Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Lens for Konica Minolta and Sony Digital SLR Cameras

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Lens for Konica Minolta and Sony Digital SLR Cameras – Product Description:

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) LensDi: Digitally Integrated Design, is a designation Tamron puts on lenses featuring optical systems designed to meet the performance characteristics of digital SLR cameras. The most compact and lightest in the history of fast zoom lenses. Thanks to the revolutionary downsizing XR technology employed by Tamron in the development of high-power zoom lenses such as the 28-200mm and 28-300mm, the dramatic compactness that makes this lens the world’s smallest and lightest is achieved. Its compactness makes it look and feel like an ordinary standard zoom lens, yet the versatility that a fast constant maximum aperture offers will definitely reshape your photographic horizons.

Product Features :

  • 28-75mm f/2.8 Di LD Aspherical (IF) Tamron zoom lens (A09M)
  • Effective focal length:
  • 28-75mm with full-frame sensor Sony digital cameras
  • 42-113mm with APS-C sensor Sony cameras
  • Compatible with Sony digital SLR cameras

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Lens for Konica Minolta and Sony Digital SLR Cameras – Review:

AN UNBELIEVABLE VALUE!

Let me start by saying I didn’t want to like this lens. I’ve been a Canon lens purist since my first camera. I’ve always considered second party lenses to be inferior and not worth my time. Recently, however, I acquired another body (EOS 1). I wanted a dedicated walk around lens for it, since I’d been alternating my 24-70L between my digital and this new body. Unfortunately, my funds are a bit limited at them moment, so I wasn’t able to purchase another 24-70L as I would have liked. So I began an extensive search for a lens that would fit my needs AND budget.

After a while, I started leaning toward the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. However, although I got close to purchasing one several times, I just couldn’t pull the trigger. It seemed good enough, but I just wasn’t convinced. Then just by accident, I read a review of the Tamron. The review went on and on about the performance and sharpness of the lens. I thought it was all just hot air. Then I saw a second review that stated the same thing. I became intrigued. I started my research. I went to several different sources and a clear picture began to emerge: this is a lens that a lot of people really like. This is a lens that consistently gets compared to my beloved 24-70L, and consistently holds its own–or even out performs it. At first I thought it unfair to compare it to the 24-70L, but then I saw sample images. I saw sharpness tests. I was impressed.

So I took the plunge, and I’m so glad I did. As soon as it arrived, the first thing I noticed was that it did not feel like a cheap lens. I had expected it to be feather-light and almost flimsy. Instead, it feel substantial. It also came with a lens hood.

I threw it on my 400D and fired off some shots and took a look. I was very happy with the results. The color reproduction was great. And so was the sharpness. Just for my own edification, I set up my tripod and made some test shots with the Tamron and then the same shots with the 24-70L. The first go ’round was done at f/5.6. I made exposures at 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 70mm with each camera. I had a friend rename the files so I wouldn’t know which shots came from which camera, so I couldn’t claim bias either way. I then examined the shots. It didn’t take nit-picky scrutiny to see the differences. After I selected the photos I found to be sharper in each group, my friend gave me the exif data on each one.

Here is what I found:

First Impression–At 25% magnification on my screen, all the photos looked fantastic. This puzzled me because I figured I’d be able to spot the 24-70L right away. I really couldn’t tell the difference.

Then I zoomed in to 100% and the fun really began.

28mm–The difference in sharpness was very pronounced at this focal length. One photo was the clear winner, and that was the Tamron, particularly in center sharpness.

35mm–Again, one of the photos was a clear winner, and again it was the Tamron.

50mm–For the third time, the Tamron’s sharpness outperformed the Canon. I was beginning to really develop an affinity for this little baby.

70mm–At this length, the photos were pretty comparable. I picked one, however, and, to my surprise, it was the Tamron once again.

—–

After these tests I felt like a heretic. I had preferred the Tamron lens over the Canon in each trial. Granted, there are more I need to do, from wide open to fully stopped down. But this initial test has made me very happy.

I have seen no evidence of CA so far, and given Tamron’s claims, I would have been surprised if I had.

The AF is a touch on the loud side (no USM), but it works well and is accurate. A bit of noise from the AF is nothing to complain about when one sees the results in the photos.

It’s not weather sealed like the 24-70L, but that is not as important to me as to someone who is out in extreme weather with some regularity.

Finally, given the fact that this lens is just a third of the price of the 24-70L, and given that I am so impressed with the results, I’d have to say this is one of the better purchases I’ve made in a long, long time.

I know all Tamron lenses do not perform this admirably, just like all Canons are not “L” class. However, I will certainly add them to my research when I have a new need for a lens.

Comments

comments

Please Share if you find it Interesting

PinIt