Sharp, sharp, sharp Very good colors Outstanding contrast Lightweight 6 year warranty

Focus not quite as good as canon usm, but i've still got $800 in my pocket Wish it were 24mm at the wide angle sometimes Make sure to test in store first, not all copies the same

Unless you need a wider angle lens, BUY THIS LENS. I am a serious hobbyist using a Canon 10d. I waited awhile to write a review because I did not believe in this lens at first. I resisted buying it for about six months, tested a few copies and walked away. I did not believe it could come close to Canon L glass as many have said, and the first two copies I tested at a camera store were a bit soft. Its lightweight build concerned me too. But after three years of primes, I had realized the value of having a walkaround, relatively fast zoom for a variety of purposes -- events, sports, landscape, street. The copy I tested at Canoga Camera was so sharp at f.2.8 that it rivaled my Canon 85/1.8 at that aperture. Its colors and contrast were very good. I could not deny my eyes and bought it. Since then it has been a lifesaver time and again, producing very very good images during travels when i want to stay light, and when time makes it inconvenient to change primes. I could not be happier with its consistently very fine performance. Here and there, its focus misses a shot, but so do my Canon primes. I wish sometimes it was a little wider for dslr purposes. Other than these quibbles, I have nothing negative to say, only praise to sing.

Customer Service

no need for it yet.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, tamron 20-40, tokina 28-70/2.8. m

Price, sharpness, AF speed, weight and size.

Some samples are not calibrated well for DSLR (so mine had to be calibrated)... but after that it was very good. Manual focus is difficult due to the very short adjustment range Nothing else for the price...

I only use it on a Nikon DSLR, so I can´t say anything about its performance with film. This is a very, very good lens for a very good price. Sharpness and contrast are really good even wide open, from f 4 very good. Bokeh is nice as well. I often use it for portraits and normally you can´t see a difference to very good primes. You must use a lense like the AF-Nikkor 85mm f 1.4 to get pictures with more crispness. Build quallity is adequate, I think it´s better than it looks like. It is very small and lightweight for a zoom with a constant aperture of 1:2.8. For me this lens is a sleeper for people who don´t want to sell their houses AND want to have a very good lens. With a DSLR you may miss wide angel a little bit, I don´t. I use it as a lens for people, portrait and details I see here and there... it´s a variable 50mm :-)

Customer Service

Very good, fast, friendly and qualified

Similar Products Used:

Nikkor AF-D 50mm f 1.8 Nikkor AF-D 85mm f 1.4

sharrrp...and sharp and sharp..and contrasty and good flare control and superb to make digital prints! very good MACRO abilities..reasonable priced.

too bad QC control..i was lucky to have a fair sample..a tiny tad too slow motor inside (could absolutely be better!!!)too plasticky..yet..good..

This is a fantastic lens indeed.I was a little hesitated in respect and favor of the Canon 28-70 and 24-70 L,but you see i am right now a little more than chokked how good this Investment,Originally i planned to buy a 50 mm 1,4 usm but i decided to buy this Tamron instead as an advise from my highly respected colleague in my branch. Boy ! i am not dissapointed at all,i hope it is not assembled by chinese children the result is very mature and grown up;this lens is with all respect very very good. My version is fantastic sharp !! very much it is actually better at 28 mm than 75 mm!! wow..at f 2,8 its soft at the corners but at 5,6 its simply stunning. For the price size and design and super fast AF motor and foremost and first of all this lens is SUPERB.I use it daily at my >old 10D> and my editor and clients are very happy with the results,of course the Canon L is better ! but only 5 % or so..i decided to invest differently and for the money saved i bought a high end 17-40 L.! This Lens is going to make history! Tamron ; your QC could be better and you could put better glass in and..(dreaming..)in the end its rated 4,4 by me.. BUY IT.

Customer Service

not yet

Similar Products Used:

canon L and sigma EX both 2,8 versions as well as Nikon 35-70 and 28-70 2,8..

Light weight, exceptional sharpness and resistance to flair

quasi pro feel, doesn't seem super rugged, though has been fine so far

Excellent sharpness and contrast, exceptional resistance to flair. I purchased this over the Nikon 28-70 after comparing the resistance to flair and finding the Tamron shocking superior to the Nikon.

Similar Products Used:

nikon 28-70, 24-105, Canon 28-70, Many Leica prime lenses

Great detail. Sharp. Sharp........and sharp. Nice warm lens for flesh tones.

