Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 5, 2004, 12:58 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 9
Default

have a Canon Digital Rebel, but had to sell my old Tamron lens because it wasn't sharp with the DIGITAL. I'm interested in the new Tamron28-300mm "Di" lens and would like to get some actual user feedback. Thanks, Mike
mmayer54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 5, 2004, 3:54 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
hedwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 190
Default

I have the 28-75 f2.8 and i love it. I would suspect that the 28-300 won't be as sharp due to the zoom range nor as fast. But it should work well. Tamron does license the mount for use in their lenses.

The only complaints i have with mine is the focus speed. Other than that sharpness only lacks for the lack of a tripod. Be aware that this lens is probly going to be heavy. But the added durability will likely make up for that.

Looks like i have to eat my words about weight it actually weighs less than my shorter zoom.:?: look at http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tamronfor shots taken with it.
hedwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2004, 4:18 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

I also have the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and it is great!

The 28-300 is a F3.5-6.3, I wonder if the camera would have trouble focusing at the 300mm end with a f6.3 max aperture.

The lens also gets a "Tamron AF 3.5-6.3 28-300mm XR-IF Asph. macro
2.65 (2) = sub-average" rating at http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Zstd


PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2004, 5:48 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
hedwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 190
Default

It is a good bet that the sp di version will be much better. remember tamron had the sp for their top models.
hedwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2004, 4:57 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 184
Default

I have the Tamron 28-300 XR LD (if) Ultra Zoom.:?

It's not their latest version but I'm very happy with mine, at first I was expecting too much straight out of the box.

I had some problems, mainly with blurred photos but this was more me than the lense. I haven't got the steadiest hands but I can now manage some decent shots with this lense even at 300mm Hand Held. In very good light of course. But none the less this lense is very good value for money. IMHO.

It may be worth try before you buy, if you have any retailers who will do this for you. Jessops in the UK give you a 30 day no quible money back warranty. As long has you keep everything in re-saleable condition. Good way to try it out before hand.

Cheers

Mart.
mf_blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2004, 10:06 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

The 28-300 has extreme range and portability, and it's best understood in those terms -- it's not intended to be the last word in optical quality (*), but rather decent quality considering the other attributes.

I have a current Tamron 28-200 XR Di -- this is regarded as surely better than the 28-300 optically, and also around the top of the super-zoom 28-200 range (until you start considering "L" lenses).

My observations are that: (1) It's slightly darker than indicated by the f-stop range. It might be acceptably so within the formal tolerances, but it is noticably darker on test images takes in comparison with other lenses at the same f-stop & shutter & conditions. That darkness also has a slight yellow/brown colour cast, which can of course be removed in post-processing / adjusted out when shooting. But it does show up when you do lens comparisons, at leastwithout auto white balance.

(2) It's got significant chromatic abberation / tendency for purple fringing at 200 mm given the right conditions. (High contrast image with straight lines - e.g. lamp posts with strong lighting.)

(3) It's not as sharp as say the 50 1.8 at 50 mm. 17-40 f/4.0 L at 28mm, and 70-200 f/4.0 L at 200mm, etc., as I mentioned in (*).

(4) It can take surprisingly good shots, particularly at the mid ranges, not at the extremes of its focal range, regardless of (3).

(5) Its magnification at "200" is noticably less than the 70-200 f/4.0 L at "200".

(6) Mechanicially, it's OK until you compare it with the L lenses, which are noticably superior in focusing speed and smoothness.

Don't take these negative comments the wrong way -- as I said in (*), it's a decent compromise lens, and remember point (4) -- just don't expect the world when you compare it with lenses which are generally regarded as very high quality, and priced / sized accordingly.

The Tamron 28-70 f/2.8and 17-35f/2.8-4 areamong those lenses that are regarded as having high optical quality. They are priced accordingly, and also less portable.

I encourage people to buy the 50 1.8 as a benchmark for comparison of optical excellence, at a low cost. It's also a decent portrait lens for cropped DSLR's, and also good for low-light usage.

Finally, all DSLR images benefit from software sharpening, and there's a good chance that unsharp images (esp. those taken at f/8 or higher) are caused by factors other than lens quality.
Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2004, 2:12 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5
Default

Madwand is right-on with his lens review of the Tamron 26-300 Di. I would read it thoughly and decide if the compromise for weight is worth it to you.

I use my Tamron 28-300 Di lens on my Canon 1DMKII and love it. The Zoom range and weight is why I bought the lens. I have framed some 13x19 printed photos and noticed some chromatic abberation at 300mm, but then again, I wouldn't have got the shot without the Tamron 28-300 Dirange (on a tour tram).

I also have other lenses that are used on special occations ... 17-40L, 28-135IS and 100-400L, but I find myself using the Tamron 28-300 Di as my everyday carry lens.

Jim
Sakane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2005, 3:24 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1
Default

hedwards wrote:
Quote:
I have the 28-75 f2.8 and i love it. I would suspect that the 28-300 won't be as sharp due to the zoom range nor as fast. But it should work well. Tamron does license the mount for use in their lenses.

The only complaints i have with mine is the focus speed. Other than that sharpness only lacks for the lack of a tripod. Be aware that this lens is probly going to be heavy. But the added durability will likely make up for that.

Looks like i have to eat my words about weight it actually weighs less than my shorter zoom.:? look at http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tamronfor shots taken with it.
hedwards: how would you rate the focus speed over USM, you have complaints about the speed, but how "slow" is it really if you compare it to a USM lens ?

I would love the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 lens because of it beeing a f2.8, but am concernedabout the focus speed.I know Iwould be using the lensshooting in sport situations where my son plays football inside a though well lit place, but still dim light it seems for a Canon 28-80mm f3.5 - 6.5 lens.

Iwasshooting at iso 1600 and managed to get 1/40-1/60 with that, i´d love the faster lens of Tamron, but now you say the speed of focus is lacking. Did you try shoot action pictures with it ?



PhuPhyt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2005, 1:40 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
hedwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 190
Default

Sorry, wouldn't be fair for me to say for sure. I usually manual focus and I don't have a USM lens. It really isn't
an issue for me most of my shots are of still subjects.

It does seem markedly slower than my 50mm f/1.8s focus. But it is a prime, so I would expect for that and the lower aperature to play a
big factor.
hedwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 9:15 AM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 39
Default

Just my .02 from a photographer that could be described as amatuer at best. I had a 28-75/2.8 Tamron for a week and was very impressed with it. My only complaint was a relatively slow focus speed compared to USM so I returned it and bit the bullet on a 24-70 L. Retrospectively however, I doubt that it makes much of a difference for me. I should have kept the Tamron (very sharp) and gotten a 70-200/2.8 Sigma to boot for the $ I spent on the L glass. Even focusing on sporting events, which is much of what I shoot, I'd probably get the Tamron and keep it if I could do it over again. Come to think of it, that's probably not the only thing I'd do differently if I had perfect hindsight! Take it for what it's worth, but I'd vote for the Tamron 2.8. There's no replacement for large apetures when shooting action in marginal lighting. I find that in a HS pool I need a good flash to get any kind of photo of my sons swimming. It wouldn't be acceptable (to me) if I didn't have 2.8/Sigma 500 flash combo on my DRebel (thanks to NHL for that good piece of advice). gary


tuthill is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:22 PM.