Dustin Abbott Reviews Tamron 28-300 FF

[JumboShrimp]

You can find it here:

http://dustinabbott.net/2014/08/tamron-28-300mm-f3-5-6-3-di-vc-pzd/

 

[Click]

Thanks for the link.

 

[360_6pack]

Thanks Dustin.
The lens appears to be what I was looking for, a compact good lens for travelling, this and a 16-35 II should be all I would need with my 5D3 for travel.
It will be interesting to see if Canon release a 28-300L II as rumoured and if so how it compares.
Michael

 

[Arctic Photo]

Jumboshrimp, are you Dustin's alternate user name here?

 

[Niterider]

This is the same guy that reviewed the Tamron 24-70mm. He repeatedly compared the lens to the Canon 24-70mm ii , but later admitted he had never even used the canon once. How can anyone find a reviewer credible when he makes such audacious claims!

After reading that review, I told myself I would never read another review of his. So thanks, but no thanks.

 

[mrsfotografie]

It will be interesting to see if Canon release a 28-300L II as rumoured and if so how it compares.

I think a new 28-300 from Canon is plausible, just not that it will be an L lens.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Jumboshrimp, are you Dustin's alternate user name here?

No. I'm not quite sure who Jumboshrimp is, but I think it is someone connected to the site.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks Dustin.
The lens appears to be what I was looking for, a compact good lens for travelling, this and a 16-35 II should be all I would need with my 5D3 for travel.
It will be interesting to see if Canon release a 28-300L II as rumoured and if so how it compares.
Michael

It's a surprisingly competent lens. I agree with whomever said that Canons replacement will probably not be a giant white lens. That doesn't really say "travel" at all. Even the color makes one more a target, while this lens (Tamron) is pretty much invisible.

 

[surapon]

Jumboshrimp, are you Dustin's alternate user name here?

No. I'm not quite sure who Jumboshrimp is, but I think it is someone connected to the site.

THANKS you , Sir Dear Mr. Dustin .
Thanks for the great review which open my eyes. One question , Sir. I have Tamron Aspherical LD IF 28-300 mm. F/ 3.5-6.3 MACRO about 12-15 years already. And Never use this Lens past 8 years, After have money to by the " L " Lenses.
In your Idea, Do you think this Old lens still useful and get the Good Photo quality for me ?
Thanks for your great job, Sir.
Surapon

 

[Admin US West]

Thanks Dustin.
The lens appears to be what I was looking for, a compact good lens for travelling, this and a 16-35 II should be all I would need with my 5D3 for travel.
It will be interesting to see if Canon release a 28-300L II as rumoured and if so how it compares.
Michael

It's a surprisingly competent lens. I agree with whomever said that Canons replacement will probably not be a giant white lens. That doesn't really say "travel" at all. Even the color makes one more a target, while this lens (Tamron) is pretty much invisible.

Thanks for the review Dustin, I've owned both the 28=350mm L and the 28-300mm L IS. They are wonderful lenses, but heavy and the aperture only makes them suitable for at least moderately good light.

I do wonder about the even smaller aperture of this lens.

I think its great to see so many affordable new FF lenses that are ever improving in quality. This will allow more and more photographers to move from crop cameras to full frame without fear of having to spend a small fortune on new lenses. It also puts pressure on the OEM's to reduce prices and improve quality. That will happen if there continue to be more and more competitive lenses.

Nikon FF users should be very happy, since Nikon FF lenses are priced very high. They are probably feeling this more than Canon is.

 

[JumboShrimp]

JumboShrimp here. No connections to anyone or anything here.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks Dustin.
The lens appears to be what I was looking for, a compact good lens for travelling, this and a 16-35 II should be all I would need with my 5D3 for travel.
It will be interesting to see if Canon release a 28-300L II as rumoured and if so how it compares.
Michael

It's a surprisingly competent lens. I agree with whomever said that Canons replacement will probably not be a giant white lens. That doesn't really say "travel" at all. Even the color makes one more a target, while this lens (Tamron) is pretty much invisible.

Thanks for the review Dustin, I've owned both the 28=350mm L and the 28-300mm L IS. They are wonderful lenses, but heavy and the aperture only makes them suitable for at least moderately good light.

I do wonder about the even smaller aperture of this lens.

