Tamron 28-75/2.8 Need feedback

jeffrey r · 08-12-2009, 11:40 AM

^^^ Tough call there, especially since you also have the DA 12-24mm. I have both the Tamron 17-50 and 28-75, but the 17-50 is my widest lens, so it does have a place in my kit. If I had the 12-24, I am not sure if I would also keep the 17-50. There are certainly some instances where as a one-lens solution for a given outing, the 17-50 would be the best option out of those 3 lenses. It just comes down to whether you want to keep it around just for that occasional circumstance. The fact that there are also 2 viable 17-70 lenses makes the decision even more difficult, albeit without the constant 2.8.

Miserere · 08-12-2009, 11:54 AM

What do you mean by "stage photos"?

With my K10D (max ISO of 1600) I cannot use my Tamron for shooting gigs. Nowhere near, in fact. At f/1.8 and ISO1600 I'm still shooting at 1/30s, maybe 1/50s if I'm lucky. It all depends on how bright your stage is. Mine always seem to be pitch black

grishazzz · 08-12-2009, 01:38 PM

Igilligan and EDL
WOW!!! I like your photos!! It is sharp @F2.8! This is exactly what I need for club stuff shots!
thank you guys!

grishazzz · 08-12-2009, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Miserere

What do you mean by "stage photos"?

With my K10D (max ISO of 1600) I cannot use my Tamron for shooting gigs. Nowhere near, in fact. At f/1.8 and ISO1600 I'm still shooting at 1/30s, maybe 1/50s if I'm lucky. It all depends on how bright your stage is. Mine always seem to be pitch black

I mean small club shots (very narrow/small stage with decent lights), I've used my FA50/1.4 and it performed very well in dim lighting conditions. Well, I can't say the stage was totally dark, no.... there was enough light to get an acceptable shutter speed 1/30-1/60@F2.8/ISO800.

MacGirl · 08-12-2009, 02:03 PM

grishazzz, what's your budget? If you can afford it and will be in those situations a lot, go all out, go for more reach. (DA*50-135/2.8 or Tammy/Sigma 70-200/2.8)

I'm not a club/stage shooter but I went on a Nine Inch Nails binge this past year, shooting 3 shows for personal momentos, I consistantly found that I needed more reach. I'd recommend, if you can, renting the DA*50-135 and giving it a try. When I shot with the 28-75, I found myself cropping a lot to get the close-ups. But if you aren't needing close-ups then it'll work. I liked using my FA50/1.4 too, I could stop down and get sharper focus but then I was cropping with it too, so....

Row 8 shots with the Tammy, not the sharpest in the shed but I was still working on my technique:

Hope this gives you a little more to think about. Regardless I use the 28-75 a lot and I hope to one day get the DA* 50-135 for myself. Played with it a bit and its a sweet package.

grishazzz · 08-12-2009, 02:16 PM

MacGirl
no way!!! NIN is one of my favorites!! I love NIN!!!!!!! NICE SHOTSSSSSSS!!!!
My budget is limited

so in my case Tamron would be the best bang for the buck

MacGirl · 08-12-2009, 02:44 PM

Thanks for the compliments. It was a fun year to say the least!

Yeah, understand the budget thing. I'm hoping that in the next couple of years I'll be able to purchase the 50-135. I need a rebate to come along or something!

edl · 08-12-2009, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by grishazzz

Igilligan and EDL
WOW!!! I like your photos!! It is sharp @F2.8! This is exactly what I need for club stuff shots!
thank you guys!

Your welcome! Just to cover all focal lengths, here's one at 75mm, 1/100s f/2.8, ISO400 K20d:

And finally one at 28mm, 1/30s f/2.8 ISO800 K20d. Look at the detail in the grey sweater. Also, keep in mind I was about 10 drinks down that night:

edl · 08-12-2009, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Venturi

...

My only "concern" now is whether to keep my 17-50/2.8 or not. I bought the 28-75 because I was always finding myself either needing more reach than the 17-50 or wider than the 50-135 and want/need an f/2.8 option to bridge that barrier. In the whopping 24hours I've had it, it is working perfectly to that end.

Now though, since I do also have the DA12-24 I'm wondering if I will even have use for the 17-50 anymore. I suppose I could always put the 28-75 on the PZ-1 and the 17-50 on the K20D and go do digital-vs-film shoots of identical scenes but that's a bit like, as Eddie Izzard would say, "stuffing money in my ears and going 'Phfffflllldddttt'."

