Comments on: Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD Aspherical for Canon Digital SLR Cameras http://slr35mmcameras.com/123/tamron-af-28-75mm-f2-8-sp-xr-zl-di-ld-aspherical-for-canon-digital-slr-cameras/ slr 35mm cameras revealed Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:11:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Greg Acuff http://slr35mmcameras.com/123/tamron-af-28-75mm-f2-8-sp-xr-zl-di-ld-aspherical-for-canon-digital-slr-cameras/comment-page-1/#comment-549 Greg Acuff Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:05:00 +0000 http://slr35mmcameras.com/123/tamron-af-28-75mm-f2-8-sp-xr-zl-di-ld-aspherical-for-canon-digital-slr-cameras/#comment-549 After reading all about this lens I was excited about getting it, however I'm not so excited anymore. I was in denial when the pictures weren't coming out sharp. But that's it, the pictures just aren't sharp. Then I took a picture of a gopher in a grass field, with center (spot) focus dead nuts on the gopher and guess what? The grass about a foot behind the gopher is in perfect focus. Now I have to send the lens in for warranty work. Can you say "hassle". Right now I'm wishing I'd have bought the Canon 28-135 IS USM instead. The price is about the same, the focal length is better and the IS can get you into some of the same places the constant 2.8 apperature can (not all). Anyway, I'm very dissappointed. Rating: 2 / 5 After reading all about this lens I was excited about getting it, however I’m not so excited anymore. I was in denial when the pictures weren’t coming out sharp. But that’s it, the pictures just aren’t sharp. Then I took a picture of a gopher in a grass field, with center (spot) focus dead nuts on the gopher and guess what? The grass about a foot behind the gopher is in perfect focus. Now I have to send the lens in for warranty work. Can you say “hassle”. Right now I’m wishing I’d have bought the Canon 28-135 IS USM instead. The price is about the same, the focal length is better and the IS can get you into some of the same places the constant 2.8 apperature can (not all). Anyway, I’m very dissappointed.
Rating: 2 / 5

]]> By: Philip T. Ganderton http://slr35mmcameras.com/123/tamron-af-28-75mm-f2-8-sp-xr-zl-di-ld-aspherical-for-canon-digital-slr-cameras/comment-page-1/#comment-548 Philip T. Ganderton Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:49:14 +0000 http://slr35mmcameras.com/123/tamron-af-28-75mm-f2-8-sp-xr-zl-di-ld-aspherical-for-canon-digital-slr-cameras/#comment-548 I couldn't get over the focus ring moving with AF. Funky and distracting and unnerving sometimes. Optically it was OK, with some CA. A good priced lens, I ended up going for the much more expensive Canon 24-105 f4 -- slower but with IS, it's a match for this lens, albeit 3x more expensive. <br /> <br /> Rating: 3 / 5 I couldn’t get over the focus ring moving with AF. Funky and distracting and unnerving sometimes. Optically it was OK, with some CA. A good priced lens, I ended up going for the much more expensive Canon 24-105 f4 — slower but with IS, it’s a match for this lens, albeit 3x more expensive.