I think its great to see so many affordable new FF lenses that are ever improving in quality. This will allow more and more photographers to move from crop cameras to full frame without fear of having to spend a small fortune on new lenses. It also puts pressure on the OEM's to reduce prices and improve quality. That will happen if there continue to be more and more competitive lenses.

Nikon FF users should be very happy, since Nikon FF lenses are priced very high. They are probably feeling this more than Canon is.

I just returned from traveling and used the 28-300 VC almost exclusively (I also carried the 35mm f/2 IS for low light situations). While the 28-300mm doesn't have the resolving power of the 35IS when compared side by side at a pixel level, I was very pleased with the overall quality of the images that I got on the trip with the 28-300VC, including this one:

Quebec City by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks for the review Dustin, I've owned both the 28=350mm L and the 28-300mm L IS. They are wonderful lenses, but heavy and the aperture only makes them suitable for at least moderately good light.

I do wonder about the even smaller aperture of this lens.

I think its great to see so many affordable new FF lenses that are ever improving in quality. This will allow more and more photographers to move from crop cameras to full frame without fear of having to spend a small fortune on new lenses. It also puts pressure on the OEM's to reduce prices and improve quality. That will happen if there continue to be more and more competitive lenses.

Nikon FF users should be very happy, since Nikon FF lenses are priced very high. They are probably feeling this more than Canon is.
[/quote]

I'm not crazy about f/6.3, either, but it is also 1/3rd of a stop of light. It is rare that the 1/3rd stop makes much of a difference, and the high ISO performance of the 6D that I use it with means that I can get away with cranking ISO and still get very nice images.

I suspect that the 28-300L probably has higher resolution than this lens...but I doubt the difference is significant. This lens is surprisingly competent (I wasn't nearly as impressed with the new 16-300 VC for crop).

 

[Random Orbits]

I'm not crazy about f/6.3, either, but it is also 1/3rd of a stop of light. It is rare that the 1/3rd stop makes much of a difference, and the high ISO performance of the 6D that I use it with means that I can get away with cranking ISO and still get very nice images.

I suspect that the 28-300L probably has higher resolution than this lens...but I doubt the difference is significant. This lens is surprisingly competent (I wasn't nearly as impressed with the new 16-300 VC for crop).

Does f/6.3 affect AF performance when using off-center AF points?

 

[mackguyver]

Dustin, thank you for another thorough and fair lens review. It sounds like it's a great match for the 6D for travel and great boardwalk shot, BTW!

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I'm not crazy about f/6.3, either, but it is also 1/3rd of a stop of light. It is rare that the 1/3rd stop makes much of a difference, and the high ISO performance of the 6D that I use it with means that I can get away with cranking ISO and still get very nice images.

I suspect that the 28-300L probably has higher resolution than this lens...but I doubt the difference is significant. This lens is surprisingly competent (I wasn't nearly as impressed with the new 16-300 VC for crop).

Does f/6.3 affect AF performance when using off-center AF points?

It doesn't seem to on my 6D (and also on a 60D that I tested it on). I think there is some kind of trickery that makes the camera "think" it is f/5.6, and it acts accordingly. AF is actually very good on the lens, and seems accurate. Other than rather slow apertures, the only downside I've discovered is that resolution/micro-contrast isn't as good as my best lenses at higher magnification, but that's hardly a shock. I've been more surprised at how good the images actually are.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

JumboShrimp here. No connections to anyone or anything here.

Thanks for sharing. I assumed that somebody at CR had shared it. They've shared my last 3 or 4 reviews themselves.

 

[dgatwood]

I'm not crazy about f/6.3, either, but it is also 1/3rd of a stop of light. It is rare that the 1/3rd stop makes much of a difference, and the high ISO performance of the 6D that I use it with means that I can get away with cranking ISO and still get very nice images.

I suspect that the 28-300L probably has higher resolution than this lens...but I doubt the difference is significant. This lens is surprisingly competent (I wasn't nearly as impressed with the new 16-300 VC for crop).

Does f/6.3 affect AF performance when using off-center AF points?

It doesn't seem to on my 6D (and also on a 60D that I tested it on). I think there is some kind of trickery that makes the camera "think" it is f/5.6, and it acts accordingly. AF is actually very good on the lens, and seems accurate. Other than rather slow apertures, the only downside I've discovered is that resolution/micro-contrast isn't as good as my best lenses at higher magnification, but that's hardly a shock. I've been more surprised at how good the images actually are.

