# Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 hmm, not happy.



## supraman215 (Oct 31, 2010)

Were my expectations too high, perhaps. I expected the clarity to be AS good as my 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. I didn't expect it to be as sharp as the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. 

The softness if this lens is intolerable. There are worse examples that I have but I wanted to show what it looks like, on average. I've had this lens a week and already I can see it's not what I'm looking for. I want to be at 2.8 all the time, if it can't perform there then I'm going to get rid of it and go back to my kit lens.

I'd like to find a 2.8 zoom in this price range, even a little higher, that performs better. Can't afford the 24-70 Nikon @$1,499 used.

thoughts?


----------



## rocdoc (Oct 31, 2010)

If that is a properly focused shot, you have a defective copy. I get shots like this with mine: 






[/url]
smiling eyes by ondionais, on Flickr[/IMG]

Try sending it to Tamron and having it fixed. Incidentally, NO lens gets pictures like the one you posted, something is off, my guess would be focus.


----------



## orb9220 (Oct 31, 2010)

_" want to be at 2.8 all the time, if it can't perform there then I'm going to get rid of it and go back to my kit lens."

_Well shooting portraits at f2.8 is not the best aperture trying f4 may help. Also what shutter speed are you using? As you want to shoot above 1/50th at least. And doesn't have VR so you have to be steady shooting with it. Breathing and jabbing shutter not allowed.  

UpDate!: As not paying attention so is this hanheld or tripod and with flash?
Then would have to agree with Derrel below may very well be a bad lens.

_"I expected the clarity to be AS good as my 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens."_

A Good copy is a giant step up in clarity. I have the tamron 17-50 f2.8 and has been tack sharp on half-a-dozen nikons including the D90.

As a general rule 7 out of 10 people have problems with f2.8 zooms as they are not using them right and the other 3 generally get a bad lens.

But Tamrons are quite sharp. Baby pic was at f2.8 @ 1/50th.




Baby Riley for a Visit 2 of 3 by orb9220, on Flickr

Maximum Crop of Center of Pic here.



Bug Cushy Job (Crop) by orb9220, on Flickr

Good luck and check out the *Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 *groups at flickr to help narrow your problem down.
.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 31, 2010)

The shot of the little girl...is so bad it looks as if the lens is defective.


----------



## j-dogg (Oct 31, 2010)

I have a Tamron 18-270 Di-II LD VC for Canon and my images are pretty much razor sharp even at the far end with a tad of post, here:






and up close






which is remarkable for a hyperzoom, let alone a little 28-75 f2.8. Tamron lenses have come a long way since their early AF days.

I think the auto-focus on your lens may be defective, try manually focusing and report back. :thumbup:


----------



## bentcountershaft (Oct 31, 2010)

Yeah, that's pretty bad.  It's almost like you weren't far enough away for the lens' minimum focus distance, but I looked it up and it's 13".  You were obviously further away than that.


----------



## shaunly (Nov 1, 2010)

that is definitely a bad copy. I have this lens as well and actually just shot a wedding with it and it's a great sharp lens. Your copy looks like it has focusing issue. Try MF and see if you can get it dead on.


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 1, 2010)

Here is an example of same lighting and everything with an in-animate object. No tripod here for either of these pics. Tonight I'll test that out to confirm it wasn't a case of my not having enough coffee and shoot with a tripod. However I was shooting at 1/200, 75mm, f2.8 and a strobe, though the strobe was really just doing fill, so it could be the background lighting causing the blur. I'm used to shooting with my 35mm no tripod and no VR, of course that's wide angle not tele so it's not exactly the same.

I hope I didn't get bad copy. If I did I hope Adorama is good about it because I bought it used.


----------



## flameshots (Nov 1, 2010)

Maybe a silly question but, does it look soft through the viewfinder? Have you tried to manually focus and see if it's still soft? 

Just a thought.


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 1, 2010)

BTW these are 100% crops. At full size they look ok.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 1, 2010)

AH, you are the new owner of somebody else's former problem...the lens is performing absolutely terribly, crops or not. It looks like it has been damaged. The lens is NOT a good sample...the crops you show have Coke-bottle-bottom quality.


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 1, 2010)

Ok good, than I guess my expectations were inline, and I'm not crazy. I did clean it well. I'm still going to verify tonight with a tripod and all that. If I have no luck then I'm calling Adorama in the morning.


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 1, 2010)

or I may just go to my local shop and do a comparison. They have new copies of the lens.


----------



## shaunly (Nov 1, 2010)

send it back man. I'm sure Adorama has great customer service, they'll take it back.


----------



## mwcfarms (Nov 1, 2010)

I agree with mark send it straight back. Why waste time. You already have doubts and aren't happy with it.


----------



## rocdoc (Nov 1, 2010)

Agree with sending it back. I would be comfortable ordering a different copy. As you see, a lot of us own this lens and yours clearly has a problem. I heard all good things about Adorama's service.


