So, who owns Tamron Tamron AF SP 28-75/2.8 XR Di LD

[glen]

Looks like an amzing lens.

 

[destrekor]

i own two Tamron lenses for my Nikon n65. a 28-80, and a 70-300 with macro. my photography teacher noted on how sharp my photos were.

 

[imported_Snagle]

I've got one. It's really nice but has slow AF (just like every other 3rd party zoom in that range). Decently sharp at 2.8, very good at 4, really ****** sharp at 5.6

 

[Triumph]

A good lens will not make you a good photographer.

 

[kalster]

i have a tamron 70-300 lens , prety nice lens

 

[glen]

anyone else?

 

[DeafeningSilence]

I've got it. If you have a good copy, the image quality is just about everything you could want, just like all the reviews tell you. It's main drawback is focus speed and accuracy, especially indoors or other dark situations. And, it can be a challenge to get a good copy.

 

[yhelothar]

How's the colors and contrast of the lens?
I had a Sigma 28-70 F/2.8, and I found the colors and contrast to be horrible. The sharpness was more than adequate, but colors and contrast is far more important to me.
I stick with my primes.

 

[DeviousTrap]

Why did you decide on the 28-75 instead of the 17-50?

 

[mugs]

The wife has it's It's the lens we use the most.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I own one. While I agree its AF system is NO WHERE near as fast nor as quiet/smooth as Canon's USM, the lens is a brilliant value, especially compared to the Canon 24-70 F2.8L. And IF you get a good copy of the lens, it can be optically as good if not better than the Canon. When I first received my copy, it was soft at 2.8. I sent it back to Tamron for calibration and it came back much improved. It's still a keeper for me.

And while the 17-50 is a much wider lens, well-suited to APS-C bodies, those looking to upgrade to a FF body like the EOS-5D would want to invest in a compatible lens like the 28-75. The 17-50 is for APS-C only.

If I can find some samples to post, I will do so.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I think these were taken at F2.8...

PIC1
PIC2

 

[DeafeningSilence]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
How's the colors and contrast of the lens?
I had a Sigma 28-70 F/2.8, and I found the colors and contrast to be horrible. The sharpness was more than adequate, but colors and contrast is far more important to me.
I stick with my primes.

beautiful all-around

 

[DeafeningSilence]

Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Why did you decide on the 28-75 instead of the 17-50?

Indeed. If you're wanting a "single-lens solution" for a 1.6x crop camera, then you should go with the newer 17-50 f/2.8 version. Early reviews indicate that its optical quality matches the 28-75 lens.

For a 1.6x crop body, the 28-75 needs to be supplemented by a wide-angle lens, such as the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24. An ultra-wide zoom and the 28-75 make an excellent two-lens setup.

 

[DeviousTrap]

Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence

Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Why did you decide on the 28-75 instead of the 17-50?

Indeed. If you're wanting a "single-lens solution" for a 1.6x crop camera, then you should go with the newer 17-50 f/2.8 version. Early reviews indicate that its optical quality matches the 28-75 lens.

For a 1.6x crop body, the 28-75 needs to be supplemented by a wide-angle lens, such as the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24. An ultra-wide zoom and the 28-75 make an excellent two-lens setup.

I originally bought my 17-50 hoping it would be a one-lens solution, but I'm having an urge to supplement it with the Canon 10-22. I tried the 28-75 prior to purchasing the 17-50 and found it just not being wide enough for a walkaround lens on a 1.6 crop body. I then bought the 17-50 and thought I'd be content. I was initually, that is until I rented the Canon 10-22. It's ultra-wde range seems to be very addicting. I doubt I will use it as a walkaround lens, but for landscape picture it seems like a great supplement to any collection.

I can't imagine switching to a full-frame body any time in the foreseeable future so the fact that the 17-50 is an APS-C lens doesn't worry me.

 

[DeafeningSilence]

Originally posted by: DeviousTrap

Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence

Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Why did you decide on the 28-75 instead of the 17-50?

Indeed. If you're wanting a "single-lens solution" for a 1.6x crop camera, then you should go with the newer 17-50 f/2.8 version. Early reviews indicate that its optical quality matches the 28-75 lens.

For a 1.6x crop body, the 28-75 needs to be supplemented by a wide-angle lens, such as the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24. An ultra-wide zoom and the 28-75 make an excellent two-lens setup.

I originally bought my 17-50 hoping it would be a one-lens solution, but I'm having an urge to supplement it with the Canon 10-22. I tried the 28-75 prior to purchasing the 17-50 and found it just not being wide enough for a walkaround lens on a 1.6 crop body. I then bought the 17-50 and thought I'd be content. I was initually, that is until I rented the Canon 10-22. It's ultra-wde range seems to be very addicting. I doubt I will use it as a walkaround lens, but for landscape picture it seems like a great supplement to any collection.

I can't imagine switching to a full-frame body any time in the foreseeable future so the fact that the 17-50 is an APS-C lens doesn't worry me.

