And WOW!!!
It's sharp...
I shot my test brick wall and it's right there with the 17-40L, though a little less saturated and contrasty. Focus is a bit noisy, but plenty fast. I don't like the backwards zooming, but I'll get used to it.
Build is much more solid than I expected though it does feel a bit delicate.
I did a test shot at f/32 and it was actually less sharp than f/2.8. I'll have to find where the point of diminshing return is.
jmardy wrote:
I did a test shot at f/32 and it was actually less sharp than f/2.8. I'll have to find where the point of diminshing return is.
Most lenses (especially wide angles) will perform worse after f/11 to f/16 because of diffraction. There is actually a warning in the 1D manual not to stop down wide angles near their minimum for this very reason...
Raw-Photoshop CS- no post processing.
EOS 20D, tripod, mirror lockup -self timer:
The impressive thing is that the same shot at f2.8 is just as good.
Tamron on top, Canon 17-40L on the bottom.
Zoomed by eye to the same size, EXIF show 25mm for the Canon. http://www.96k.com/photography_source/canon-tamron28.jpg
I agree with Eric, the tamron seems better than the canon, at least in this example. If it looks this good at 2.8, I'll take it.........Oops, this ain't buy and sell
I just recieved a 2nd copy of the 28-75 Di xr Tamron Lense and it is sharper that the first one I had gotten from B&H. It was a sharp as some that I have seen, but good enough to call it a keeper.
Mine's definitely not as good at F2.8 as F8. This weekend i'm going to do test shots for the Tamron, 50mm 1.8, 100mm macro, and kit lens, and i'll post it up.
Mines better at f/8 too, but 2.8 and 4 are really close.
If anyone cares, I'll post some more comparison shots from the brick wall.
I have the 17-40 at 17, 25 and 40mm, f/4, f/8. f/16
Sigma 18-50 EX f/2.8 at the same settings
and the Tamron.
I'm looking at this lens and the Sigma 24-60 2.8. All I hear is about the Tamron and not much about the Sigma.I have seen samples from both and I'm still leaning for the Tamron.
Do guys feel that 28mm is wide enough on a 1.6 for most shooting situations?
Gottria wrote:
I'm looking at this lens and the Sigma 24-60 2.8. All I hear is about the Tamron and not much about the Sigma.I have seen samples from both and I'm still leaning for the Tamron.
Do guys feel that 28mm is wide enough on a 1.6 for most shooting situations?
Congrats jmardy...I have the 17-40 and the 28-75...both are valuable to me but I find I use the Tamron more with the 1ds...great zoom lens IMHO...price is right also..and it's light in weight.
I got the Sigma 18-50/2.8, and that is pretty satisfactory.
I considered the 17-40L, but I was too tempted by the f2.8, and I also like being able to go to 50mm if needed.
I'd have to say that while the Tamron is a fine lens there's a new competitor on the block. The new Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro is a killer lens. I was shocked to find it too had wide open performance that equalled stopped down. It seems that the competitors have NOT been asleep, and that Tamron and Sigma may yet become some sleeping giants for Canon DSLR body owners. I hope for Canon's sake they sit up and take notice and get off their duffs and start designing some new stuff in the lens area. Here's a handheld sample from the other day wide open with the Sigma..I originally got this as a evaluation lens from Delta Intl. and now it's NOT going back. ;-) Oh FWIW the focus point was between Santa's eyes. I love the bokeh on this lens as well.
Tamaron has my vote, too! After buying + sending back to B+H (2) Sigma 24-60mm + (1) Sigma 24-70mm because of front focus/soft edges up thru f5.6 on all, I bought the Tamaron as a last effort before buying a Canon 24-70 L. What a great lens - the Tamaron as sharp (300% screen view) @ f 4 as my Canon 28mm-50mm-85mm primes. Very usuable at f2.8,too! On my 1D's and 1D MK.2 bodies its a perfect zoom length for weddings, group pictures, and walk-about pics. keep in focus. Ed K..
