Testing a new lens

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard Crowe on June 17, 2009 at 11:33am

The Tamron 28-75mm is an excellent lens with one slight drawback... When used on a 1.6x crop camera the 28mm side is effectively a 44.8mm equivalent. That is certainly not wide enough to be used as a mid-range zoom unless you add a wide angle lens to your kit. The 12-24mm Tokina f/4 or 11-16mm Tokina f/2.8 are good choices to supplement the 28-75mm Tammy. Adorama has a great deal on new 12-24mm Tokina f/4 lenses (the original model) for $400 with free shipping.

However, if you are using a 1.6x camera, the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron lens is an excellent choice; providing a 27.2mm to 80mm equivalent. This is a great range for a lens and is actually just about the range of the 28-75mm on a full frame camera.

Actually, it is not a bad idea to just buy a lens and immediately send it to the manufacturer for tweaking. IMO, the service centers of almost all manufacturers have better quality control that that found on their assembly lines.

Permalink Reply by Grant Junno on June 17, 2009 at 1:17pm

Thanks for the advice both of you.

I am also looking at the 17-50 lens, and keep bouncing back and forth between which one I really want. I can only afford one, if even that.

Right now I have a Tamron AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical Lens and a Tamron AF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD. This is my first camera and the package included both (and some filters/a couple lens attachments for the smaller lens). I'm looking to replace the 28-80mm one, but I'm not 100% sure what I'm going to do with it. On a 1.6 crop camera, would the 17-50mm lens be necessary for indoor shooting? I haven't played with it too much, but I'm guessing that 28mm is too large for same-room photography.

Permalink Reply by Carlton Ward on June 17, 2009 at 11:16pm

I used the Tamron 28-75mm lens for a long time until I finally bought the Canon 24-70mm and though the Canon is superior, I cannot say its $800 better than the Tamron, though that is the price difference. The tamron did well in low light, had nice coloration and is much lighter than the canon. Its a good lens and I think you will be happy with it. Shoot a brick wall at various f stops & distances and check the detail & sharpness. Then shoot something like a solitary flower with a distant background at various stops and see how the bokeh/background blur looks. Most lenses are sharpest about 2 stops above wide open, like f/5.6 or f/7.1, but this is just a rule of thumb. A friend that is a photo journalist shoots everything at f/8 or f/11 as he feels he will get good captures regardless of which lens he has on.
Have fun, Carlton

Permalink Reply by Matt Needham on June 23, 2009 at 11:21am

It's a good lens. I've done extensive comparisons between my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and my Canon L 24-70 f/2.8. The Tamron is just as sharp even wide open, it's actually 1/3rd stop faster, flares less, and it's lighter and smaller. AF isn't as fast and quiet as the Canon L, and the Canon L is built like a tank. The Tamron has a 6 year warranty; the Canon L 1 year.

The best test would to use the lens as you normally would, and then have some large prints made.

IMO 99% lens problems, particularly sharpness issues, are the fault of the tool user not the tool itself.

Permalink Reply by Stephen E McGowan on June 29, 2009 at 8:45am

I second all posts. Tamron 28-75 is sharp, light and good optics. It is slow to focus and will sometimes mis-focus in very low light but it is worth every penny.

Steve