Archive 2005 · Tamron AF28-75 2.8 XR
p.2 #1Tamron AF28-75 2.8 XR
OK. I got my test slides back this morning using the Tamron 28-75, EF 50 1.4, EF 200 2.8L, EF 24 2.8 and EF 20 2.8 at various focal lengths and apertures on Velvia 50 and 100VS. Obviously the focal lengths don't all overlap, but it is a real world comparison with the same scene under "sunny f16" natural light with no filters using a tripod and mirror lock-up. I'll try to scan some at f2.8 and f8 and will post them if the scans work out. By eye the 28-75 looks great compared to the others.
Mar 09, 2005 at 10:27 AM
p.2 #2Tamron AF28-75 2.8 XR
As mentioned previously, over the weekend I shot 2 rolls of actual film (some will remeber what that is) for my own curiosity and with mild encouragement from Elrond.
The set-up is an EOS 3 with Kodak 100VS on a tripod using mirror lock-up, manual focus on the oak tree in the foreground, and manual exposure. No filtes. For starters, to keep it simple I shot 4 images at sunny f16, literally using f16 at 1/100. The slides were scanned on Scan Dual 3 and saved at max resolution (about 31mb) The uploads should be about 3mb If this image looks reasonable compared to the original slide, I'll post others.
This one is Tamron 28-75 at 28mm, f16, 1/100, scaled back to about 300 kb.
Yikes -- it is still too big. No wonder I stick to film....
Edited by Jay Taft on Mar 10, 2005 at 12:22 PM GMT (Reason: Add Image)
Edited by Jay Taft on Mar 10, 2005 at 12:27 PM GMT (Reason: Remove image)
Edited by Jay Taft on Mar 10, 2005 at 12:29 PM GMT (Reason: Another try at image size)
The set-up is an EOS 3 with Kodak 100VS on a tripod using mirror lock-up, manual focus on the oak tree in the foreground, and manual exposure. No filtes. For starters, to keep it simple I shot 4 images at sunny f16, literally using f16 at 1/100. The slides were scanned on Scan Dual 3 and saved at max resolution (about 31mb) The uploads should be about 3mb If this image looks reasonable compared to the original slide, I'll post others.
This one is Tamron 28-75 at 28mm, f16, 1/100, scaled back to about 300 kb.
Yikes -- it is still too big. No wonder I stick to film....
Edited by Jay Taft on Mar 10, 2005 at 12:22 PM GMT (Reason: Add Image)
Edited by Jay Taft on Mar 10, 2005 at 12:27 PM GMT (Reason: Remove image)
Edited by Jay Taft on Mar 10, 2005 at 12:29 PM GMT (Reason: Another try at image size)
Mar 10, 2005 at 09:44 AM
p.2 #3Tamron AF28-75 2.8 XR
So, the image file didn't upload. Perhaps it is still too large. More later.
Mar 10, 2005 at 09:48 AM
p.2 #5Tamron AF28-75 2.8 XR
hey all
this was one of my first lenses and it has served me very well... i find that the shots from it are 'warm' compared to shots taken with my canon gear (which is fine... i can always change in PS)... the fact that it doubles as a macro is great too... versatile and a great piece of glass for the price... a bit slower and noisier than the canon counterpart in focusing but other than that.. i thought about it but i can't bring myself to to sell mine (that and the price dropped really fast on it)...
i love my canons and L's but this is going to be my one exception...
dan
Edited by d10d on Mar 10, 2005 at 08:18 PM GMT
this was one of my first lenses and it has served me very well... i find that the shots from it are 'warm' compared to shots taken with my canon gear (which is fine... i can always change in PS)... the fact that it doubles as a macro is great too... versatile and a great piece of glass for the price... a bit slower and noisier than the canon counterpart in focusing but other than that.. i thought about it but i can't bring myself to to sell mine (that and the price dropped really fast on it)...
i love my canons and L's but this is going to be my one exception...
dan
Edited by d10d on Mar 10, 2005 at 08:18 PM GMT
Mar 10, 2005 at 10:32 AM
p.2 #6Tamron AF28-75 2.8 XR
OK, so the image needs to be about 130k which gives up a lot of resolution. Nevertheless, following are the sunny f16 shots at 35mm, 50mm and 75mm. See details several posts back.
Mar 10, 2005 at 11:36 AM
p.2 #8Tamron AF28-75 2.8 XR
...and 75mm. I will keep working on getting the file size under control so I can upload comparisons to other lenses. Suggestions welcomed by this PS klutz...