Good points. As you discovered, the Canon 10-22 is a remarkable lens, and it's part of my kit almost everywhere I go. For me, the incredible flexibility and quality of a two- or three-lens kit almost always outweighs the inconvenience of carrying more than one lens. But for the times in the future when I will need to restrict myself to one lens, I'm debating between getting the Tamron 17-50 or dropping big bucks on the Canon 17-55 with IS. :evil:

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I think these were taken at F2.8...

PIC1
PIC2

Very nice..
Definitely better than the Sigma I got.

 

[GTaudiophile]

My travel lenses mostly consist of the EFS 10-22 and EF 24-105 F4L. I also sometimes carry the Tamron. But before these three, I used the Canon EFS 17-85 IS. My next lens after that was the EFS 10-22. Once you have seen and played with 10mm (16mm equiv. on FF), there is no going back. While I can do okay with 24mm, it simply cannot compare with 10-22mm. If not the 10-22, then the Tokina 12-24 is the next best option.

My EFS 10-22 will either be sold or given to my dad when I give him my EOS-20D. I am planning on upgrading to a FF body as many believe that the cost of producing FF sensors will continue to drop, thus allowing for a $1500-2000 FF body to replace the EOS-5D. Prices of the EOS-30D & Rebel XT will drop accordingly. But in preparation for this, I am no longer buying EFS/APS-C lenses. The EFS 10-22 will be replaced by the Canon 17-40 F4L. If Canon ever releases a 24-70 F2.8L IS, I would replace BOTH my Tamron 28-75 and Canon 24-105. I also hope to someday add a Canon 50 F1.4 MkII (if ever released) and a Canon 70-200 F4L IS (if ever released). We shall see...

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: destrekor
i own two Tamron lenses for my Nikon n65. a 28-80, and a 70-300 with macro. my photography teacher noted on how sharp my photos were.

The 70-300 SP has a good reputation. I've also had good luck with my little 24mm F2.5, but I live in a manual focus world so I'm not sure if we're talking about the same lens.

ZV

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence

Originally posted by: DeviousTrap

Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence

Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Why did you decide on the 28-75 instead of the 17-50?

Indeed. If you're wanting a "single-lens solution" for a 1.6x crop camera, then you should go with the newer 17-50 f/2.8 version. Early reviews indicate that its optical quality matches the 28-75 lens.

For a 1.6x crop body, the 28-75 needs to be supplemented by a wide-angle lens, such as the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24. An ultra-wide zoom and the 28-75 make an excellent two-lens setup.

I originally bought my 17-50 hoping it would be a one-lens solution, but I'm having an urge to supplement it with the Canon 10-22. I tried the 28-75 prior to purchasing the 17-50 and found it just not being wide enough for a walkaround lens on a 1.6 crop body. I then bought the 17-50 and thought I'd be content. I was initually, that is until I rented the Canon 10-22. It's ultra-wde range seems to be very addicting. I doubt I will use it as a walkaround lens, but for landscape picture it seems like a great supplement to any collection.

I can't imagine switching to a full-frame body any time in the foreseeable future so the fact that the 17-50 is an APS-C lens doesn't worry me.

Good points. As you discovered, the Canon 10-22 is a remarkable lens, and it's part of my kit almost everywhere I go. For me, the incredible flexibility and quality of a two- or three-lens kit almost always outweighs the inconvenience of carrying more than one lens. But for the times in the future when I will need to restrict myself to one lens, I'm debating between getting the Tamron 17-50 or dropping big bucks on the Canon 17-55 with IS. :evil:

I have asked many pros, and they ALL agree that the APS-C/EFS is only a stop-gap measure until the cost of production of 35mm CMOS sensors drops. I mean, as of right now, you can buy an EOS-5D for under $2700. I think I paid like $2000 for my EOS-20D in November 2004. If the successor to the 5D adds a built-in flash and retails for around $2500, I am going for it.

With that in mind, I can personally not justify spending over $1000 for the EFS 17-55 F2.8IS. But I will admit, it gets rave reviews. According to Photozone.de, it's one Canon sharpest lenses ever produced, even more so than the EF 50 F1.4 when stopped up F2.8! Very impressive. I even think some FF users are jealous of this lens, hence why Canon is rumoured to releae an F2.8 IS zoom lens in the EF format.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: DeviousTrap

Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence

Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Why did you decide on the 28-75 instead of the 17-50?

Indeed. If you're wanting a "single-lens solution" for a 1.6x crop camera, then you should go with the newer 17-50 f/2.8 version. Early reviews indicate that its optical quality matches the 28-75 lens.

For a 1.6x crop body, the 28-75 needs to be supplemented by a wide-angle lens, such as the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24. An ultra-wide zoom and the 28-75 make an excellent two-lens setup.

