Tamron 28-75 - bad copy or user error?

JJ!

JJ!

Messages
5,822
Edit My Images
No
Thought I would do some f2.8 tests with the Tamron and see how they came out. Whats everyone's thoughts? Bad copy of the lens, or am I expecting too much or user error?!

The key is the sharpest. Maybe camera shake caused the others, but then again I just tried at much faster shutter speed and results were the same. Any opinions/further recommended tests appreciated before I keep or exchange.

10850765126_a598813448_c.jpg


10850707665_9effd821db_c.jpg


10851048903_a6334a714f_c.jpg


10850718425_46e5a8c2bc_c.jpg


10850726455_e4a8ca222e_c.jpg


10851058973_1efba0174a_c.jpg
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Me too.

Not sure what you were expecting when shooting wide open.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I wasn't' sure. New to f2.8 and new to full frame, and I'm still learning so thought this was the best place to ask and check!
 
The key and the brick look fine, although brickwork often does look odd and not properly focused due to the structure.

However the wood looks as if there is a small degree of blur on the larger shot.

For the key a small amount of sharpening will really make it pop.

Can also sharpen the brick but as I said close up it may not make much difference.

As for the wood use a higher speed or hold the camera steadier.
 
Thanks Peter, feedback very much appreciated.
 
That lens is not pin sharp at 2.8, I know as I have one, with no VR/IS on that lens you can get a bit of CS
For me it's a great studio lens or anywhere using flash or on a tripod
Out doors, hand held wide open it's not great, like your photo's, it will be hit and miss
H
 
Last edited:
Some of the reasons that the independent lens makers deliver to a lower price-point is because they :
- design a lens with a lower specification
- accept wider manufacturing tolerances away from the theoretical target spec

So, whilst performance around the sweet spot is often ok when compared to the more expensive manufacturers, the further you move away from the lens sweet spot, the more problematic is likely to be the performance in terms of sharpness and aberrations
 
The first two are fine, the last one has issues either focus has een missed or some camera shake, looks as good as if not better than mine!

Get out and use it in the real world then check your shots and see how they look, it's easy to spend hous shooting test shots and focus charts and viewing at 100% before you realise that in real world usage your perfectly happy with the lens.
 
Last edited:
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
Some of the reasons that the independent lens makers deliver to a lower price-point is because they :
- design a lens with a lower specification
- accept wider manufacturing tolerances away from the theoretical target spec

So, whilst performance around the sweet spot is often ok when compared to the more expensive manufacturers, the further you move away from the lens sweet spot, the more problematic is likely to be the performance in terms of sharpness and aberrations
Click to expand...
Not really, many of the nikon/canon so called top lenses have their poor performance point, very often at the long end wide open, there is no prefect zoom lens

H
 
I used to have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I think those posted are fine. The last I agree is more likely missed focus or camera shake.

Back when I had mine, I found that at 2.8 it is a tad soft. But by f4 it is fine and by f5.6 I couldn't tell any difference at all between that and the Nikon 24-70 unless I was being anal about it.

If you want sharper then you will need to get the Nikon 24-70 f2.8. And that's what.....£700+ more?

The lens you have is an utter bargain and I regret selling mine.
 
gadgeteer said:
I used to have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I think those posted are fine. The last I agree is more likely missed focus or camera shake.

Back when I had mine, I found that at 2.8 it is a tad soft. But by f4 it is fine and by f5.6 I couldn't tell any difference at all between that and the Nikon 24-70 unless I was being anal about it.

If you want sharper then you will need to get the Nikon 24-70 f2.8. And that's what.....£700+ more?

The lens you have is an utter bargain and I regret selling mine.
Click to expand...
Agree

H
 
Top tips and feedback as always - thank you
 
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
Good anecdotal evidence of the point I was making.
You get what you pay for.
Click to expand...
Certainly not my experience of the 2 Nikon 24-70mm ive owned, my Tamron 28-75mm out performs both the Nikons ive owned, there are good and bad samples from all manufacturers, if the Tamron is a £200 lens there's absolutely no way the Nikon is worth anything approaching £1200, the only reason i would ever buy a Nikon 24-70mm would be for its much better build quality
 
I think it depends Gary on what your priorities are. If it's pure IQ then I got my Nikkor for £900. The Tamron cost me £200. Is it 4x better IQ than the Tamron....no way. On mine at least is the Nikkor sharper at f2.8. Undoubtedly yes. Of course as a wedding tog I want the best IQ since I am usually shooting as wide as I dare. Plus the weather sealing, AFS and focus speed are all better compared against the Tammy.

