Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Sharpness Test Wide Open, Stopped Down, & Zoom Extremes

keith204

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
1,643
Reaction score
2
Location
Bolivar, MO
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I got my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 in today, and did some sharpness tests on it. If you have Dial-Up, hit the BACK button now.

28mm f/2.8
wide28full.jpg


28mm f/2.8 Crop
wide28crop.jpg



28mm f/4.0
wide40full.jpg



28mm f/4.0 Crop
wide40crop.jpg


28mm f/5.6
wide56full.jpg


28mm f/5.6 Crop
wide56crop.jpg



**********************75mm*************************

75mm f/2.8
tele28full.jpg


75mm f/2.8 Crop
tele28crop.jpg


75mm f/4.0
tele40full.jpg


75mm f/4.0 Crop
tele40crop.jpg


75mm f/5.6
tele56full.jpg


75mm f/5.6 Crop
tele56crop.jpg



Conclusion:

VERY sharp at f/2.8 at 28mm. At 75mm, it's relatively soft, but probably still usable. If stopped down to f/4.0 at 75mm, it's very sharp.

All in all, I think this lens will do more than suit my needs. (as long as this world needs candy wrapper photographers)
 
Also,

Shots taken with:

Canon 40D
1600ISO w/out any noise-reduction
Tiffen UV Filter
JPEG
 
Thanks Keith! That is a great review of that lens. Those are some really sharp pictures. I was gonna buy one of those but I wasnt sure of performance. But thanks to you i have an idea of how it will pan out. Thanks!
 
Ok but you've reviewed the lens at it's best. Can you also supply 100% crops from the corners?

Look at sharpness curves and you will see even some of the most horrible lenses (Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 at wide open) are tac sharp in the centre.
 
Ok but you've reviewed the lens at it's best. Can you also supply 100% crops from the corners?

Look at sharpness curves and you will see even some of the most horrible lenses (Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 at wide open) are tac sharp in the centre.


So, I should focus on something flat then?
 
Great test! I was surprised that I could actually see a bit of softening at the 75mm F2.8, albeit very little. What are you thinking of reviewing next?
 
Focusing

Sharpness has seemed great thus far. However, AF is a different story, but that is to be expected. Slow. Slowest AF of all my lenses. However, I do have USM/HSM on all of them except my 50mm f/1.8 (and now this Tamron)...so it's not saying much.

Using my 430EX, the AF-assist beam seems to help quite a bit with accuracy, and the AF certainly doesn't hunt much then.

AF Noise? Some complain about this. But, it's not annoyingly loud in my opinion. I would not hesitate to take it in a museum. I have used plenty of louder lenses (some Sigmas w/out HSM are louder).

Really, I purchased this lens knowing that AF wouldn't be as good as the Canon 24-70. For saving so much money, I can deal with the slow AF for a little while :)
 
Keith, you own this one and had previously owned the sigma 24-70 too right? After having both, which one would you recommend? Seems the sigma is hit or miss on quality is big and has a solid feel. Where this one doesnt have the feel of the sigma but is consistent with optical quality. Was the sigma's AF faster? Im looking for some sort of tipping point and having a hard time deciding.
 
Keith, you own this one and had previously owned the sigma 24-70 too right? After having both, which one would you recommend? Seems the sigma is hit or miss on quality is big and has a solid feel. Where this one doesnt have the feel of the sigma but is consistent with optical quality. Was the sigma's AF faster? Im looking for some sort of tipping point and having a hard time deciding.

Great questions.

I actually am sending this back to B&H because of a bug at the 28mm end. The copy I had had focusing problems when wide (very very slow focusing) and didn't communicate correctly with the camera on focal length. I haven't heard of this before, and I am convinced it's just a bug in the Tamron I got.

AF speeds. I didn't compare the two side by side, but I would say the Tamron was a bit faster. Both are slow.

Build - there's a difference between build quality and feel...in my opinion. For instance... my 17-85 IS by Canon feels GREAT...but doesn't necessarily feel solid. The opposite occurs with the Sigma. The Sigma feels solid, but the zoom is stiff and uncomfortable. Many people say that the stiffness loosens a bit, so it isn't a problem. The Tamron's size is nice, the build quality feels decent, and the zoom feels better than the Sigma (not as stiff) but also doesn't feel near as good as my 17-85.

Focal length - Big Mike keeps saying "24/28 is too wide for a crop body" and I ignored him once when I bought the 24-70, and then I ignored him a second time when I got the Tamron 28-75. Both times I regretted it. Getting the Sigma 24-70 was what prompted me to sell it and get the 17-85 IS. Now, a few months later, I think "Well I have a 10-20mm, so that paired with a 28-75 should be ok" - wrong! On a crop sensor, I can't stress enough that a 24/28 is too narrow.

Optics - I haven't tested the 24-70 extensively. I only had it for a few days and realized that I needed wider. The Tamron is INCREDIBLY sharp...especially at 2.8 and for a $350 lens.

Conclusion.
I shoot sports. AF speed is important to me. That's the reason I am getting a refund on the 28-75, and will soon splurge on a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS w/ USM. If you don't require fast AF, then IMO you can get away with a Tamron 28-75. If you are shooting indoors, you'll really need something wider. For me, I need the wide end, and I need the USM motor. Neither of these are for me. If you can deal without those, these two mentioned lenses are well worth their money. Personally, I prefer the Tamron. It's a great lens. Just understand that it's certainly not wide on a crop body, and AF speed is certainly slow. If you're ok with these, then go with the Tamron, you won't be disappointed!
 
I have to add...

I'm a sucker for 2.8 zooms. Hopefully I'm not talking you out of one. If you have a crop body, look into the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Big Mike has one I think, and it's supposed to be real nice.
 
Thanks for the awsome reply! Yeah, I just got a 30D, and I do shoot moto-x, although i plan on using a 70-200 mostly for that.

It was interesting to hear you say the pairing of the 10-20 and 28-75 was a poor one, because thats exactly what I had in mind. haha

Either way all I have currently is the 50mm prime, so Im sure ill be happy with anything, but you might have talked me down to the 17-50 tamron. Because like you, I want a constant low app.
 
This is becoming impossible to make a choice. Whenever I narrow it down to something with all the features I want, it turns out to be an L lens that I dont have the budget for. No wonder these things got a high price tag lol. I think I'll just have to take the plunge on one of these and make a learning experience out of it.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top