# Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Sharpness Test Wide Open, Stopped Down, & Zoom Extremes



## keith204 (Mar 27, 2008)

I got my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 in today, and did some sharpness tests on it. If you have Dial-Up, hit the BACK button now.

28mm f/2.8






28mm f/2.8 Crop






28mm f/4.0






28mm f/4.0 Crop





28mm f/5.6





28mm f/5.6 Crop






**********************75mm*************************

75mm f/2.8





75mm f/2.8 Crop





75mm f/4.0





75mm f/4.0 Crop





75mm f/5.6





75mm f/5.6 Crop






Conclusion:

VERY sharp at f/2.8 at 28mm.  At 75mm, it's relatively soft, but probably still usable.  If stopped down to f/4.0 at 75mm, it's very sharp.

All in all, I think this lens will do more than suit my needs.  (as long as this world needs candy wrapper photographers)


----------



## keith204 (Mar 27, 2008)

Also,

Shots taken with:

Canon 40D
1600ISO w/out any noise-reduction
Tiffen UV Filter
JPEG


----------



## cwessley (Mar 27, 2008)

Thanks Keith! That is a great review of that lens.  Those are some really sharp pictures.  I was gonna buy one of those but I wasnt sure of performance.  But thanks to you i have an idea of how it will pan out. Thanks!


----------



## Garbz (Mar 28, 2008)

Ok but you've reviewed the lens at it's best. Can you also supply 100% crops from the corners?

Look at sharpness curves and you will see even some of the most horrible lenses (Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 at wide open) are tac sharp in the centre.


----------



## keith204 (Mar 29, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Ok but you've reviewed the lens at it's best. Can you also supply 100% crops from the corners?
> 
> Look at sharpness curves and you will see even some of the most horrible lenses (Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 at wide open) are tac sharp in the centre.




So, I should focus on something flat then?


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 29, 2008)

Hi Keith, I think that he may be talking about something like this.. http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/pro-normal-zooms/index.htm

But without the comparisons though.  

mike


----------



## keith204 (Mar 30, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> Hi Keith, I think that he may be talking about something like this.. http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/pro-normal-zooms/index.htm
> 
> But without the comparisons though.
> 
> mike



Wow.  I give up.  Howabout, I'll just tell you if I like it or not, after some practical application...


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Mar 30, 2008)

Great test! I was surprised that I could actually see a bit of softening at the 75mm F2.8, albeit very little. What are you thinking of reviewing next?


----------



## keith204 (Mar 30, 2008)

*Focusing

*Sharpness has seemed great thus far.  However, AF is a different story, but that is to be expected.  Slow.  Slowest AF of all my lenses.  However, I do have USM/HSM on all of them except my 50mm f/1.8 (and now this Tamron)...so it's not saying much.

Using my 430EX, the AF-assist beam seems to help quite a bit with accuracy, and the AF certainly doesn't hunt much then.

AF Noise?  Some complain about this.  But, it's not annoyingly loud in my opinion.  I would not hesitate to take it in a museum.  I have used plenty of louder lenses (some Sigmas w/out HSM are louder).

Really, I purchased this lens knowing that AF wouldn't be as good as the Canon 24-70.  For saving so much money, I can deal with the slow AF for a little while


----------



## keith204 (Mar 30, 2008)

TamiyaGuy said:


> What are you thinking of reviewing next?



Hey, I'll _comprehensive_ review any lens you'll buy me .


----------



## Gopherkid (Apr 14, 2008)

Keith, you own this one and had previously owned the sigma 24-70 too right?  After having both, which one would you recommend?  Seems the sigma is hit or miss on quality is big and has a solid feel.  Where this one doesnt have the feel of the sigma but is consistent with optical quality.  Was the sigma's AF faster?  Im looking for some sort of tipping point and having a hard time deciding.


----------



## keith204 (Apr 14, 2008)

Gopherkid said:


> Keith, you own this one and had previously owned the sigma 24-70 too right?  After having both, which one would you recommend?  Seems the sigma is hit or miss on quality is big and has a solid feel.  Where this one doesnt have the feel of the sigma but is consistent with optical quality.  Was the sigma's AF faster?  Im looking for some sort of tipping point and having a hard time deciding.



Great questions.

I actually am sending this back to B&H because of a bug at the 28mm end.  The copy I had had focusing problems when wide (very very slow focusing) and didn't communicate correctly with the camera on focal length.  I haven't heard of this before, and I am convinced it's just a bug in the Tamron I got.

