 |
Tamron 24-135MM F/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical (IF) Macro
|
|
Review Date: Nov 6, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, colour, contrast, build, versatility
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit slow (aperture), but for this range I can't complain.
|
|
|
This is my second review of this lens because I now use it on a 5D and I want to echo some of the comments of other 5D users.
This lens is a perfect match with the 5D as a walk-around or travel combo. The range is perfect, the size and weight balances very nicely on a 5D, and the images are very good to excellent. This lenses strong point is on the wide end, and it shows this even more on the FF sensor, where it maintains very sharp corners (f8).
I loved this lens on my 20D, but I love it *much* more on my 5D. It is not as good as a prime or some of the Ls, but for an inexpensive all-in-one it simply can't be beat. It walks all over the Canon "kit" lenses and the "Super-Zooms" out there, and it can be had for a very good price these days!
|
|
|
|
|
Tamron 17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)
|
|
Review Date: Apr 12, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $320.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast, excellent colour & contrast, VERY wide on 1.3x crop. Relatively lightweight. Nicely damped focus ring and zoom ring.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hunts a bit in odd situations. Medium AF speed. Significant flare when the sun is in the frame, but I guess that is to be expected.
|
|
|
I've had this for a little over a week now and it has certainly lived up to all these great reviews. My copy is respectibly sharp even wide open and just gets better as I stop down a bit.
Not as spectacular as my Magic Drainpipe or some of my primes, but it is easily as sharp as the EF 20mm f2.8 that I rented a few weeks ago.
AF speed could be snappier, but I don't consider this to be a major issue on somehting this wide.
Flare is certainly there. The hood helps a lot, but I had to use my hand as an extra shade a few times. No big deal.
I am pleasantly surprised at how wide it is on my 1.3x crop 1D. No real need for anything wider than this. Another pleasant surprise is that I have noticed very little softness and/or light fall-off out at the edges, even on the 1.3x crop.
The combination of speed, image quality, and width of this lens simply cannot beat by anything in this price range.
|
|
|
|
|
Tamron 24-135MM F/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical (IF) Macro
|
|
Review Date: Aug 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
For a zoom of this range VERY SHARP (if stopped down slightly), excellent build quality, truly a great walk-around lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft wide open from 100-135mm, but 1 stop down cures that. Not fast, but ISO 400-1600 on the 20D cures that.
|
|
|
I have given this lens all tens because it has truly exceeded my expectations. Sure it has it's limitations, but what zoom lens doesn't?
One reviewer here compares the sharpness to the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 prime. This truly is a fair comparison. I cannot say that it is as sharp as the prime, but it is in the same league.
The wide end is not "ultra" wide on a 1.6x crop, but it is still wide enough for most situations.
I love this lens and I highly recommend it as a walk around, general purpose lens for those people who are just not satisfied with cheaper all-in-one zooms.
The pros will say "if this is a 10, what would you rate an L lens?" Well, show me an L lens with this versatility and sharpness for this kind of price and I'll rate it a 12 for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
|
|
Review Date: May 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Seems to be very sharp, as stated in every review here. Build quality seems great, but I've never held an "L" yet. Macro shots look terrific. Focus "snaps in" in ample lighting.
|
|
Cons:
|
Low light hunting is extreme, almost unusable. Focusing at 2.8 is hit and miss, not sure if this is a lens issue or my issue yet.
|
|
|
To be honest, I expected more from this lens than I have seen so far. I am finding it very difficult to get used to. Autofocus hunting in low light is truly aweful. My Tamron 28-200 is WAY better at this (how can that be?) This is shocking, considering that HUGE 2.8 hole is letting in so much light.
It gets high marks for being sharp, but at 2.8, it's sharpness is hit and miss. I suspect this is due to the extremely short DOF, and it's likely just that I need to improve my skills. For now I'm going to try to stop down to 4 or 5.6 to see if I can control the focus a bit better.
I paid a lot of money for this lens (on e-bay) and got slapped with huge customs fees, so right now I'm doing my best to try to justify the cost. I'll keep trying, but this lens might be for sale in a month.
|
|
|
|
|
Tamron 28-200MM F/3.8-5.6 XR Aspherical (IF) Macro AF
|
|
Review Date: May 1, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $250.00
|
|
Pros:
|
As stated before
|
|
Cons:
|
As stated before
|
|
|
Just to add to my earlier comments.
I have read reviews here of the Tamron 28-300 and a common complaint is that the lens get very soft between 200 and 300.
The 28-200 also gets a bit softer at it's longer focal lengths, but it is not a "drastic" change in quality. I think much of this softness can be attributed to camera shake, especially with the 28-300 lens. People are taking this "walk-around super-zoom" and trying to hand hold shots at 300mm. It's not surprising that the images are not as impressive, considering that aperture stops down at these lengths requiring either longer shutter speeds or higher ISO, both of which just reduce quality.
Also, from what I have read (I'm surely no expert), this sort of image deterioration at longer focal lengths is common of all "consumer" zoom lenses. The only way to get "amazing" 300mm shots is with a nice, fast (2.8), prime on a tripod (or with IS).
From what I have read here and elsewhere, this 28-200 easily beats Canon's version, which says a lot when price is considered.
We still love ours.
|
|
|
|
|
Tamron 28-200MM F/3.8-5.6 XR Aspherical (IF) Macro AF
|
|
Review Date: Apr 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, contrasty, small for such a large zoom factor (it's the same length as the Canon EF-S 18-55mm). Solidly built, no lens creep yet and if it becomes a problem, there's a zoom lock. Nice bokeh! Nice lens hood too!
|
|
Cons:
|
Hunts a bit in low light and close focus, but this is really my own fault. Gets a bit less sharp wide open.
|
|
|
First, I should mention that the picture shown here is not the one I have. Mine is the silver version and it has no manual aperture ring.
They want $500 CDN for this in camera shops. Even at that price it's a great lens, but I got it for half price on e-bay. What a steal!
My wife and I are using this on our Digital Rebel (300D) as a replacement for the EF-S 18-55mm. When we first got the 300D, we were a little disappointed with the shots we were taking with the kit lens. After reading a bit on the internet, I realized that we were being limited by the kit lens.
Ever since we got this Tamron lens, all our pictures are much better. More contrast, better colour saturation, etc. We are very happy with the "bokeh" produced by this lens as well, very soft and natural looking, without much sign of the aperture blades. The huge zoom range on such a small lens really makes it ideal as a main run-around lens. There are so many different kinds of shots you can take with it and it's so easy to frame your subject, no matter what distance.
At the short end, it isn't quite as wide as we'd like it (due to the 1.6x crop of the 300D, but on the other hand, the long end becomes 380mm. We just got a Peleng 8mm for the wide shots anyway. It should be fun.
This obviously is not a "professional" lens, but if you hate your EF-S 18-55mm and want a sharp, contrasty lens with a huge zoom factor in a very small package, you can't go wrong here. Especially if you can get it for the price I paid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
