Advice from owners of Tamron 28-75 f2.8

steelerdean

steelerdean

Messages
618
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
No
Ive got this thread running where I've been asking for some advice on a budget f2.8 lens and the Tamron has come up as a possible contender:-

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=411867

As you can see from there, it will be primarily used for indoor sports photography. Any owners of this lens using for similar purposes have any feedback on its performance.

My other thread is now developing into a discussion around what kit to go for in general so I've started this one to specifically discuss this lens.

Thanks!
 
I just replied to your other thread but thought I'd post here too :)

Although I originally bought the Tamron for portrait work I also used it for indoor sports (alongside my 70-200 f/2.8). I started shooting judo for my grandson's club and that developed into shooting for the local karate and gymnastics clubs too.

I was perfectly happy with the results I got and if I hadn't recently bought a Nikon 24-70 then I'd still be using it.

I'm not at home at the moment but will post some example images when I get home later this evening.
 
Thanks again Steve - probably makes sense to pop the pictures on this thread when you have chance with it being specifically about the lens.

Really appreciate you doing this for me.
 
Watching this thread with interest as im aiming to buy this lens next month.

As far as im aware, the build quality isnt as good as the sigma or tokina variants, but the image quality is much better from the tamron. Its by far the cheapest too
 
antihero said:
Watching this thread with interest as im aiming to buy this lens next month.

As far as im aware, the build quality isnt as good as the sigma or tokina variants, but the image quality is much better from the tamron. Its by far the cheapest too
Click to expand...

What i'm reading online suggests the same too - better images, cheaper materials. Like everything though, if looked after i'm sure its still good for a fair few years shooting.
 
One thing to bear in mind if you're contemplating the 28-75 is that the quality of copies can vary.

I've bought 2 of these before and both suffered from back focus issues (one more so than the other, but neither was right). The one I have now is spot on, and the image quality really is worth the hassle of finding a good one.

Having said that I've actually bought the one that Bristolian was selling because it's a non built in motor version. The one I currently have is a BIM version, which doesn't focus quite as quickly as the older one. It's not slow by any means, but the non BIM one does have a slight edge in lower light.

As I said before, for the price, the image quality is outstanding, and worth the fuss of finding a good one.

In fact my BIM one will be making an appearance in the classifieds soon..... :D
 
Might have to keep my eye out for that. I take it the one you're listing is one of the 'good' ones that you speak of??
 
EspressoJunkie said:
Yup it's a cracking copy. I'll be firing a couple of sample shots up when I list it so you can see for yourself!
Click to expand...

Well depending on the price you may have got some interest already. :)

Only thing that is niggling me a little bit is the fact that you've gone for the older non-motor lens over the one with the motor as you think its better. Cant help but wonder whether I should do the same.
 
steelerdean said:
Well depending on the price you may have got some interest already. :)

Only thing that is niggling me a little bit is the fact that you've gone for the older non-motor lens over the one with the motor as you think its better. Cant help but wonder whether I should do the same.
Click to expand...

Being honest, there is a slight difference in focus speed between the 2 versions.

For me the reason I'm going for the non BIM version is that I'm starting to shoot weddings as a second photographer, so the faster the focus the better, esp in low light.

Having said that there's nothing wrong with the focusing speed on the one I have at the moment, and if I didn't want the slight increase in speed for the paid work I'll be doing I'd probably have just kept it!

Also if you're planning on using it on your D3100, you'll have to get a BIM version, as that camera has no focus motor!
 
D3100 is going shortly mate in favour of a D3 - that's why i'm now a little unsure of which one to go for - especially as i'll be shooting sports where that split second faster motor is the difference between getting a shot and missing it.
 
Well, without wanting to do myself out of a sale, I reckon for sports you'd be better looking for a non BIM one.

Just make sure you check for back/front focusing carefully, as that was the issue with the first 2 that I had. If you get a good one though, you'll love the results it gives!
 
steelerdean said:
D3100 is going shortly mate in favour of a D3 - that's why i'm now a little unsure of which one to go for - especially as i'll be shooting sports where that split second faster motor is the difference between getting a shot and missing it.
Click to expand...

