Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD Aspherical for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
- 28-75mm autofocus zoom lens with f/2.8 maximum aperture
- Designed to meet performance characteristics of digital SLR cameras
- Minimum focusing distance of 13 inches; rotation-type zoom
- Smaller and lighter than most fast zoom lenses; weighs 18 ounces
- Measures 2.9 inches in diameter and 3.6 inches long; 6-year warranty
Product Description
Tamron 28 to 75 millimeter f2.8 XR Di Canon lens. Amazon.com Product Description
Tamron applies the Di (Digitally Integrated) logo to lenses with optical systems designed to meet the performance characteristics of digital SLR cameras, and this 28-75mm Di autofocus zoom lens is no exception. Boasting revolutionary downsizing XR technology, the lens is among the smallest and lightest models in the history of fast zoom lenses. In fact, it looks just like an ordinary standard zoom lens, but offers a fast constant maximum aperture that will reshape your photographic horizons. Specific details include a constant maximum aperture of f/2.8, a minimum focusing distance of 13 inches, and a rotation-type zoom. As with all Tamron lenses, the 28-75mm lens carries a six-year warranty. Lens construction: 16 elements in 14 groups Angle of view: 75 to 32 degrees Zooming type: Rotation Diaphragm blade number: 7 Minimum aperture: f/32 Minimum focusing distance… More >>
Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD Aspherical for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
This is my first experience with a lens, other than Canon and my last.
After the many great things I read about this lens, all over the internet, I got a bad copy.
I was hoping to be able to use it for a walk around lens, for small items.
This lens had a very plastic feel to all of it.
I tried it for one day, and I could not get it to focus for a macro shot of a flower.
I own 2 high quality Canon macro lens and have the ability to take excellent photos
This lens was a big disapointment to me. I returned it and bought the Canon 100mm macro lens
It took some time for it to be credited back to me. Amazon said they would pay the return shipping cost, it required a phone call, to “discuss this”, to get my shipping costs credited
You get what you pay for. The lens does a good job in low lighting. I prefer to stick with Canon lens, due to the quality and reliability.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to lose important photo opportunities while changing lenses – yes, resolution and detail are a must, and I’m quite sure this one packs great quality in a affordable package, but the reason people use zooms instead of primes is basically avoiding lens swapping in the first place – along with price as well (1 zoom vs 2 or 3 primes), so if you are shopping for a walk-around zoom lens, I believe you want to avoid as much as possible the stressing and often risky lens swapping. Considering a study I did I believe you’ll be swapping lenses a lot with this one, since it is so long in a 1.6 FOV body. It becomes a 44.8mm lens, for Christ sake, a NORMAL lens! If I made you curious, keep on reading.
My research:
I have analysed the EXIF tags of all the pictures I took with my point-and-shoot Powershot A520 in certain days. It has a great range (35 to 140mm equiv). I have considered ONLY albums that were about travels or strolling around, no toddler parties were analysed. Boat rides, travels and sightseeing in general only. I made a frequency analysis of the lenses I used for every shot, and lately I compared with the ranges possible of many lenses in the market.
These are the percents of photographs taken with each lens (converted to 35mm equiv) range:
35mm – 41,7%
47mm – 7,0%
59mm – 4,0%
71mm – 10,0%
83mm – 13,0%
96mm – 4,0%
112mm – 11,0%
140mm – 44,0%
Now, these are the percentages of the shots taken I could do with each of these lenses on a 1.6 FOV cropped sensor camera. Here are my findings:
Canon EF-S 17-55mm (kit lens) (74.6%)
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 (100%)
Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR (74.6%)
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (63%)
Canon EF 17-55mm f/2,8L IS USM (74.6%)
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 (82.1%)
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L (82.1%)
Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 (100%)
Canon EF 24-85mm f 3,5-4,5 USM (100%)
Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM (58.3%)
*** Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 (40.4%)
Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 (65.8%)
Cosina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (63.0%)
(I considered 319 shots in my research, should you be willing to do the math. To be fair, I considered 38.4mm to be close enough to 35mm, hence the good results of 24mm+ lenses).
As you can see, should you believe my research, the 28-75mm had one of the worst coverage-based hit ratios on a 1.6 FOV crop (for the considered lenses). Barely 40%. Even the considerably short Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM scored a 63%. Indeed 40% means a lot of lens swapping. BTW, in a full-frame camera (film SLRs included) the story is another one completely. The 28-75 coverage leaps to 68.3% of the shots. I personally wouldn’t consider anything far from 70%.
There is a reason Canon packs a 17-55mm zoom with their cameras, though a soft one: it’s a pretty commonly used range, as 74.6% of my shots would be covered by that lens.
Have I ever used a ~50mm as a walk-around lens on a SLR? Definitely, and for a long time. My opinion? It was a real pain. Never wide enough indoors (ever been to a crowded restaurant during a stroll around?), never wide enough for group shots (picture yourself inside a trolley car, trying to photograph your friends, as I did once. Wrong lens). Never the creative options even a modest 35mm wide-angle would give you. My idea? You don’t want to loose the 35mm range in your everyday lens. It is a great loss.
My advice? Study another alternative, such as Tamron’s highly praised SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR (scored a very fine 74,6%, and has the juicy 2.8 aperture as well). Or at least consider a lens that starts at 24mm. These extra 4mm become 7mm wide, and that’s a great difference. A 38.4mm wide angle is no big deal, but close enough to 35mm, and in my opinion a world apart from 44.8mm.
I couldn’t get over the focus ring moving with AF. Funky and distracting and unnerving sometimes. Optically it was OK, with some CA. A good priced lens, I ended up going for the much more expensive Canon 24-105 f4 — slower but with IS, it’s a match for this lens, albeit 3x more expensive.
This was my second of three Tamron lenses that I evaluated it had horrible front focus issues wide open at 28mm and at 75mm. Stopped down to 5.6 it was fantastic as well as razor sharp. Even manual focused it was razor sharp down to 2.8 but I didn’t buy a manual focus lens now did I.
For all those that are evaluating this lens once you find a good one it is mint. I don’t bother swapping out my 50mm f1.8 anymore its that good.
Amazon on the other hand was a pain in the but to deal with for this particular return. It was within the 30 day return window and they charged me a restock fee. I sent it back as a defective lens which it is/was. I had to call back 6 times to get the re-stock refunded and finally they issued me a credit on an alternate credit card…This was rather unacceptable. The reason as explained to me by the customer service was that the return refund was within the 30-day window however due to return shipping the item came back as out of window. This is not a big deal to me a bit of a hastle uyes but I will certainly continue to do busioness with Amazon they are great to deal with.