens needs a good lens profile. I’ll post my results later but it’s exactly what I thought it will be and whoever said will beat a GM 24-70 should be strapped to a cactus and whipped with Ocotillo branches. Big deservice to users. It’s a competent lens and for its price tag and being 2.8 a good lens but don’t go selling your primes. I’m not being negative I’m a lens whore and I call it the way I see it and I have very high quality standards. That’s me though
This Big Bronco test is very hard on resolution results. So take that for what it’s worth. Most will never see these results in real world. I’m keeping it
p.41 #12 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
GMPhotography wrote:
Folks do me a favor in LR pick the Sony 28-75 A Mount lens profile. I think this is a Tammy design. In C1 it’s tge best profile so far. This lens has moustache distortion and will be tough to fix. I shot Big Bronco this morning. Corners are around 5.6 but more towards F8 and on center it’s quite good at 2.8 for 28,35,50 but 75 really needs F4. It also has some serious vignetting till F8 it clears completely out at all focal lengths but 5.6 is still good.
This lens needs a good lens profile. I’ll post my results later but it’s exactly what I thought it will be and whoever said will beat a GM 24-70 should be strapped to a cactus and whipped with Ocotillo branches. Big deservice to users. It’s a competent lens and for its price tag and being 2.8 a good lens but don’t go selling your primes. I’m not being negative I’m a lens whore and I call it the way I see it and I have very high quality standards. That’s me though
This Big Bronco test is very hard on resolution results. So take that for what it’s worth. Most will never see these results in real world. I’m keeping it ...Show more →
Thanks Guy! Your quick evaluation pretty well matches my expectations for this lens. Not bad (and I'm seeing some great results from owners), but not a clean as 24-105G, and certainly no threat to 24-70/2.8G or Canon 24-70/2.8L II.
p.41 #13 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Where it’s really going good is on center even wide open I’m seeing no loss of contrast, micro contrast or any veiling flare. At 70 yea F4 but wider quite good. I agree if you can deal with F4 get the Sony 24-105 it’s a better lens overall. But this is not garbage by any stretch. Just know what it can and cannot do. Once a good profile is made the distortion and vignetting should clean up nicely.
p.41 #14 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
GMPhotography wrote:
Where it’s really going good is on center even wide open I’m seeing no loss of contrast, micro contrast or any veiling flare. At 70 yea F4 but wider quite good. I agree if you can deal with F4 get the Sony 24-105 it’s a better lens overall. But this is not garbage by any stretch. Just know what it can and cannot do. Once a good profile is made the distortion and vignetting should clean up nicely.
Would you use it at 75mm 2.8 or do you think it's definitely too soft ?
p.41 #15 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
It seems on some subjects 2.8 works well but if you get into heavy detail F4 will show up better but 2.8 is workable. Even the Sony at 105 has the same scenario. I think if you back off a little to like 65mm my bet much better. We will have to try that. I got the grandkids today so I’ll see if they let me work in my office to get this up. I’ll load Raws too
p.41 #16 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
I'm using Capture One. As you pointed to LR I was opening the same picture in LR and I can't see the abberation but the message you pointed at. In C1 you can turn that profile for correcting CA off. I wasn't aware that this is not possible in LR.
Mathieu18 wrote:
Looks like you're using DxO maybe? I get the message in Adobe that the lens has a built in profile for correcting CA, so I don't see any, but doesn't mean it's not there. No obvious halos from its removal etc though.
p.41 #17 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Here's a SOOC RAW, cropped and converted. It's not like it falls apart at 2.8, but I agree it gets better. I think I use f/4 more as a safty net till the AF firmware fix is released.
p.41 #19 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Yea at 70 with 2.8 it’s just not as good as say 50 at 2.8 on center. On center this lens is quite good and that stretches to the mid zone which for me is what I need for event work. Corners not so much
It’s good for my PR needs . I’ll grab that Samyang 24 coming and be all set for PR stuff. Also I’m testing on the 42 sensor so it’s just magnifying all this. It’s going to be less evident resolution wise using the 24 sensor.
p.41 #20 · In stock: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 E-mount ($799)
Well, I've just ordered the FE 24-105/4 G , for landscapes, so the Tamron better not be better!
Actually I'm also put off by the longevity, or lack of, of Tamron lenses in my experience. Not the earlier SP lenses that were made of metal and built like tanks, but the later zooms made from some form of plastic. I had one around 2000 and it developed a real "droop" as it extended and became loose and wobbly everywhere. I know that was 18 years ago, but it's hard to forget and doesn't install confidence!