AF speeds.  I didn't compare the  two side by side, but I would say the Tamron was a bit faster.  Both are slow.

Build - there's a difference between build quality and feel...in my opinion.  For instance... my 17-85 IS by Canon feels GREAT...but doesn't necessarily feel solid.  The opposite occurs with the Sigma.  The Sigma feels solid, but the zoom is stiff and uncomfortable.  Many people say that the stiffness loosens a bit, so it isn't a problem.  The Tamron's size is nice, the build quality feels decent, and the zoom feels better than the Sigma (not as stiff) but also doesn't feel near as good as my 17-85.  

Focal length - Big Mike keeps saying "24/28 is too wide for a crop body" and I ignored him once when I bought the 24-70, and then I ignored him a second time when I got the Tamron 28-75.  Both times I regretted it.  Getting the Sigma 24-70 was what prompted me to sell it and get the 17-85 IS.  Now, a few months later, I think "Well I have a 10-20mm, so that paired with a 28-75 should be ok" - wrong!  On a crop sensor, I can't stress enough that a 24/28 is too narrow.

Optics - I haven't tested the 24-70 extensively.  I only had it for a few days and realized that I needed wider.  The Tamron is INCREDIBLY sharp...especially at 2.8 and for a $350 lens.  

Conclusion.
I shoot sports.  AF speed is important to me.  That's the reason I am getting a refund on the 28-75, and will soon splurge on a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS w/ USM.  If you don't require fast AF, then IMO you can get away with a Tamron 28-75.  If you are shooting indoors, you'll really need something wider.  For me, I need the wide end, and I need the USM motor.  Neither of these are for me.  If you can deal without those, these two mentioned lenses are well worth their money.  Personally, I prefer the Tamron.  It's a great lens.  Just understand that it's certainly not wide on a crop body, and AF speed is certainly slow.  If you're ok with these, then go with the Tamron, you won't be disappointed!


----------



## keith204 (Apr 14, 2008)

I have to add...

I'm a sucker for 2.8 zooms.  Hopefully I'm not talking you out of one.  If you have a crop body, look into the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.  Big Mike has one I think, and it's supposed to be real nice.


----------



## Gopherkid (Apr 14, 2008)

Thanks for the awsome reply!  Yeah, I just got a 30D, and I do shoot moto-x, although i plan on using a 70-200 mostly for that.

It was interesting to hear you say the pairing of the 10-20 and 28-75 was a poor one, because thats exactly what I had in mind. haha

Either way all I have currently is the 50mm prime, so Im sure ill be happy with anything, but you might have talked me down to the 17-50 tamron.  Because like you, I want a constant low app.


----------



## Gopherkid (Apr 14, 2008)

This is becoming impossible to make a choice.  Whenever I narrow it down to something with all the features I want, it turns out to be an L lens that I dont have the budget for.  No wonder these things got a high price tag lol.  I think I'll just have to take the plunge on one of these and make a learning experience out of it.


----------



## keith204 (Apr 14, 2008)

Gopherkid said:


> This is becoming impossible to make a choice.  Whenever I narrow it down to something with all the features I want, it turns out to be an L lens that I dont have the budget for.  No wonder these things got a high price tag lol.  I think I'll just have to take the plunge on one of these and make a learning experience out of it.



which one are you looking at?


----------



## Gopherkid (Apr 15, 2008)

Was looking at the two tamron's mentioned, possibly the sigma, but then if i want a usm or equiv. zoom, im pretty much looking at L glass. Its like when you go to buy a computer or a car, and they keep upgrading you one step at a time, like for only $x amount more you can get this, and more for this, and then you realize your way out of your budget.

I was looking over my shots taken with my old powershot, and most of them were taken at the far end of it's focal length 12x, but I plan to get a seperate 70-200 for the moto-x I shoot. I keep thinking ill miss that ~50-70 if I settle with the tamron 17-50.  But on the other hand I think im underestimating the lower end of the focal range at the same time.


----------



## keith204 (Apr 15, 2008)

the 50-70 gap isn't that big...a minor crop at 50mm will do the trick.


----------



## Gopherkid (Apr 15, 2008)

Yeah, I think ill look more into the sigma 18-50 or the tamron 17-50.


----------



## Gopherkid (Apr 15, 2008)

LOL, all this time and I find out my dad has a film SLR hidden away somewhere.  Had a 28-80mm on it, so I played with that for a while on my 30D.  Thanks for the advice!  28mm is deff too narrow for a walk around lens.  Im for sure going to get a ~17-50 now.


----------