Rating: 3 / 5

]]> By: Gustavo Santos http://slr35mmcameras.com/123/tamron-af-28-75mm-f2-8-sp-xr-zl-di-ld-aspherical-for-canon-digital-slr-cameras/comment-page-1/#comment-547 Gustavo Santos Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:44:04 +0000 http://slr35mmcameras.com/123/tamron-af-28-75mm-f2-8-sp-xr-zl-di-ld-aspherical-for-canon-digital-slr-cameras/#comment-547 I don't know about you, but I don't want to lose important photo opportunities while changing lenses - yes, resolution and detail are a must, and I'm quite sure this one packs great quality in a affordable package, but the reason people use zooms instead of primes is basically avoiding lens swapping in the first place - along with price as well (1 zoom vs 2 or 3 primes), so if you are shopping for a walk-around zoom lens, I believe you want to avoid as much as possible the stressing and often risky lens swapping. Considering a study I did I believe you'll be swapping lenses a lot with this one, since it is so long in a 1.6 FOV body. It becomes a 44.8mm lens, for Christ sake, a NORMAL lens! If I made you curious, keep on reading. <br /> <br />My research: <br />I have analysed the EXIF tags of all the pictures I took with my point-and-shoot Powershot A520 in certain days. It has a great range (35 to 140mm equiv). I have considered ONLY albums that were about travels or strolling around, no toddler parties were analysed. Boat rides, travels and sightseeing in general only. I made a frequency analysis of the lenses I used for every shot, and lately I compared with the ranges possible of many lenses in the market. <br /> <br />These are the percents of photographs taken with each lens (converted to 35mm equiv) range: <br />35mm - 41,7% <br />47mm - 7,0% <br />59mm - 4,0% <br />71mm - 10,0% <br />83mm - 13,0% <br />96mm - 4,0% <br />112mm - 11,0% <br />140mm - 44,0% <br /> <br />Now, these are the percentages of the shots taken I could do with each of these lenses on a 1.6 FOV cropped sensor camera. Here are my findings: <br /> <br />Canon EF-S 17-55mm (kit lens) (74.6%) <br />Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 (100%) <br />Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR (74.6%) <br />Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (63%) <br />Canon EF 17-55mm f/2,8L IS USM (74.6%) <br />Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 (82.1%) <br />Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L (82.1%) <br />Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 (100%) <br />Canon EF 24-85mm f 3,5-4,5 USM (100%) <br />Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM (58.3%) <br />*** Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 (40.4%) <br />Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 (65.8%) <br />Cosina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (63.0%) <br /> <br />(I considered 319 shots in my research, should you be willing to do the math. To be fair, I considered 38.4mm to be close enough to 35mm, hence the good results of 24mm+ lenses). <br /> <br />As you can see, should you believe my research, the 28-75mm had one of the worst coverage-based hit ratios on a 1.6 FOV crop (for the considered lenses). Barely 40%. Even the considerably short Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM scored a 63%. Indeed 40% means a lot of lens swapping. BTW, in a full-frame camera (film SLRs included) the story is another one completely. The 28-75 coverage leaps to 68.3% of the shots. I personally wouldn't consider anything far from 70%. <br />There is a reason Canon packs a 17-55mm zoom with their cameras, though a soft one: it's a pretty commonly used range, as 74.6% of my shots would be covered by that lens. <br /> <br />Have I ever used a ~50mm as a walk-around lens on a SLR? Definitely, and for a long time. My opinion? It was a real pain. Never wide enough indoors (ever been to a crowded restaurant during a stroll around?), never wide enough for group shots (picture yourself inside a trolley car, trying to photograph your friends, as I did once. Wrong lens). Never the creative options even a modest 35mm wide-angle would give you. My idea? You don't want to loose the 35mm range in your everyday lens. It is a great loss. <br /> <br />My advice? Study another alternative, such as Tamron's highly praised SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR (scored a very fine 74,6%, and has the juicy 2.8 aperture as well). Or at least consider a lens that starts at 24mm. These extra 4mm become 7mm wide, and that's a great difference. A 38.4mm wide angle is no big deal, but close enough to 35mm, and in my opinion a world apart from 44.8mm. Rating: 3 / 5 I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to lose important photo opportunities while changing lenses – yes, resolution and detail are a must, and I’m quite sure this one packs great quality in a affordable package, but the reason people use zooms instead of primes is basically avoiding lens swapping in the first place – along with price as well (1 zoom vs 2 or 3 primes), so if you are shopping for a walk-around zoom lens, I believe you want to avoid as much as possible the stressing and often risky lens swapping. Considering a study I did I believe you’ll be swapping lenses a lot with this one, since it is so long in a 1.6 FOV body. It becomes a 44.8mm lens, for Christ sake, a NORMAL lens! If I made you curious, keep on reading.

My research:

I have analysed the EXIF tags of all the pictures I took with my point-and-shoot Powershot A520 in certain days. It has a great range (35 to 140mm equiv). I have considered ONLY albums that were about travels or strolling around, no toddler parties were analysed. Boat rides, travels and sightseeing in general only. I made a frequency analysis of the lenses I used for every shot, and lately I compared with the ranges possible of many lenses in the market.

These are the percents of photographs taken with each lens (converted to 35mm equiv) range:

35mm – 41,7%

47mm – 7,0%

59mm – 4,0%

71mm – 10,0%

83mm – 13,0%

96mm – 4,0%

112mm – 11,0%

140mm – 44,0%

Now, these are the percentages of the shots taken I could do with each of these lenses on a 1.6 FOV cropped sensor camera. Here are my findings:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm (kit lens) (74.6%)

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 (100%)

Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR (74.6%)

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (63%)

Canon EF 17-55mm f/2,8L IS USM (74.6%)

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 (82.1%)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L (82.1%)

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 (100%)

Canon EF 24-85mm f 3,5-4,5 USM (100%)

Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM (58.3%)

*** Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 (40.4%)

Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 (65.8%)

Cosina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (63.0%)

(I considered 319 shots in my research, should you be willing to do the math. To be fair, I considered 38.4mm to be close enough to 35mm, hence the good results of 24mm+ lenses).