I originally bought my 17-50 hoping it would be a one-lens solution, but I'm having an urge to supplement it with the Canon 10-22. I tried the 28-75 prior to purchasing the 17-50 and found it just not being wide enough for a walkaround lens on a 1.6 crop body. I then bought the 17-50 and thought I'd be content. I was initually, that is until I rented the Canon 10-22. It's ultra-wde range seems to be very addicting. I doubt I will use it as a walkaround lens, but for landscape picture it seems like a great supplement to any collection.

I can't imagine switching to a full-frame body any time in the foreseeable future so the fact that the 17-50 is an APS-C lens doesn't worry me.

Really? I can't imagine needing to go much wider (which as we all know is different than wanting). Seems like 17 is plenty, I'm always looking to go much closer.

Pic

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: DeviousTrap

Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence

Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Why did you decide on the 28-75 instead of the 17-50?

Indeed. If you're wanting a "single-lens solution" for a 1.6x crop camera, then you should go with the newer 17-50 f/2.8 version. Early reviews indicate that its optical quality matches the 28-75 lens.

For a 1.6x crop body, the 28-75 needs to be supplemented by a wide-angle lens, such as the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24. An ultra-wide zoom and the 28-75 make an excellent two-lens setup.

I originally bought my 17-50 hoping it would be a one-lens solution, but I'm having an urge to supplement it with the Canon 10-22. I tried the 28-75 prior to purchasing the 17-50 and found it just not being wide enough for a walkaround lens on a 1.6 crop body. I then bought the 17-50 and thought I'd be content. I was initually, that is until I rented the Canon 10-22. It's ultra-wde range seems to be very addicting. I doubt I will use it as a walkaround lens, but for landscape picture it seems like a great supplement to any collection.

I can't imagine switching to a full-frame body any time in the foreseeable future so the fact that the 17-50 is an APS-C lens doesn't worry me.

Really? I can't imagine needing to go much wider (which as we all know is different than wanting). Seems like 17 is plenty, I'm always looking to go much closer.

Pic

Imagine taking that pic...you're right next to your bike. The front/right side of your bike is in the lower-right-hand corner of your photoand the rest of the picture is the open road in back of it. (Imagine that bike being on the side of the road in this picture.) Gives you an idea what the 10-22 is all about.

 

[DeafeningSilence]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: DeviousTrap

Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence

Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
Why did you decide on the 28-75 instead of the 17-50?

Indeed. If you're wanting a "single-lens solution" for a 1.6x crop camera, then you should go with the newer 17-50 f/2.8 version. Early reviews indicate that its optical quality matches the 28-75 lens.

For a 1.6x crop body, the 28-75 needs to be supplemented by a wide-angle lens, such as the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24. An ultra-wide zoom and the 28-75 make an excellent two-lens setup.

I originally bought my 17-50 hoping it would be a one-lens solution, but I'm having an urge to supplement it with the Canon 10-22. I tried the 28-75 prior to purchasing the 17-50 and found it just not being wide enough for a walkaround lens on a 1.6 crop body. I then bought the 17-50 and thought I'd be content. I was initually, that is until I rented the Canon 10-22. It's ultra-wde range seems to be very addicting. I doubt I will use it as a walkaround lens, but for landscape picture it seems like a great supplement to any collection.

I can't imagine switching to a full-frame body any time in the foreseeable future so the fact that the 17-50 is an APS-C lens doesn't worry me.

Really? I can't imagine needing to go much wider (which as we all know is different than wanting). Seems like 17 is plenty, I'm always looking to go much closer.

Pic

You may not NEED to go wider, but 10mm is awesome.

ultrawide and ultrawide

 

[DeafeningSilence]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

I have asked many pros, and they ALL agree that the APS-C/EFS is only a stop-gap measure until the cost of production of 35mm CMOS sensors drops. I mean, as of right now, you can buy an EOS-5D for under $2700. I think I paid like $2000 for my EOS-20D in November 2004. If the successor to the 5D adds a built-in flash and retails for around $2500, I am going for it.

With that in mind, I can personally not justify spending over $1000 for the EFS 17-55 F2.8IS. But I will admit, it gets rave reviews. According to Photozone.de, it's one Canon sharpest lenses ever produced, even more so than the EF 50 F1.4 when stopped up F2.8! Very impressive. I even think some FF users are jealous of this lens, hence why Canon is rumoured to releae an F2.8 IS zoom lens in the EF format.

Obviously the APS-C standard won't be around forever, but it should stick around for several years. I don't think the cost of the FF sensors is dropping all that quickly, because those chips aren't subject to Moore's Law. On the other hand, when the 5D gets replaced, it should be available on the used market for $2k or less, so FF will clearly continue to spread. Even when I go that route, the 30D will make an excellent backup paired with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS (if I decide to buy it). That seems like a special lens. Besides, are the rumors of a FF f/2.8 IS lens actual rumors, or just wishing out loud by FF owners?

 

[ElFenix]

how many degrees of view is a 10 mm lens on a 1.6 crop?