2.8 poor, so what. Focusing at similiar focal distances

OKAY, as you can see that price was great 250. IT's one of the 1st Demo's out on the market at the store I bought it at. So, if the 1st ones were quirkie, I'd have it. What I have found is that this lens was just as good/great as a "new" one. In fact this one was in a box and never used, yahooooo. Anyway. I shoot mostly kids, portraits, weddings, special occasions and any occasion! My camera is a Kodak 14n with all the software upgrades in it. It's a great camera now! (Still not for sports though, maybe its me!) Let's get down to the nuts andbolts. The 2.8, to me is not very good, 4 it's acceptable for some shots. 5.6 is good for most all shots, a little soft in the corners (plan your shot so your editing this part out). 6-8 very good/great. 9 and 11, wow, now your talking sharp, I mean really sharp(great detail). I really dont shoot at anyother F's, I dont have time to use a tripod. What's really great is I use the Nikon SB 80Dx flash, this enables me to get more distance out of my flash, about 30-40% more. Be carefull on those sunny days, even though digital cameras are typically light hogs, stopping down at 5.6 may not get you the exposure your hoping for (too Bright). If your using the similiar set up camera/flash, email me. This review is based on real live in the field usage, where it counts! I found even if the pix is not quite as sharp as you like, it still prints sharp anyway, ya get spoiled using this lens. The only time I get frustrated is when the focus needs to just be tweaked on another subject almost within the same focal distance. I now shoot with my fingers touching so slightly on the barrel where the lens turns from focusing. Its fixes that "not sure if it's in focus" feeling. My customers are amazed at how detailed and sharp my pictures are. Rating overall 4.5

Customer Service

N/A. I checked out the camera prior to buying

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 28-200 Nikon 24-120

Blew away the EF 50mm 1.8II and held up very well against the 70-2004L.

Was not as sharp as the EF 28mm 2.8 wide open or at f/4.

This is an addendum to my previous review, with the results of my lens test. Let me out line the parameters of the test, I used a Canon Elan 7N body loaded with Fuji Reala ISO 100 film. I used a tripod and the mirror lock-up function to insure a stable platform. I compared the Tamron to the EF 28mm f/2.8 and EF 50mm f/1.8 II at their respective focal lengths and the 70-200 f/4 L at 70mm. All lenses were equipped with high quality, multicoated UV filters. At 28mm I took shots with each at f/2.8,4,5.6,8 and 11. I found the Tamron to have decent sharpness in the center at 2.8, but the edges were noticably soft and there was some darkening of the corners of the image -- both greatly improved at f/4. The Canon lens was defiantely sharper at 2.8 and just had a little softness at the edges and also showed some vignetting in the corners. It was also still clearly a little sharper at f/4 as well. At 5.6 the images were very close, slight edge to the prime. At both f/8 & f/11 the images were nearly identical. I can't say that I was surprised with this result, considering the focal length. At 50 mm I shot at f/2.8,4,5.6 & f/8 (I dropped f/11 because I thought it was more useful for DOF at the widest angle). To my suprise the Tamron was unmistakably sharper than the Canon at 2.8 and 4 and still a little sharper at 5.6 -- at f/8 the Canon had finally caught up. Considering the amount of praise the Canon lens gets, I was a bit stunned by how much better the Tamron was. Finally, I tested the Tamron at 75mm against the 70-200 f/4L at 70mm. I shot at 2.8,4,5.6 and 8 with the Tamron and f/4,5.6 and 8 with the Canon. Wide open the Tamron was nice and sharp in the center and showed pleasing bokeh. Both lenses were very sharp at f/4,5.6 and 8 and it was difficult to notice any defining difference, however I was able to see that the Canon was just a little sharper on the finest of details -- considering the sharpness of the Canon, I was very pleased by how well the Tamron performed against it, with probably 95% of the sharpness of the Canon. Overall the Tamron, in my mind at least, has proven to be a very sharp lens and produced good results at its worst (28mm @ 2.8) and excellent results otherwise. Even at that, if you are shooting wide angle, you'll be stopping down anyway. I found that my results more or less matched Bob Atkins test on photo.net here is the link to his test: www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_75_Di/ All in all an excellent lens at a very attractive price and I would imagine unbeatable in its price class.