On the 6D, outdoors, using the center point, my 70-300L with a 1.4x extender has worked pretty much flawlessly for me even at the long end, where it is equivalent to f/8. Experimentally, at f/12, it fails reliably, but almost works (gets the focus right, but doesn't acknowledge that it did) much of the time. So I'd guess that the 6D's daylight focusing limit is somewhere just shy of f/12. I wouldn't think f/6.5 would even be a challenge for it except in fairly bad lighting conditions unless you stick a TC on it.

Out of curiosity, what does the EXIF tagging show for the f-stop? From what I've seen when working with MF lenses, I'm fairly certain the lens can't lie to the camera about its wide-open aperture, or else every shot would be underexposed by a stop. But perhaps it could get around that by lying about every setting equally. If that were the case, wide-open shots would claim to be f/5.6 at the long end, even though they really can't be.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I'm not crazy about f/6.3, either, but it is also 1/3rd of a stop of light. It is rare that the 1/3rd stop makes much of a difference, and the high ISO performance of the 6D that I use it with means that I can get away with cranking ISO and still get very nice images.

I suspect that the 28-300L probably has higher resolution than this lens...but I doubt the difference is significant. This lens is surprisingly competent (I wasn't nearly as impressed with the new 16-300 VC for crop).

Does f/6.3 affect AF performance when using off-center AF points?

It doesn't seem to on my 6D (and also on a 60D that I tested it on). I think there is some kind of trickery that makes the camera "think" it is f/5.6, and it acts accordingly. AF is actually very good on the lens, and seems accurate. Other than rather slow apertures, the only downside I've discovered is that resolution/micro-contrast isn't as good as my best lenses at higher magnification, but that's hardly a shock. I've been more surprised at how good the images actually are.

On the 6D, outdoors, using the center point, my 70-300L with a 1.4x extender has worked pretty much flawlessly for me even at the long end, where it is equivalent to f/8. Experimentally, at f/12, it fails reliably, but almost works (gets the focus right, but doesn't acknowledge that it did) much of the time. So I'd guess that the 6D's daylight focusing limit is somewhere just shy of f/12. I wouldn't think f/6.5 would even be a challenge for it except in fairly bad lighting conditions unless you stick a TC on it.

Out of curiosity, what does the EXIF tagging show for the f-stop? From what I've seen when working with MF lenses, I'm fairly certain the lens can't lie to the camera about its wide-open aperture, or else every shot would be underexposed by a stop. But perhaps it could get around that by lying about every setting equally. If that were the case, wide-open shots would claim to be f/5.6 at the long end, even though they really can't be.

First of all, the EXIF data is always correct. But somehow third party lenses have had a workaround that bypassed the f/5.6 maximum aperture limitation for many years. I understand that the trickery is not so much about metering as it by bypassing that limitation. Magic Lantern software also can bypass that same limitation for all lenses, so it obviously more of a software limitation than it is a physical limitation.

 

[dgatwood]

Out of curiosity, what does the EXIF tagging show for the f-stop? From what I've seen when working with MF lenses, I'm fairly certain the lens can't lie to the camera about its wide-open aperture, or else every shot would be underexposed by a stop. But perhaps it could get around that by lying about every setting equally. If that were the case, wide-open shots would claim to be f/5.6 at the long end, even though they really can't be.

First of all, the EXIF data is always correct. But somehow third party lenses have had a workaround that bypassed the f/5.6 maximum aperture limitation for many years. I understand that the trickery is not so much about metering as it by bypassing that limitation. Magic Lantern software also can bypass that same limitation for all lenses, so it obviously more of a software limitation than it is a physical limitation.

After studying the lens protocol, I think I get it. The camera asks the lens to report its maximum aperture, but that's the maximum aperture for the whole lens, not for the current zoom setting. When the camera sends a command to fully open the lens, the lens reports the actual aperture. I'd imagine that the check to decide whether to autofocus or not is based on the maximum aperture reported by the lens, rather than the aperture that the lens reports when the camera tells it to open all the way at the beginning of focusing.

So as long as the lens says that it can open up to f/5.6 or wider, even if it really fails 100% of the time in practice, the camera will make the attempt.

With that said, I only spent about three minutes looking over the lens protocol, so I could be wrong.