I think the 12-24, 28-75 and 70-200 would be a great three lens setup. I don't even think there's a need for a "fast 50" like most people say, as the FA50 doesn't render well until F/2.0-2.2. I'd rather bump the ISO up one stop and use the Tammy, which is super at 2.8.

SnypeR · 08-13-2009, 01:52 PM

I have Tamron 28-75 and I like it very much.. If you don't use about 18-25mm and you need above 55mm, tamron is the best option..

Andi Lo · 08-13-2009, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by edl

I think the 12-24, 28-75 and 70-200 would be a great three lens setup. I don't even think there's a need for a "fast 50" like most people say, as the FA50 doesn't render well until F/2.0-2.2. I'd rather bump the ISO up one stop and use the Tammy, which is super at 2.8.

The fifty is smaller, lighter, and is also a prime. The color rendering is more Pentax, and the bokeh is nicer. Two different lenses here

But you're right that IQ wise, unless you need the speed under 2.8, there's almost no need for the FA 50 if you have the Tammy. I disagree with the speed comment though. I think the f1.4 is still useful in some unique circumstances.

I have a hard time justifying the purchase of DA limiteds thanks to the Tammy's speed

MRRiley · 08-13-2009, 02:18 PM

The Tammy 28-75mm f2.8 is one of my favorite lenses. Reason i got it was for studio fachion work, but it sees a lot of use in a wide variety of situations. Covers that "should I have this lens or that lens on" range quite well...

Mike

grishazzz · 08-15-2009, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by SnypeR

I have Tamron 28-75 and I like it very much.. If you don't use about 18-25mm and you need above 55mm, tamron is the best option..

Yes, exactly! I don't need super-wide angle like 18mm to 35mm. 43mm (on a cropped sensor) is enough for me

08-13-2009, 02:17 PM	#26
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by edl I think the 12-24, 28-75 and 70-200 would be a great three lens setup. I don't even think there's a need for a "fast 50" like most people say, as the FA50 doesn't render well until F/2.0-2.2. I'd rather bump the ISO up one stop and use the Tammy, which is super at 2.8. The fifty is smaller, lighter, and is also a prime. The color rendering is more Pentax, and the bokeh is nicer. Two different lenses here But you're right that IQ wise, unless you need the speed under 2.8, there's almost no need for the FA 50 if you have the Tammy. I disagree with the speed comment though. I think the f1.4 is still useful in some unique circumstances. I have a hard time justifying the purchase of DA limiteds thanks to the Tammy's speed Last edited by Andi Lo; 08-13-2009 at 02:31 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Landscape Feedback #2	pyra_ohms	Post Your Photos!	2	07-09-2010 05:17 AM
Looking for some PP feedback	jmdeegan	Photo Critique	4	01-13-2009 10:49 PM
Looking for Feedback	ombre	Post Your Photos!	10	11-01-2007 06:16 AM
Feedback, please?	Tom Lusk	Post Your Photos!	10	09-15-2007 05:34 AM
Feedback	rjg	Post Your Photos!	14	10-02-2006 03:06 AM

08-12-2009, 11:40 AM	#16
jeffrey r Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 337	^^^ Tough call there, especially since you also have the DA 12-24mm. I have both the Tamron 17-50 and 28-75, but the 17-50 is my widest lens, so it does have a place in my kit. If I had the 12-24, I am not sure if I would also keep the 17-50. There are certainly some instances where as a one-lens solution for a given outing, the 17-50 would be the best option out of those 3 lenses. It just comes down to whether you want to keep it around just for that occasional circumstance. The fact that there are also 2 viable 17-70 lenses makes the decision even more difficult, albeit without the constant 2.8.

08-12-2009, 11:54 AM	#17
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	What do you mean by "stage photos"? With my K10D (max ISO of 1600) I cannot use my Tamron for shooting gigs. Nowhere near, in fact. At f/1.8 and ISO1600 I'm still shooting at 1/30s, maybe 1/50s if I'm lucky. It all depends on how bright your stage is. Mine always seem to be pitch black

08-12-2009, 01:38 PM	#18
grishazzz Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: LA Posts: 80 Original Poster	Igilligan and EDL WOW!!! I like your photos!! It is sharp @F2.8! This is exactly what I need for club stuff shots! thank you guys!