Dean just get the Nikon 24-70 and be done with it...:thumbs:
 
Steve give over mate - you'll get me killed by my wife! She's already steaming that i'm spending the best part of £2000 on a D3 and 'lower end' lens. If I told her I needed another £900 for the Nikon i'm certain I wouldn't need anything as my arms (and probably other things!) would be chopped off!
 
steelerdean said:
Steve give over mate - you'll get me killed by my wife! She's already steaming that i'm spending the best part of £2000 on a D3 and 'lower end' lens. If I told her I needed another £900 for the Nikon i'm certain I wouldn't need anything as my arms (and probably other things!) would be chopped off!
Click to expand...

£2k or so would get you the D700 and a 24-70....then all you have t do is take a little pain from the wife :eek: when you get the grip...:thumbs:

Besides why do you want that lump ...a D3?

D700 is a smaller package than the D3 and gives you just about everything you would want and more besides..
 
steelerdean said:
Steve give over mate - you'll get me killed by my wife! She's already steaming that i'm spending the best part of £2000 on a D3 and 'lower end' lens. If I told her I needed another £900 for the Nikon i'm certain I wouldn't need anything as my arms (and probably other things!) would be chopped off!
Click to expand...

Unless she knows about camera's she'd probably not even realize how much it cost.....

The thought's crossed my mind before, but with 2 kids and one on the way, the difficulty for me would actually be finding the money for one!

Plus yeah, if she found out she'd kill me......:bat:
 
I got a second hand non bim the other week. Took it out in ernest today together with my Nikon 70-200 to the herts county show. It was a horrible dark wet day.

Got to tell you bud, I'm definitely going for the 24-70 and move this on. The copy is sharp enough but I've also missed lots of opportunities. I'm seriously going off third party lenses when you compare them again the original Nikons.

Sure the tamron is good value for money and actually the focus is fast. But I feel like something is missing from it.

Steve put those photos up, evidence your lens so we can do a deal :) cash waiting ;)
 
Hey JP, hope you're well. Been a while since we chatted, albeit its usually been across on AVForums.

I must admit to being intrigued by your post. You've described the Tamron as sharp and fast, but you still missed opportunities. Do you mind me asking for a bit more detail on what exactly you mean and what the lens did/didn't do that caused the missed opportunities?
 
It is hard to describe, it looked good on camera but when see full resolution pixel peeping on my 30" calibrated screen I notice the focus is just off. Now I've tested the lens, fine tuned it with my body and it it fine. Think I had to dial in -3 or something like that.

I'm fine Dan, still liking your ice hockey shots :) Everytime I see them, it makes me want to play again.

Regarding the lens, it is the same thing when I had my sigma 70-200, it was good but never great. With the nikon version I hit it consistently and nail the shots. The focus, colour, sharpness it is just there.

In my experience there is a notable difference under every days use, sure today was terrible for light, didn't want to use my sb900 in the poring down rain, but I noticed the Tamron 28-75 struggled where my Nikon 70-200 was consistent as ever...

You know what the price difference is worth it imo opinion, but is an irrelevant point unless the money is available. I'm sorry I can't be more specific...

I guess it is similar to say the 55-200 that you had, it is a cracking little lens, especially for the money but for me it didn't shine on the D7000 like the 70-300 did...I appreciate there is a lot of love around for the 28-75 f2.8, for me the jury is still out, not 100% convinced on it just yet.
 
Thanks for taking the time to post that JP. I see where you're coming from. In the short term I don't think i've got much choice and the Tamron seems to be the one to go for when not going for the Nikon.