----------



## bigtwinky (Nov 1, 2010)

I got a sharp copy after a few tries.  The copy I have, after my less than scientific testing with a rented 24-70, was that the Tamron was sharper at 5.6 and above.

You have a bum copy, which happens often with third party lenses.


----------



## HelenOster (Nov 1, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> I hope I didn't get bad copy. If I did I hope Adorama is good about it because I bought it used.



Our returns guarantee gives you a full 30 days to try it out - I think you already know that it isn't living up to expectations.......  

Please drop me an email with your order number and I'll have a pre-paid label sent out for you to return it: HelenO@adorama.com


----------



## Dao (Nov 1, 2010)

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:



HelenOster said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> > I hope I didn't get bad copy. If I did I hope Adorama is good about it because I bought it used.
> ...


----------



## shaunly (Nov 2, 2010)

Here are some sample of the Tamron. I have the BIM version.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...y-first-hawaii-wedding-shoot.html#post2062914


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 2, 2010)

I have performed a more scientific test.

All are at 75mm focal length, focus distance at about 5-6' which is closer than the 12' of the previous pics.


Pic 1 Tripod 1/20 sec f 2.8 iso 250






Pic 2 Tripod 1/20 sec f 6.3 iso 250






Pic 3 Handheld 1/20 sec f 2.8 iso 250






Pic 4 Handheld 1/20 sec f 6.3 iso 250






While the 2.8 performance in these photos is better than the 2.8 performance in the previous photos. It's still much worse than I expected.


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 3, 2010)

Any thoughts?


----------



## icassell (Nov 3, 2010)

Agreed -- back it should go!  I'm sure Adorama will make good.  If you had bought it new, Tamron has a  6 year warranty and excellent customer service.

EDIT : I didn't see Helen's note. :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## davisphotos (Nov 3, 2010)

I had that lens, and while I wasn't happy with its slow AF or slight softness and CA problems, I definitely agree you have a bad copy, or are having focus problems.


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 3, 2010)

Exciting news!! 

the new lens has arrived from Adorama!!! I will be posting more examples tonight!!


----------



## shaunly (Nov 3, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> Exciting news!!
> 
> the new lens has arrived from Adorama!!! I will be posting more examples tonight!!



please do. BTW which version do you have?


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 3, 2010)

I'm not sure about the one they JUST sent but the one from the examples above is the non-built in motor version. Using the camera body focus motor.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 3, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> Any thoughts?



Ugh! That's my thought. "Ugh!"


----------



## PhotoXopher (Nov 3, 2010)

I tried a Tamron in that range, it sucked and constantly locked up and had to be removed/installed.

I went with the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM OS and never looked back.


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 3, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> I tried a Tamron in that range, it sucked and constantly locked up and had to be removed/installed.
> 
> I went with the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM OS and never looked back.



I looked into that as well but 50 is not quite tight enough for me. I'm usually in the 35+ range for most of my shots.


----------



## orb9220 (Nov 3, 2010)

Sorry you got a bad copy supraman215! Hope the exchange works out for you.

Well I can find and have had bad copies of Sigma and Tamron. So getting a bad copy of a Tamron or Sigma doesn't mean that all Tamron's or all Sigma's are crap.

All lenses have a percentage of bad copies even Nikon or Canon. It is just that 3rd party tend to be cheaper therefore have a higher percentage of lemons.

For ever person that states Tamron's or Sigma for that matter Suck. I can find 7 or 8 that swear about that particular brand lens. As you will always get the few posting multiple times in multiple threads bashing this brand or that brand. But rarely do the other 80% start a thread stating "Hey I got a good copy". So I keep it in perspective and don't let the 1 or 3 out of 10 give more weight than compared to the total numbers. 

Yes it is unfortunate to be one that gets a bad copy. But just because I got a lemon Chevy doesn't mean All Chevy's are crap. So I always buy from a reputable dealer with good exchange/return copies.
.


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 3, 2010)

UPDATE: got the new lens looks sharper


NEW LENS






OLD LENS





Though I'm still not sure as the new lens came missing some internal parts:

NEW LENS





OLD LENS






Now sure how to proceed here. Anyone know what those plastic pieces do?


----------



## darkchild (Nov 3, 2010)

i will never buy a used lens unless i can test it first.


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 4, 2010)

Any thoughts people on the missing pieces?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 4, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> Any thoughts people on the missing pieces?




Is that what Adorama sent you back?????

OMFG...what are they doing? Going through the box of old beater lenses to sell to people?


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 4, 2010)

Derrel said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> > Any thoughts people on the missing pieces?
> ...



Yeah that's the second lens. I now have 2. Obviously I'm sending the first one back but I haven't decided on the second. Since it was rated at E condition I expected it to be of the same physical shape as the first one. I could always save up for another year and front the extra $200 for a new copy. This is getting a bit old, my first foray into used lenses. Not sure I'll go down this road again.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 4, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > supraman215 said:
> ...




