Tamron 28-75mm Lens - Is this a good copy?

[zoogirlbc]

.

 

[IgsEMT]

Kind of hard to judge from here. 1st look at it at 100% view. And I'd suggest to print it.

 

[zoogirlbc]

I'm not sure how to crop it so it posts at 100% view? Good idea about printing them.

 

[IgsEMT]

I didn't mean crop an post @ 100% view but it might work. You can fool p screen but can't fool paper. Ue real lab ad print at least 8x10 to srutinize it.
gl

 

[John Mc]

I know its a mean thing to say,But its not the lens that makes you a good photographer.and i personally have been suggested to get this lens instead of a Canon 24-70mm.

 

[zoogirlbc]

It's not a mean thing to say it is true, but good quality gear does help. I have seen a huge improvement in the quality of my photos since I upgraded. I didn't ask if this lens would make me a better photographer I wanted to know how it compares to other copies of the same lens because I have heard they have some QC issues.

 

[John Mc]

Fair enough,tamron does have a little Qc issue,i had 3 70-300mm lenses,the cheapest one they offer,the one i have now is a good lens,but its not without its issues.which is the reason i think im going to stick with Canon and Sigma

 

[zoogirlbc]

Yes, I'd love to only have Nikon. But the Nikon in this range and speed is the same price as 3 of the Tamron and I am out of money to spend on more gear lol.

 

[orb9220]

Yep looks good but would take it out and tripod it and shoot a brick wall or like at f4 or higher. Then you can check for side softness and edge to edge sharpness.

I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and is my main workhorse. Have had two copies both bought used no problems. And don't put too much in the QA issues as they usually get blown way out of context. As you will get that 1 to 3 out of 10 that got bad copies posting all over the forums and internet how this or that lens sucks. Geeze after one copy they are trashing the whole model or name. But in forums like flickr and such will post in multiple groups multiple times. But you won't hear from the other 7 or 9 that got good copies bother starting a thread about how they got a good copy.

And then people seem to minimize what's right there in front of them with many giving glowing reviews how they love the lens. Then a couple will come along and share their bad experience. Then for some reason we give more weight to those 2 or 3 negative experiences weight then keeping it in perspective.

I started a thread in tamron 17-50 group asking people how many copies to get a good one. And after about 80 responses of Nikon & Canon it came down to less than 20% had to exchange a bad copy. And 80% where happy with their first copy.
.

 

[zoogirlbc]

Thanks Orb9220! You are totally right. I compared it to a few similar shots I took with my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 today and it is very slightly less sharp and only if I zoom in 100%. I've sent a bunch off to print in 4x6 and a few 8x10's as well but after shooting with it more I'm liking a lot.

 

[zoogirlbc]

.

 

[Tee]

That's a nice photo zoogirl. When I went from the kit lens to the Tamron 28-75 I noticed a huge difference. My images were much more sharp and popped more. However, the lens I got had a slight pink color cast to it. At first I thought it was not correcting white balance but I ran it through a few tests to determine it was the lens.

 

[zoogirlbc]

Thanks Tee, that is my most handsome and willing model. He'll sit for hours and look happy while my other dog squints and sulks as soon as I take 2-3 shots. He'll even go on the my low stand that I set up to photograph them on just to hang out and look pretty lol. Hm, no issues with tint that I can tell so far. It is a bit slow focusing though so I won't be using it for any fast action shots, at least not for the speedy dogs.

 

[rdptheman65]

I have been using this lens for over a year now and have been very pleased. At the time I compared with to the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and could not believe how well it did for the money. I also have a Nikon 24-70 2.8 now and many times I will choose the Tamron lens over the Nikon. One great thing is it's a whole lot smaller and lighter.

 

[PatrickCheung]

I used to have this lens, I miss the sharpness! I got the version with the built in motor. It focused horribly slow and kept missing focus. I think I either got a dud, or all their built in motor versions sucked, I ended up selling the lens. People said the non-motor version was amazing. Sharp, fast focus. It's hard to tell if you have a good copy or not just by looking at your photos... I think this lens had a problem with centering (which we can't tell) and hunting... but from what I understand all copies, duds or not, were tack sharp.