But if I was an hobbyist then there's no way on god's earth I'd pay for the Nikon. In fact I am keeping my eye out for a decent Tamron 28-75 again to use as a walkabout lens when out with family. The 24-70 is bloody heavy.
 
gadgeteer said:
I think it depends Gary on what your priorities are. If it's pure IQ then I got my Nikkor for £900. The Tamron cost me £200. Is it 4x better IQ than the Tamron....no way. On mine at least is the Nikkor sharper at f2.8. Undoubtedly yes. Of course as a wedding tog I want the best IQ since I am usually shooting as wide as I dare. Plus the weather sealing, AFS and focus speed are all better compared against the Tammy.

But if I was an hobbyist then there's no way on god's earth I'd pay for the Nikon. In fact I am keeping my eye out for a decent Tamron 28-75 again to use as a walkabout lens when out with family. The 24-70 is bloody heavy.
Click to expand...
But thats exactly the reason i keep my Tamron and got rid of 2 Nikons, my Tamron out performed both Nikons in the IQ department which is the only factor as well as price that i considered, im not a pro wedding tog but i am a pro in another field and the Tamron never ever lets me down, i do sometimes wish it had the build and weather sealing of the Nikon but then again i dont ever expect to drop it or use it in the pouring rain, AF speed and accuracy has never been an issue even when shooting under floodlights at ISO 6400 with it
 
Let's be quite clear, these Tamron lenes represent excellant value for a F/2.8 standard zoom.
At F2.8 you have to be spot on with the focus and remember that this lens does not have VR. Something I have got over used to.
On FF, this lens should be sharp in the centre and drop off rapidly when fully open. The test for me is how "quickly" the starts to behave itself as it is stopped down. My example requires F/11 !!
So at say F5.6 on the right habd side, it can be quite horrible, whilst the left hand side is well behaved. Don't know why.But I'm being over critical and this is when viewing at 100% on a screen. An A4 print is great.
And of course at F2.8, I don't care. Just the centre is required to be sharp. You rarely need sharpness across the image at F2.8.
For a walk about lens i prefer it to my 24-85VR. Yes, I'd like a Nikon 24-70( still no VR) but IQ will not be 6 times better even though it may feel like it weighs 6 times more!
 
Did some more 2.8 testing today using a tripod, just too see what sharpness is like with a steady shot wide open. Actually pretty impressed.

These are 100% crops of the original images:

10869112055_84ca402a17_o.jpg


10869144536_36e186bdde_o.jpg


10869258794_83cd348e37_o.jpg


10869259844_ca00f85f0a_o.jpg


10869146986_3eb119a106_o.jpg
 
The brick shots look a bit back focused.

My copy is certainly sharp at f/2.8 (much more so than the Sigma 24-60/2.8 I tried before, which had a strong glow wide open) but I needed to dial in focus micro adjustment for the long end to match the sharpness of the short end. A great value lens which is cheap and light, therefore great for traveling with.
 
To me apart from the key these don't look inspiring... but ... some of them are of sloping subjects so the focus is going to fall away quickly so when putting a new lens through its paces I like to shoot a few flat subjects face on so that there's no doubt what the result should be and what's going on plus I use Photobucket and it really seems to mangle my shots and whatever I post here ends uplooking terrible so the real verdict should be how they appear on screen at home.
 
I think the exciting subject matter may not be helping the inspired look!

I was focusing further back on the brick - not the corner.

But I thought as a 100% crop of a 24mp image the detail retained is pretty good wide open, especially if you image how small these pics are in comparison to the full non cropped image.

Next up is some horse shots!
 
Shoot your neighbours house instead or something else pretty distant. These lenses are not macro and this is not how you test them. In fact you could make a terrible lens look OK, but selectively focusing one tiny spot. You need to see what the whole plane of focus looks like at reasonable distances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top