A lens rated in Excellent condition that is missing the rear baffling and the protective ring around the absolutely CRITICAL rear element of the lens...yeah...man...this ought to be embarrassing to Adorama. There is no way a lens that is MISSING PARTS grades out as "Excellent" in my book. No freaking way. Who butchered the lens?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 4, 2010)

Here is the pertinent Adorama Used Lens grading wording, copied from their site, today. Where in the range would you classify the replacement lens they sent you? Where do you think a buyer of the newly-received lens would rate the lens if you were to try and re-sell the lens? How will you explain the missing parts to a subsequent buyer? You payed for a lens in "Excellent" condition; how do you think the replacement lens would slot in to Adorama's used equipment ratings, in light of possible re-sale value of the lens by you, in the future?

D) Demo (Like New)
Like New with little or no signs of use.
E+) Excellent Plus
May have slight wear but only visible under close up inspection.
E) Excellent
Lens Glass very clean - cosmetically may show slight wear and/or signs of use.
E-) Excellent Minus
Shows signs of moderate use - Lens Glass is perfect but may have some dust which will not affect picture quality.
V) Very Good
Appears well used and may include dings, brassing, scrapes and bruises but is in fully functional condition. Glass may have marks or haze that should not affect picture quality.
G) Good
Appears to have been used very heavily with multiple dings, scrapes, scratches and heavy brassing. Glass may have fungus, excessive dust and/or scratches that can affect picture quality.
F) Fair Item works with certain malfunctions. Read comments for exact malfunction details.
X) For parts only.


----------



## Nikon1991 (Nov 4, 2010)

The big thing is you need to know how to use the camera and shoot on the right settings for the event. From the picture i saw of the little girl it looked very out of focus. There is an out side chance that there is something wrong with the Lens but check all the other factors first.


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 4, 2010)

Missing parts (with the exception of lens hoods) should be categorized lower than a lens with all the original parts, and both lenses were E status. What it looks like is someone probably tried to fix it and didn't replace the baffles because the aperture ring doesn't move great in fact instead of returning to F32 with the spring it has to be pushed back the small distance from the previous F stop which makes me think that if I used F32 I might not actually get it since the lever on the camera body seems to rely on the springs in the lens to lower the Fstop.

I'll probably e-mail them today. I'm sure they won't have an issue taking back this lens as well but it's starting to become more trouble than it's worth. Just frustrated I guess. Adorama has been very accomidating. Wish I had bought my used car from them.


----------



## shaunly (Nov 4, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> NEW LENS
> 
> 
> 
> ...



WTF!! if that's what Adorama rates Excellent, I'm NEVER buying use from them.


----------



## shaunly (Nov 4, 2010)

This is why I rather buy used on craigslist than online site. Condition rating is so subjective....


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 4, 2010)

shaunly said:


> This is why I rather buy used on craigslist than online site. Condition rating is so subjective....



There's a local shop I like to do business with but they don't have this lens. I could just wait I guess till they get one. Every once in a while one pops up here on craigslist. 

Thanks everyone for your advice. This is my first time buying used and it's all helpful stuff.


----------



## chris (Nov 4, 2010)

The brim of the hat above the girls right eye seems to be the sharpest part of the photo, the seam along the edge can be clearly seen. Are you sure that you got the focus right.


----------



## rocdoc (Nov 4, 2010)

I'm sure you looked into this, and please understand I am not trying to be patronizing. But... does your camera get sharp and focused images with other lenses? The examples you posted from the second lens are really not that different - still way beyond what is acceptable of this lens (any lens, really). Have you checked to make sure there isn't a focus problem in the camera itself?


----------



## shaunly (Nov 4, 2010)

rocdoc said:


> I'm sure you looked into this, and please understand I am not trying to be patronizing. But... does your camera get sharp and focused images with other lenses? The examples you posted from the second lens are really not that different - still way beyond what is acceptable of this lens (any lens, really). Have you checked to make sure there isn't a focus problem in the camera itself?



Let me try to run some test shot similar to yours. I'll post some images then you can compare it yourself.


----------



## shaunly (Nov 4, 2010)

shot in very low light. 75mm, 1/60th sec, f/2.8, ISO-4000, jpeg straight from camera






crop 100%





detail is obviously lost because of the ISO-4000 but still very good IMO.


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 4, 2010)

I would contact Adorama and verify that you can send both lenes back with the same return shipper they sent you for the first lens.  KEH would rate that 2nd lens as "bargain".  I have always had good service from Adorama.  But thats with new equipment.  I am sure they will allow the return of both lenses.  Keep looking or wait and just order a new one.


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 5, 2010)

If you'll see all my posts I'm not trying to bash adorama here. I never said anything slanderous, I was simply talking about my experience. They have treated me well in the customer service department, and I'm happy with my experience dealing with them. I realize there is some risk purchasing used equipment sight unseen.

They are going to take both lenses back. No issue.


----------