As you can see, should you believe my research, the 28-75mm had one of the worst coverage-based hit ratios on a 1.6 FOV crop (for the considered lenses). Barely 40%. Even the considerably short Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM scored a 63%. Indeed 40% means a lot of lens swapping. BTW, in a full-frame camera (film SLRs included) the story is another one completely. The 28-75 coverage leaps to 68.3% of the shots. I personally wouldn’t consider anything far from 70%.

There is a reason Canon packs a 17-55mm zoom with their cameras, though a soft one: it’s a pretty commonly used range, as 74.6% of my shots would be covered by that lens.

Have I ever used a ~50mm as a walk-around lens on a SLR? Definitely, and for a long time. My opinion? It was a real pain. Never wide enough indoors (ever been to a crowded restaurant during a stroll around?), never wide enough for group shots (picture yourself inside a trolley car, trying to photograph your friends, as I did once. Wrong lens). Never the creative options even a modest 35mm wide-angle would give you. My idea? You don’t want to loose the 35mm range in your everyday lens. It is a great loss.

My advice? Study another alternative, such as Tamron’s highly praised SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR (scored a very fine 74,6%, and has the juicy 2.8 aperture as well). Or at least consider a lens that starts at 24mm. These extra 4mm become 7mm wide, and that’s a great difference. A 38.4mm wide angle is no big deal, but close enough to 35mm, and in my opinion a world apart from 44.8mm.
Rating: 3 / 5

]]> By: A. Rich http://slr35mmcameras.com/123/tamron-af-28-75mm-f2-8-sp-xr-zl-di-ld-aspherical-for-canon-digital-slr-cameras/comment-page-1/#comment-546 A. Rich Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:09:30 +0000 http://slr35mmcameras.com/123/tamron-af-28-75mm-f2-8-sp-xr-zl-di-ld-aspherical-for-canon-digital-slr-cameras/#comment-546 You get what you pay for. The lens does a good job in low lighting. I prefer to stick with Canon lens, due to the quality and reliability. Rating: 3 / 5 You get what you pay for. The lens does a good job in low lighting. I prefer to stick with Canon lens, due to the quality and reliability.
Rating: 3 / 5

]]> By: Salty http://slr35mmcameras.com/123/tamron-af-28-75mm-f2-8-sp-xr-zl-di-ld-aspherical-for-canon-digital-slr-cameras/comment-page-1/#comment-545 Salty Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:25:34 +0000 http://slr35mmcameras.com/123/tamron-af-28-75mm-f2-8-sp-xr-zl-di-ld-aspherical-for-canon-digital-slr-cameras/#comment-545 This is my first experience with a lens, other than Canon and my last. <br />After the many great things I read about this lens, all over the internet, I got a bad copy. <br />I was hoping to be able to use it for a walk around lens, for small items. <br /> <br />This lens had a very plastic feel to all of it. <br /> <br />I tried it for one day, and I could not get it to focus for a macro shot of a flower. <br />I own 2 high quality Canon macro lens and have the ability to take excellent photos <br /> <br />This lens was a big disapointment to me. I returned it and bought the Canon 100mm macro lens <br /> <br />It took some time for it to be credited back to me. Amazon said they would pay the return shipping cost, it required a phone call, to "discuss this", to get my shipping costs credited Rating: 1 / 5 This is my first experience with a lens, other than Canon and my last.

After the many great things I read about this lens, all over the internet, I got a bad copy.

I was hoping to be able to use it for a walk around lens, for small items.

This lens had a very plastic feel to all of it.

I tried it for one day, and I could not get it to focus for a macro shot of a flower.

I own 2 high quality Canon macro lens and have the ability to take excellent photos

This lens was a big disapointment to me. I returned it and bought the Canon 100mm macro lens

It took some time for it to be credited back to me. Amazon said they would pay the return shipping cost, it required a phone call, to “discuss this”, to get my shipping costs credited
Rating: 1 / 5

]]>