 |
|
|
incdigital
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 226
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $345.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Unmatched Zoom Range , Great Value , Sharp , CA is well controlled , Pleasing Bokeh , Slow but dead on focus
|
|
Cons:
|
AF Motor not fast enough for action shots , No weather sealing , 82mm Filter
|
|
|
Like the sigma 12-24 on a full frame canon, this lens has no comparison. Sharpness drops near the 105mm mark wide open but this makes for pleasing dreamy like portraits. I paid 345 for it but I'd be just as happy with it if i paid $700.
|
|
 Aug 16, 2010
|
|
28furgus28
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 8, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 8, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, build quality, colours, focal range, f2.8 in low light.
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm filters.
|
|
|
Well i now own the canon 24-70 f2.8 L usm and can say the Tamron is a fantastic lens on my 50D, is the canon really worth the extra £800? i am no pro for what i do the answer is no.
I have found the Tamron a very sharp true to colour lens, great focal range, not too heavy and built to last forever.
I have used it inside at f2.8 and did not find it soft but taking pics outside i use f4 for truly stunning sharp pics of insects and flowers and at f16 the lens makes a great landscape lens.
Huge 82mm filter size gives bright view finder but a polarizing filter cost me £87, bit steep!
I would buy this lens again if i ran short of cash and had to sell the canon L Glass over anything else out there, you can buy one for around £200-£250 used these days.
|
|
|
Jul 8, 2009
|
|
Terry B.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 22, 2009
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 22, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $375.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great color, quality build.
|
|
Cons:
|
A little heavy
|
|
|
I had read lots of reviews on this lens befroe buying and was a little skeptical of it , but after weighing cost and all possibles, decided to give it a go. I purchased used. I'm thrilled with its performance, sharpness and richness of color and general quaility. Took it on my recent vacation to southern Utah and Colorado and really gave it a workout on landscapes, generally. I couldn't be more pleased with the results and can see no less picture quality than I'd previously gotten from my Canon L zooms. This lens is right up there.
I use mostly on tripod so the weight isn't a real factore with me. Buy this lensd with confidence. I see no oversoftness at 2.8, eighter, as I had read in reviews. Great lens!
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2009
|
|
Terry B.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 22, 2009
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 22, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $380.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, sharp and rich photos.
|
|
Cons:
|
A little heavy and cumbersome.
|
|
|
I read a lot of reviews on this 28-105 Tamron befroe purchasing used. I think it was getting some bad press because of its size and weight, and perhaps its slioght softness at 2.8. The only time I normally use 2.8 is for a portrait and aren't they supposed to be a tad soft? I mean a super sharp lens may not heed a great portrait unless a young person is the subject.
I purchased the lens and three days later took it out West to southern Colorado and Utah to really give it a workout. I'd read that it was super once stopped down a bit.
Well, I'm here to brag on this lens ! I used it for tons of landscapes , mainly at f/11 and f/16 but also shot a few at f/8. I'm so pleased with the results ! Landscapes are sharp and rich , as are closer subjects. I have a Canon L now and have had another in the past. This lens takes a backseat to no lens , for my purposes. Pics are rich and show real quality , colors are amazing. I won't get into super tech comparisons but will say to buy this lens with no hesitation, especially if you're working a tripod and shoot stopped down a lot. I love it !!
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2009
|
|
muskokaphotog
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 3, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 3, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great range, fixed aperature, sharp, versatile
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy, heavy, enormous filter and hood, plastic, some softness
|
|
|
This lens is a great general purpose, mine is bigger than yours, lens. I have had excellent results shooting scenery, stopped down on a tripod. I have experienced the soft glow, but that was on a Fuji S3pro and the same effect does not show up on my Nikon bodies. Tremendous zoom and focus range. Pretty durable for a plastic lens. Hood is very effective and keeping out stray light, branches and fingers.
|
|
|
Mar 3, 2009
|
|
mdphotoguy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 4, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $299.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Seems built well. Autofocus is quiet for a non-usm. 28-105 is a nice working range.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy. Lens prone to flare.
|
|
|
I felt compelled to write a review because this lens seems to get a bad rap.
The range is great. 28-105. On a crop camera it is good for general shooting like portraits or events. Focus is slower than a USM, but it is very precise and quiet for a non-canon product. Focussing manually works very well.
2.8 is soft, but the lens sharpens up as you stop down. It is not the sharpest tool in the shed--certainly not canon L sharp, but it is better than many consumer-grade zooms.
It has a pretty good macro capability too.
Yes, this lens is heavy and due to its 82mm front and prone to flare. 82 mm filters aren't a problem--EBAY! The anti-slip works well, and the build quality is pretty good with little or no play or wobble.
Overall for general shooting, this is a pretty nice lens for the range it covers and the price you can get it for. You can't compare this lens to say a 28-70mm 2.8 L or a 24-105mm f4 L . They cost 3-4 times as much. Yes, they are better lenses, but this is the only 28-105mm 2.8 ever made.
