Tamron 28-75, I had to send it back

*skinja* · 07-03-2008, 08:07 PM

I just received the Tamron 28-75 yesterday and it went back today. It maybe unfair to compare it to my 31, but the tamron was actually softer then my 18-250 at equal apertures and focal lengths.

It didn't appear to have any FF or BF problems, just really soft.

If any of you have a good copy of the 28-75 and a 31 or 50, could you post some comparison shots with the same aperture and focal lengths.

I keep hearing really good things about this lens once you get a good copy, but I don't want to set my expectations to high.

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

B&H was very good to work with and they will send me a new copy as soon as they get the returned copy back.

I will post a couple of my comparisons as soon as I can.

Thanks,

John

*k100d* · 07-03-2008, 09:23 PM

must be a bad sample, many people have commented that it's super sharp

*jsherman999* · 07-03-2008, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by k100d

must be a bad sample, many people have commented that it's super sharp

Yeah, it's one of the sharper zooms I've ever used, about equal to the 16-50 or 50-135 at most apertures.

You should expect output like this (jpeg, sharpened in picasa)

*Igilligan* · 07-03-2008, 09:43 PM

My copy is almost too sharp for portrait work. It is sharper at 2.8 than my FA 50 is at 2.8 if memory serves....

I will look for some FA 50 shots but I have not used it since I got the 28-75.

cputeq · 07-04-2008, 01:28 AM

You had a bad copy. That lens is very sharp.

*skinja* · 07-04-2008, 01:54 AM

Here are two shots one with the Tamron, one with the 31. I shot these in low light on a tripod no flash. this is straight out of the camera with no artistic value. I used the same focal point on both shots. I originally didn't think it was a bf/ff issue but it may have been, none the less it's on it's way back to B&H.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3143/...3d3f6ac0_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3169/...e47c76d5_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3257/...23d83fdc_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3181/...3f54e03b_o.jpg

I appreciate your examples and hope the next lens is a good copy.

Thanks for looking.

John

pentkon52 · 07-04-2008, 10:11 AM

Same with my copy back in Feb.

I have the paper work with S/N wonder how close it was to yours.??

Dave

edl · 07-05-2008, 10:43 AM

Good thread. I just ordered one from Adorama, looking forward to testing it out. Hopefully I'll get one of the better samples out there!

Miserere · 07-05-2008, 05:22 PM

Sorry, I don't have expensive Ltd glass

I ran this test with the FA 50mm f/1.4, and the DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (just for laughs). I focused manually (on the '2' in '2.8'), and now I'm at the computer I see that the FA 50 was a little bit out of focus, but still pretty good; I apologise for this. Shots were taken on tripod with 2s MLU, in available window light. I used Av because I felt the Tammy underexposed a bit and wanted to test this out too. And it does expose about 1/3 stop lower than the FA 50. The box was about 80cm away, which is not the best range for the Tammy, and explains the dreamy appearance at f/2.8. Don't confuse this with lack of sharpness! The Milk Effect (TM) (as I call it) goes away when you focus further away. You'll have to click through for the 100% versions (1233x986 pixels).

Tamron @ f/2.8

FA 50 @ f/2.8

Tamron @ f/4

FA 50 @ f/4

Tamron @ f/5.6

FA 50 @ f/5.6

DA 18-55mm @ f/5.6 (auto-focus)

I hope this helps!

*Peter Zack* · 07-05-2008, 05:28 PM

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

*skinja* · 07-06-2008, 03:01 AM

Miserere thanks for taking the time to post this.

Peter, so far I have been pretty lucky with the glass I have already bought, I'm not mad, just a little disappointed that I didn't have the lens last night for the forth. I hope that it will be here by the end of the month, My son is getting married in august. B&H was very responsive and it's half way back to NY already.

Take care and good shooting.

John

*benjikan* · 07-06-2008, 04:21 AM

I am sure you are telling the truth, but I find that hard to believe as I consider it to fall in to my "Brutally Sharp" category. I replaced my Canon 28-70 L lens for the Tamron, it was that good.

Ben

Taken with Tamron 28-75 at 75mm.

*skinja* · 07-06-2008, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by benjikan

I am sure you are telling the truth, but I find that hard to believe as I consider it to fall in to my "Brutally Sharp" category. I replaced my Canon 28-70 L lens for the Tamron, it was that good.

Ben

Taken with Tamron 28-75 at 75mm.

Thanks for replying Ben, I respect your opinion as well as Laree's and others about the quality of this lens, That's one of the reasons I ordered it.

If I have the same issue with the next copy I may be suspicious of operator error and would be glad to swap mine with yours so that you could do a thorough test, I am always looking to improve and your knowledge and contribution has proved invaluable in the past.

Thanks for your time.

John

*skinja* · 07-06-2008, 04:42 PM

Maybe I'm expecting to much, you tell me.

DId I send it back prematurely? Time will tell.

The EXIF data is intact at my flickr site

28-75 Focal range was at 29.38 @ f5

31 @ f5

For you pixel peepers take a look.

Flickr: trebbuilder's
Photostream

Thanks for your time.

John

cputeq · 07-06-2008, 05:24 PM

I tried your flickr but you're not allowing full size downloads.

If you want, just repaste the full size images in this thread but add a "wide" (without quotes) inside the (IMG) tags...so insted of (IMG=blah blah blah) it'll look like (IMGWIDE=blah blahblah)

To be fair, you're comparing a 3rd party, decently priced zoom to one of the finest AF primes on the planet

I really fail to see how the Tamron is softer than the 18-250 without there being some error in the lens.