Constant 2.8 Sharp! Shares 67mm filters w/ 70-200L Solid build Fast autofocus Free shade = no flare! Appears to be distortion free

Zooms the opposite way Not as quiet as USM

Before this lens I had been using primes to cover these focal lengths, and while the images were great, lugging around 5 lenses and constantly changing them began to get a little tiresome.When I started hearing about this wonderlens from Tamron, I hoped it would perform good enough to use as my main lens on my Elan 7N. I have used it now since Dec. and from what I have seen so far it has been very good. It worked great with flash shots during the holidays and during a recent trip to Utah produced very nice results with keen sharpness and color. I would like to test it against my primes and 70-200L to see just how sharp it is -- my guess is that it will compete strongly. I found the autofocus only slightly slower than other lenses I have/had with USM, and with more noise, but just as accurate. I would have no problem using it wide open, but it was definately sharper stopped down a tad. I also was very satified with the build (it has some heft to it), and it only took a few minutes to get used to zooming backward. Add a free lens shade and 6 years of warranty and you have a winner.

Customer Service

Not used

Similar Products Used:

EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 EF 24mm 2.8 EF 28mm 2.8 EF 35mm 2.8 EF 50mm 1.8 EF 70-200 f/4L Pentax stuff

Sharpness and contrast Fast lens (relatively sharp even open at 2.8) Lens hood included

Slow and loud AF No USM High variety at tamron's quality control

Extreme sharpness which ist even stronger than some L. The problem ist, that you can get a very bad piece or an excellent one. Tamron's quality control seems to poor extremely poor. Mine had a front focus of almost 5 inch at a distance of 20 inch to the object. A catastrophy! I exchanged it and second one had the same problem. After sending it to the Tamron service, I got it back, adjusted almost everything: sharpness, lenses, AF. But after that procedure it is perfect. Sharpness, contrast and general image quality is incredible for that low price!

Similar Products Used:

Canon EF 28-105

Sharpness. Constant aperture of F2.8 Macro Price

Sample quality varies alot! If you buy one, keep the receipt.

The first lens I bought was a complete dud. Soft, soft, soft. I took the lens into the local distributor, who promptly put it on a projector. Soft on one side. They sent it back to Japan to get adjusted, and gave me a brand new lens there and then. The replacement hasn't had alot of use yet, but seems very sharp. I have managed to take some VERY sharp photos - a couple not so.

Customer Service

Good customer service. Email support from Japan was timely. They really wanted to help me out, although it meant mailing the lens to Japan. However, my local distributor simply swapped the lens even though I had bought it overseas.

Sharpness Contrast Size Price

Slightly less color "pop" than the 24-70L

Looked for an alternative to Canon's 24-70 and 28-70 2.8L lenses. After reviewing the newer 24-70 Canon lens I felt I had a solid opinion in which to base my Tamron 28-75 experience on. After having the Tamron for a few months now I can say with confidence that this lens is well worth its cost. All things compared this is a well built lens. I've read other posts that suggest this lens is less than great due to its build quality compared to the L lenses. While I would not argue the L lens have a more solid feel to it, I will argue that this lens is built with quality. I could not see why this lens would not last indefinitely. Unless one is a complete klutz and drops or mishandles their equipment, this lens has more than adequate build quality. Either way if you drop a lens from 2 feet, its going to have issues. Bottom line - take care of your equipment! That said, working this lens through its range is somewhat stiff but smooth. There is no creep on this lens - a good thing for most people. I consistently compare image quality in three areas: Sharpness, Contrast and color. As far as sharpness goes, this lens really is sharp. It is great at 2.8 but as with any lens, get substantially better above that. 4 - 5.6 is absolutely amazing. Comparable to the 24-70L? Absolutely. Is it better than the L? No, but not because of sharpness - read on... Contrast is fantastic. This lens does exceptionally well controlling flare. It comes with a petal hood that works very well. This in a large part maintains the excellent contrast this lens produces. In terms of color, well this is where it falls slightly behind the L glass. There is a noticeable difference between the two - this is what affects the over-all quality of the image, as compared to the L lens. All in all I would rate it 80-90% of the quality of the 24-70L, and from what I've personally experienced I would say it's closer to 90%. If the color and contrast were to "pop" a little more than it would be 100%. All that being said, I would still take this lens over the 24-70L. BS you say? Well consider these points. It is 1400 bucks cheaper where I live (Canada), It is much more compact feeling - feels much more usable as a primary lens and uses cheaper filters (small point but...). And if it's only 10% off the superb quality of the "L" lens, I have to ask... Is what you're shooting worthy of the L quality? Can you make up the 10% in Photoshop? In my experience I've found the images from this lens work VERY well in Photoshop. The sharpen flawlessly and color balance absolutely great. Over-all, the closest alternative to the 24-70L you can buy - but it ain't no slouch!! This lens produces excellent quality images.

Customer Service

None required.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 24-70 2.8L Canon 28-70 2.8L Canon 28-105mm Canon 28-135 IS