08-12-2009, 01:46 PM	#19
grishazzz Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: LA Posts: 80 Original Poster	Originally posted by Miserere What do you mean by "stage photos"? With my K10D (max ISO of 1600) I cannot use my Tamron for shooting gigs. Nowhere near, in fact. At f/1.8 and ISO1600 I'm still shooting at 1/30s, maybe 1/50s if I'm lucky. It all depends on how bright your stage is. Mine always seem to be pitch black I mean small club shots (very narrow/small stage with decent lights), I've used my FA50/1.4 and it performed very well in dim lighting conditions. Well, I can't say the stage was totally dark, no.... there was enough light to get an acceptable shutter speed 1/30-1/60@F2.8/ISO800.

08-12-2009, 02:03 PM	#20
MacGirl Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Missouri, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 209	grishazzz, what's your budget? If you can afford it and will be in those situations a lot, go all out, go for more reach. (DA50-135/2.8 or Tammy/Sigma 70-200/2.8) I'm not a club/stage shooter but I went on a Nine Inch Nails binge this past year, shooting 3 shows for personal momentos, I consistantly found that I needed more reach. I'd recommend, if you can, renting the DA50-135 and giving it a try. When I shot with the 28-75, I found myself cropping a lot to get the close-ups. But if you aren't needing close-ups then it'll work. I liked using my FA50/1.4 too, I could stop down and get sharper focus but then I was cropping with it too, so.... Row 8 shots with the Tammy, not the sharpest in the shed but I was still working on my technique: Hope this gives you a little more to think about. Regardless I use the 28-75 a lot and I hope to one day get the DA* 50-135 for myself. Played with it a bit and its a sweet package.

08-12-2009, 02:16 PM	#21
grishazzz Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: LA Posts: 80 Original Poster	MacGirl no way!!! NIN is one of my favorites!! I love NIN!!!!!!! NICE SHOTSSSSSSS!!!! My budget is limited so in my case Tamron would be the best bang for the buck

08-12-2009, 02:44 PM	#22
MacGirl Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Missouri, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 209	Thanks for the compliments. It was a fun year to say the least! Yeah, understand the budget thing. I'm hoping that in the next couple of years I'll be able to purchase the 50-135. I need a rebate to come along or something!

08-12-2009, 09:31 PM	#23
edl Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Francisco Posts: 457	Originally posted by grishazzz Igilligan and EDL WOW!!! I like your photos!! It is sharp @F2.8! This is exactly what I need for club stuff shots! thank you guys! Your welcome! Just to cover all focal lengths, here's one at 75mm, 1/100s f/2.8, ISO400 K20d: And finally one at 28mm, 1/30s f/2.8 ISO800 K20d. Look at the detail in the grey sweater. Also, keep in mind I was about 10 drinks down that night:

08-12-2009, 09:39 PM	#24
edl Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: San Francisco Posts: 457	Originally posted by Venturi ... My only "concern" now is whether to keep my 17-50/2.8 or not. I bought the 28-75 because I was always finding myself either needing more reach than the 17-50 or wider than the 50-135 and want/need an f/2.8 option to bridge that barrier. In the whopping 24hours I've had it, it is working perfectly to that end. Now though, since I do also have the DA12-24 I'm wondering if I will even have use for the 17-50 anymore. I suppose I could always put the 28-75 on the PZ-1 and the 17-50 on the K20D and go do digital-vs-film shoots of identical scenes but that's a bit like, as Eddie Izzard would say, "stuffing money in my ears and going 'Phfffflllldddttt'." I think the 12-24, 28-75 and 70-200 would be a great three lens setup. I don't even think there's a need for a "fast 50" like most people say, as the FA50 doesn't render well until F/2.0-2.2. I'd rather bump the ISO up one stop and use the Tammy, which is super at 2.8.

08-13-2009, 01:52 PM	#25
SnypeR Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Istanbul Posts: 5	I have Tamron 28-75 and I like it very much.. If you don't use about 18-25mm and you need above 55mm, tamron is the best option..

08-13-2009, 02:18 PM	#27
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	The Tammy 28-75mm f2.8 is one of my favorite lenses. Reason i got it was for studio fachion work, but it sees a lot of use in a wide variety of situations. Covers that "should I have this lens or that lens on" range quite well... Mike

08-15-2009, 02:40 PM	#28
grishazzz Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: LA Posts: 80 Original Poster	Originally posted by SnypeR I have Tamron 28-75 and I like it very much.. If you don't use about 18-25mm and you need above 55mm, tamron is the best option.. Yes, exactly! I don't need super-wide angle like 18mm to 35mm. 43mm (on a cropped sensor) is enough for me