If you find one for 150-300$, try it. I have mostly canon lenses and have never been a big advocate of aftermarket products. But this lens, along with Tamrons 28-75mm 2.8 and 17-50 2.8 are pretty good. The latter 2 offer better sharpness, but less range.
One thing you might find though is that for some reason, the 20D with a 580 EXII flash is sometimes quirky with exposure with all 3 tamrons listed. Most of the time, everything works great. But keep checking your preview screen just in case.
Yes, I would recomend this lens. I wouldn't use it as a sports lens or for something which I need a super-sharp tack driver, but for general shooting and at a low price--it is pretty good.
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2008
|
|
willax1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 24, 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 62
|
|
Review Date: Sep 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
great portrait lens
|
|
Cons:
|
does not like high contrast situations at large apertures,not a sports lens
|
|
|
Great sharp,unless high contrast.I sort of agree with dean treml's
opinion.Basically a good alround lens but it shines when used according to its strenghts -even 2.8 is great in low contrast situations!
I had the previous version of this lens the 35-105 and now I own both.With the new full frame nikon coming up those two lenses may well be sought after again !
|
|
|
Sep 4, 2007
|
|
Sp00ks
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 19, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 55
|
|
Review Date: Mar 31, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast, great color
|
|
Cons:
|
weight, slow and noisy AF
|
|
|
I am truly in love with this lens. Mine may be a bit older than the one pictured here. It does not look exactly the same, but the specs are identical. I was looking at the 24-70 2.8 L and happened across this one used at my local shop. I had a 30 day money back so I tried it. I have never looked back.
Maybe build quality varied with this lens but mine is solid, built like a tank and as heavy as one. This lens is almost to sharp in some cases if that is possible. At f/2.8 I have had mixed results but anything under that has been fantastic. I have been into photography since the early 80's and this is my first non-canon lens. As you can read into my review, I have been impressed.
My only real qualms with the 28-105 have been the auto focus. It is a bit slow, hunts in low light, has trouble with dark objects in full light sometimes, and can be a little noisy. It sounds gear driven...
Before buying one of these, it looks as if you should try it out first. I believe Tamron's MSRP is about $1200 when this lens was new.
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007
|
|
achman
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Aug 4, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 898
|
|
Review Date: Jun 12, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $180.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
F2.8 only one in this range, build quality, accurate and relatively quiet autofocus, smooth zoom
|
|
Cons:
|
really soft at F2.8, slow focus, large,
|
|
I bought this off of Ebay for a song b/c someone mislabeled it and thought it was a different lens. My first "pro" lens...I thought with F2.8 and this range, it was a no-brainer...BUT
There is a simple reason no pros use this--it is very soft at F2.8. Almost unusable. The pictures have a dreamy almost soft-focus effect, which can be interesting if you use it right, but it needs to be at F4 or smaller to get sharp at all focal lengths. I have taken some just simply amazing pics at F5.6-F16...I shot the Venice film festival mostly with this lens awhile ago...but I used flash and at least F5.6 to get sharp shots...
Focus is very accurate but really slow...although very quiet when compared to other consumer non-USM lenses...
I had E99 errors start to come up on my 10D after 6 months, and I sent it to Tamron. Service was good, they cleaned it and put it into spec, replaced the barrel and aperture assembley (common repair) all for $125. It functioned flawlessly after, but was still just as soft at F2.8. This is not a tru F2.8 lens, it is an F4 lens, and if you only need to use it like that, it is ok, especially when bought used for $200-400...but I sold it and ponied u for a Canon 28-70 F2.8, and there is NO comparison. I would say use it till you can move up. I now have all "L" glass after owning many many non-canon lenses, some good, some bad, but when it counts and you need F2.8 to get something in a magazine and your rent depends on it, none of us use this lens.
Brian
www.brianach.com
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2006
|
|
Tigadee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 4, 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 17, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Seems solid enough. f2.8 is great if only it were sharp. Very sharp at f8 or smaller. Not much else... :-(
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft images at f2.8 to f4.5, so useless as low light lens. Zoom creep.
|
|
|
Very disappointing. f2.8 images are very soft (not DOF or focus problem, just the optics). Unless you;re shooting a portrait, that doesn;t help you or the lens in low-light situations. What's the point of having the lens a constant f2.8 constant then? Having unusable low light results across the zoom range?
If used as an outdoor good-light lens, it is fine and I guess you get what you pay for. Can barely use f4.0 images and need to go f8.0 for satisfactory results. If it's free, I'll take this but even at what I paid for it, it's still too expensive because it really doesn't live up to its potential!
|
|
|
May 17, 2006
|
|
studio56
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $281.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
a great oversize lens, great colors and sharpness.
|
|
Cons:
|
can be expensive if buy new, about 800-1000$, but buy used is not bad at all, the rubber zoom ring tends to comes unglued. over size can be disadvantage..but looks great.
|
|
|
i bought this lens after ive sold my canon 28-135mm IS,nikon 28-105mm and my nikon 24-120mm, these 3 lenses were just not good enough for my taste.
i got this tamron lens for 281$ on ebay used. but in very nice shape.