Mar 10, 2005 at 11:39 AM
p.2 #9Tamron AF28-75 2.8 XR
Here is the Tamron 28-75 at 75mm f2.8. for the following 3 shots I had positioned the tree on the right side of the frame to examine edge resolution. Again, this is full-frame film.
Mar 10, 2005 at 12:47 PM
p.2 #10Tamron AF28-75 2.8 XR
Here is the EF 100 f2 lens at f2.8. Similar right crop.
Mar 10, 2005 at 12:48 PM
p.2 #12Tamron AF28-75 2.8 XR
Assorted crops to compare with the Tamron 28-75
EF 20mm f2.8 at f8
EF 20mm f2.8 at f8
Mar 10, 2005 at 01:34 PM
p.2 #15Tamron AF28-75 2.8 XR
The 28mm crop from the Tamron 28-75 is problematic because I stood too far away from the tree. The resolution looks bad because substantial image expansion. Here is the Tamron 28-75 at 50mm f8. I was also a bit oo far away on this one. Live and learn.
Mar 10, 2005 at 01:52 PM
p.2 #18Tamron AF28-75 2.8 XR
Last one. EF 200mm 2.8 L at f8.
The crops were sized to be 600 pixels wide in PS. Keep in mind that the crops are from a 35mm slide to the magnification on the screen is substantial.
The crops were sized to be 600 pixels wide in PS. Keep in mind that the crops are from a 35mm slide to the magnification on the screen is substantial.
Mar 10, 2005 at 02:02 PM
p.2 #19Tamron AF28-75 2.8 XR
Thanks for those pics Jay. You the man.
At sunny 16 the Tamron looks fine on a full frame film camera at 35, 50 and 75 (considering other zooms in its price range). It would be nice if there were a million shades of green in the background, but winter will be over soon. Lookin kind of soft at 2.8, but what zoom isn't at this price point. The Tamron should make a fine lens for this type of photography/with tripod. The examples I have seen on digital are a bit better I think. But, f16 looks fine.
Gotta love that 100 prime. What a fine lens. I debated about that and went with the 85/1.8 on a toss of the coin.
I am surprised by the 20mm f2.8 at f8. Considering the negative reviews on that lens I expected less sharpness from it. Looks fine on my monitor.
Thanks for posting these pics. Since I would like to shoot some waterfalls in the Smokey Mountains this summer, you have me tempted by the 20/2.8 and convinced that the Tamron, for how I shoot - would be a fine buy too.
Let those who insist on comparing the $1,119.95 Canon L to a $369 Tamron blather all they want.
At sunny 16 the Tamron looks fine on a full frame film camera at 35, 50 and 75 (considering other zooms in its price range). It would be nice if there were a million shades of green in the background, but winter will be over soon. Lookin kind of soft at 2.8, but what zoom isn't at this price point. The Tamron should make a fine lens for this type of photography/with tripod. The examples I have seen on digital are a bit better I think. But, f16 looks fine.
Gotta love that 100 prime. What a fine lens. I debated about that and went with the 85/1.8 on a toss of the coin.
I am surprised by the 20mm f2.8 at f8. Considering the negative reviews on that lens I expected less sharpness from it. Looks fine on my monitor.
Thanks for posting these pics. Since I would like to shoot some waterfalls in the Smokey Mountains this summer, you have me tempted by the 20/2.8 and convinced that the Tamron, for how I shoot - would be a fine buy too.
Let those who insist on comparing the $1,119.95 Canon L to a $369 Tamron blather all they want.
Mar 10, 2005 at 05:26 PM
p.2 #20Tamron AF28-75 2.8 XR
Thanks, Elrond. I spend some time obsessing about sharp lenses and then spend a lot time photographing unsharp subjects like water, clouds, mist, fog, etc. The EF 100 is great, and sometimes a little too sharp for portraits. Its color is nice as well. I need to work a lot more with the 20mm and 24mm on close foreground, middle ground, and background. The sharpness in 20mm shots could be improved with better technique, and especially with more experience constructing the digital files. Just for fun I may try to find a cyan or magenta filter for the Tamron so it will have that special "L" hue, although I actually like the natural look of non-L glass, not to mention that I shoot about 50% black and white.
Regards,
Jay
Regards,
Jay
Mar 10, 2005 at 08:40 PM