Tamron 28-75, I had to send it back

[cputeq]

Originally Posted by Peter Zack

I'm certain you just got a bad one. It's not common for that to happen but it does from everyone on occassion even from Pentax. My Tamron is right there with the FA50 and I sold my 77mm since the Tamron was so good at 75mm

Wait - You actually replaced a 77LTD with the Tamron 28-75?

This causes me to consider things more -- I was researching primes for portraits, but now you throw something in for me to think about.

That's surprising.

[skinja]

I didn't, Peter did. I haven't had a chance to try the 77 yet.

I will repost that here soon. Not sure why you can't look at the original size.

Thanks for looking.

John

[ll_coffee_lP]

My Tamron 28-75mm is pretty much equal to my FA 50 1.4 in image quality. I find the tone of the FA 50 shots a bit better, but sharpness is essentially equal as far as I can tell.

One side note...the Tammy at 2.8 is a touch soft - which is fine for portrait work, and gets nice and sharp at f4.

c[_]

[skinja]

On the forth I used three lenses, the 31 which was a little wide for the occasion, the 50 which worked out very well and the 18-250.



I know this is in another post of mine, it is probably my favorite of the group. Shot with the 18-250 @ f9. yes it's a slow lens and not at its best all the way open or closed but this seems to be pretty sharp.

John

[skinja]

I received the replacement to the original 28-75 on Friday and I have to say the results are much better, I haven't had time to do any testing yet, life is getting in the way of my hobies. but from the 10 or 15 shots I took Friday evening, the second copy is much sharper then the first copy. I will post some pictures in the next couple of days.

B&H was great to work with, the turnaround on this lens was quick and painless.

I appreciate all the replies on this subject, they really helped to determine that the original copy was not quite up to specs.

Thanks,

John

[hwblanks]

John,
I'm glad things worked out for you.

When I was deciding on an upgrade for the kit lens, it came down to either the Sigma 17-70 or the Tammy 28-75. I chose the Sigma because of the greater zoom range and closer macro feature. I've been happy with it, but wouldn't you know that that dad-gum 28-75 is still calling my name! Maybe it's the constant f2.8 or the IQ that's on par with some primes.

...sigh...

The 28-75's voice started getting louder when I decided that the DA12-24 will be my next lens purchase, as the 12-24 and 28-75 would make a nice pair of constant zooms. My only concern is that I would miss the 17-28 range on the Sigma if I went with the 28-75.

If Pentax had made the DA17-70 a constant f/2.8 instead of f/4, that would've made things a lot easier for me.

There is the 16-50 and the Sigma 18-50, but 50 isn't always long enough for me on the tele-end.

Oh well...sigh (again)...

Heather

[Miserere]

Glad to hear that, Skinja! Keep us posted.