Glad you're enjoying my hockey shots. Looking forward to picking up a D3 and getting back down there with that. The D3100 has performed admirably but i'm now losing patience with the amount of shots i'm missing. Its time to go for a full pro body. The Sigma 70-200 i've been using has performed well above my expectations. I think Sigma have done a great job on the optics and OS on this latest iteration of this focal length. That being said, I would like to eventually own full Nikon gear so its up for sale on here if you fancy it??? :)
 
LOL Mate I had one and sold it, I also traded in my Nikon 70-300VR against a 70-200VR1 on here and wow what a lens...Definitely worth it...
 
Was it the OS one? There is a pretty big difference between the mark I, mark II and the OS model that I've got.
 
poloaa009 said:
Just what I needed, thanks a lot.
luci.jpg

jack.jpg
Click to expand...

??
 
Bristolian said:
I just replied to your other thread but thought I'd post here too :)

Although I originally bought the Tamron for portrait work I also used it for indoor sports (alongside my 70-200 f/2.8). I started shooting judo for my grandson's club and that developed into shooting for the local karate and gymnastics clubs too.

I was perfectly happy with the results I got and if I hadn't recently bought a Nikon 24-70 then I'd still be using it.

I'm not at home at the moment but will post some example images when I get home later this evening.
Click to expand...

Did you have chance to dig out some photos Steve? Looking forward to having a look at some of your results.
 
Greg - the BIM one that you'll be listing shortly - did you ever find that that experienced any problems with the focus/sharpness of any pictures you took, even when zooming in on the pictures on the PC?
 
steelerdean said:
Greg - the BIM one that you'll be listing shortly - did you ever find that that experienced any problems with the focus/sharpness of any pictures you took, even when zooming in on the pictures on the PC?
Click to expand...

Not with this one no. To be fair all of the copies I've had have had good sharpness and image quality, but this is the only one that manages the focus!

I have some RAW files of stuff I did for work last week with the lens at various apertures. If you want to have a look at some of them, PM your email address and I'll send you a few.
 
Okay, sorry it's taken so long for me to get these images posted. TBH, they don't really show the lens off in the best light as the shutter speeds were a bit on the slow side.

DSC_6195a.jpg


DSC_6140a.jpg


DSC_6336a.jpg
 
Thanks for those Steve. Were they all shot at f2.8? Can you remember what ISO they were shot at?
 
Exif is still in the photos dan :) f/3.2-3.5 and ISO1600

PS. Mine was the original not the latest OS, it was good and great at Sun stars :) It is so hard to explain as nothing was wrong, yet the Nikon version felt so right. Maybe it is just in my head. For the money you can't knock this lens, absolutely not.
 
So it is, thanks JP.

I'm a bit torn now as it looks like over the next few weeks i'll have the option of a BIM version (Greg) and a non BIM version (JP). Decisions decisions.

What is it Harry Hill says - "There's only one way to find out......FIGHT!" :lol:
 
steelerdean said:
Thanks for those Steve. Were they all shot at f2.8? Can you remember what ISO they were shot at?
Click to expand...

As J-P has already pointed out the aperture was 3.2-3.5 and ISO 1600. These were shot in Jan 2011 just about the time I started to notice some odd focusing issues so I was keeping away from wide open. Eventually (i.e. Nov 2011) the lens was sent to Tamron's UK service agent for a service where they found that one of the lens blocks had come loose. This was repaired and the lens recalibrated returning it to it's previous sharpness.

I think someone else has already commented that finding a sharp copy of this lens can be a bit hit and miss. My lens (now sold to EspressoJunkie) was the third one I tried. The other two were back-focussing ever so slightly .. the difference with this copy was immediately noticable :)
 
steelerdean said:
So it is, thanks JP.

I'm a bit torn now as it looks like over the next few weeks i'll have the option of a BIM version (Greg) and a non BIM version (JP). Decisions decisions.

What is it Harry Hill says - "There's only one way to find out......FIGHT!" :lol:
Click to expand...

LOL Until you have a body with BIM my non BIM is useless to you :D
 
The tamron is 99% as good as the Nikon 24-70mm at 1/5th of the price, no brainer unless youre a snob or a fanny boy

Glad you finally got sorted Greg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top