its looks great and does great. for its over size , gigantic, huge lens..may be the biggest lens made in its range. comes with an over size petal hood. its a very sharp lens if step down on f stops..great colors and details contrast, not to mention its colors are neutral.it may stays on my fuji s2 pro 75% at time..
for those who has negative reviews on it, i do feel sorry for them..this may be best lens tamron made..i got the newer model on this lens, the diff is the zoom ring, its got grooves zoom ring, instead of tamron logo on it , like the pic shows here. tamron has informed me that its changed the cosmetic looks only, nothing to do with performances.
i love this lens and highly recommended.
a pro lens for less.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2006
|
|
Orgnoi1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 666
|
|
Review Date: Dec 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $499.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great Color, Sharp Focus, 2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, Slow Focus
|
|
|
Aside from the slow focus, this lens would be a keeper for sure. Size really isnt all that important to me so the 82mm filter and heavy lens isnt too important. The pictures it takes are excellent in color and sharpness. Shoots real well inside with or without flash (as long as you arent using the onboard flash).
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2005
|
|
myoshik
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Oct 28, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
very good color.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow on autofocus. Tamron really needs an equivalent of the USM. Build quality must vary.
|
|
|
After owning a used one of these lenses, I decided to buy the new version to see if anything had changed. Other than a slight update of the look, it performed the same. I was hoping the AF motor would work faster.
Recently, I thought I was going crazy because I couldn't seem to take a sharp picture to save my life. I was also getting a LOT of ERR 99s. I tried cleaning contacts and removing/replacing the battery, and nothing seemed to help. So I sent the lens in to Tamron. I got a repair letter back from them and this is what it said. (Mind you, I've only owned this one for about 7-8 months.
FOCUS IS OFF
ZOOM IS LOOSE/TIGHTEN
ZOOM IS ROUGH
LOCKS UP CAMERA/SHOWS BATTERY MARK
APERATURE ASSEMBLY NEEDS ADJUSTMENT/REPLACEMENT
CALIBRATE TO FACTORY SPECS
GENERAL CHECK/CLEAN/ADJUST
Seems to me that is a long list for such short ownership!
I also bought a used one of these recently off of ebay because it was a package deal I couldn't pass up. This one is from 1998 and has had several repairs done to it, including replacement of aperature. The previous owner included all of the paperwork.
However this one seems to work just great. So go figure. Still slow on AF, though, which makes me want to upgrade to canon lenses to get the speed. After using my 17-40 USM L and 28-135 IS USM, it makes me very impatient waiting.
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2005
|
|
chickpiper
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 856
|
|
Review Date: Oct 14, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp. Vivid colors. Constant f/2.8 aperture.
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus is a bit slow and not whisper quite. Composite material may not hold up as well as metal - but the newer tripods made of composite materials seem to do very good.
|
|
|
I felt like the other ratings of this lens was a little low. The number of elements it has and the quality of the elements speaks for itself. True - the focus is slow and it searches sometimes in low light, but I still find it manageable. I love the colors and the sharpness of this lens. It does show some distortion (bending straight lines on a building) if used at some angles and at 28mm. It does cover a good range for portraits and at f/5.6 or f/8 is very cabable.
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2005
|
|
mal233
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 398
|
|
Review Date: Oct 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $585.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp. Excellent focal range.
|
|
Cons:
|
82mm filter, but the new version is less. Heavy, but oddly feels like it balances well with my 1Ds. Nothing that would keep me from buying this lens again.
|
|
|
I use it my on 1Ds now. I bought this for my wife when we were still shooting film. We kept noticing how sharp and contrasty her shots were. I was using mostly Canon primes. But we had to pay attention to keep track of her shots because I couldn't tell the difference! So the short of it is, I took it for my 1Ds and she has another lens sans the mag factor for her D60.
Sometimes I think we are all too "trained" to think that only "L" lens or the Nikon equiv. are the only ones for good pictures. Clearly this lens will never be the item holding back my progress photographically - as usual it will be me - not the equipment. Especially not this lens.
I bought mine used and if you can find one, especially with the new version out, take it. You won't regret it.
|
|
|
Oct 6, 2005
|
|
Trucker
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 21, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 74
|
|
Review Date: Aug 11, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp even wide open. Good color and contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit heavy.
|
|
|
As others have noted, there are a lot of mixed reviews on this lens. And had I read them first, instead of actually trying the lens out, I might have hesitated and not bought this one. Instead, after actually trying it, I bought it and I am glad I did. The lens I got is very sharp and has great color and contrast. I didn't buy it here on FM's Buy & Sell forum but, instead from a local camera shop. So, I paid $650.00 plus tax. Total, slightly over $700.00 . But, I had the chance to try it out and I really do like this lens. It is my first non-Canon lens that I feel is close, if not equal to Canon L quality.
I have since seen two different sellers here, selling this lens for less than I paid for mine. Knowing what I know now, I would recommend to others to give this great lens a chance.
You won't be disappointed.
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
23
|
144109
|
Aug 16, 2010
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
70% of reviewers
|
$505.22
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.50
|
7.48
|
7.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
