Dustin Abbott Reviews Tamron 28-300 FF

[mrsfotografie]

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.

Of course the lens 'fools' the camera to think it's f/5.6. This is similar to the 'tape trick' on 'reporting' teleconverters or using a 'non-reporting' teleconverter to AF on non- 'pro' bodies even at f/8.

 

[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.

Of course the lens 'fools' the camera to think it's f/5.6. This is similar to the 'tape trick' on 'reporting' teleconverters or using a 'non-reporting' teleconverter to AF on non- 'pro' bodies even at f/8.

What I'm saying is that I don't think the lens is fooling the camera at all. It's just telling the truth—that it is an f/4 lens, albeit not at that particular zoom setting.

 

[mrsfotografie]

What I'm saying is that I don't think the lens is fooling the camera at all. It's just telling the truth—that it is an f/4 lens, albeit not at that particular zoom setting.

Are you in politics by any chance? ;D

 

[dgatwood]

What I'm saying is that I don't think the lens is fooling the camera at all. It's just telling the truth—that it is an f/4 lens, albeit not at that particular zoom setting.

Are you in politics by any chance? ;D

Ah, I see the confusion. The camera doesn't ask what the maximum aperture is at a particular zoom setting. It asks what the maximum aperture of the lens is. No lying (or even political distortion) is needed; it simply reports the answer accurately.

Later, when you actually take the picture, it says "open wide and tell me what the aperture is", at which point the camera then knows the maximum aperture for that particular zoom setting, but doesn't really care about that detail at that point.

Or at least I think that's what's happening.

 

[mrsfotografie]

After much deliberation, I've put in an order for one of these because I have an upcoming holiday that has several occasions that may ask for longer focal lengths in good light - and I'm looking forward to the kind of uncomplicated convenience that my girlfriend is enjoying every time with her Panasonic G5 and 14-140mm (28-280mm FF equiv). I expect to use the Tammy at f/8 most of the time.

I'm still not totally convinced that I will be happy with the image quality, but I quess time will tell. I'm still contemplating if I will bring my 17-40L as well, or throw in my venerable Canon 24mm f/2.8 or possibly Samyang 14mm as a wide angle solution in case I find 28mm doesn't quite cut it. In any case I will save a lot of weight and bulk bringing the 28-300 instead of 24-105L + 70-300L. As usual, I'll throw in my 35mm f/2.0 or 50mm f/1.8 Mk I as well for a low light solution.

 

[mrsfotografie]

After a quick real-life test yesterday, I can happily report that this lens lives up to my expectations Thanks for the great review Dustin, it was your review that gave me the confidence to purchase this lens.

FWIW my copy is made in China...

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

After a quick real-life test yesterday, I can happily report that this lens lives up to my expectations Thanks for the great review Dustin, it was your review that gave me the confidence to purchase this lens.

FWIW my copy is made in China...

Thank you. I've strongly considered adding the lens to my own kit for a travel option. I've just done another quick review for a magazine of the 16-300 VC, and I definitely prefer the overall image quality of the 28-300, particularly on the long end. As long as you have reasonable expectations, the 28-300 is a very capable lens.

 

[mrsfotografie]

After a quick real-life test yesterday, I can happily report that this lens lives up to my expectations Thanks for the great review Dustin, it was your review that gave me the confidence to purchase this lens.

FWIW my copy is made in China...

Thank you. I've strongly considered adding the lens to my own kit for a travel option. I've just done another quick review for a magazine of the 16-300 VC, and I definitely prefer the overall image quality of the 28-300, particularly on the long end. As long as you have reasonable expectations, the 28-300 is a very capable lens.

I think it is indeed a very capable option for travel for those of us who don't pixel-peep too much, in particular if you take into account those important qualities that are often overlooked because most are concerned about sharpness.

These qualities are the good color reproduction, lack of CA, non-distracting bokeh, flare resistance (it is really very impressively good with back lit scenes), acceptable distortion, full time manual focus, good-enough construction with weather sealing and no zoom creep, quiet and accurate AF. And very good image stabilization. I'm especially impressed with the lack of play in the dual barrel, a construction I usually avoid in any lens I purchase.

Finally, it balances exceptionally well on a 5DMkIII body without battery grip and it slips easily into my Lowepro Fastpack via the side-entry flap due to the modest size of the lens and hood.

All in all this lens is capable of taking some very nice pictures which is what counts in the end. So for the sake of portability, the sacrifices one has to make to optical quality are not too great.

 

[JumboShrimp]

I am off to Kyoto, Japan in a few days to photograph their spectacular fall color, and have just finalized my gear for that trip: Canon 6D, EF 16-35/4 L IS, EF 24-105/4 L IS, and the latest Tamron 28-300 VC. I feel that I can carry this kit for most of the day without breaking my back and cover all the focal lengths and situations that may come up. Additionally, I can just carry the 6D with the 28-300 attached if I feel a bit lazy, which seems to happen more and more ... but that's another story. PS: My copy is made in Japan.

 

[jd7]

Hi Dustin

I was just reading your Tamron 28-300 VC review, and I see you have also looked at the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM and the Canon EF-M 55-200 IS. Just wondering if you have any comment on the comparative IQ of
6D + Tamron 28-300
M3 + 55-200
SL1 (or whatever crop camera you have) + 55-250 STM?

At the moment I use the 6D + 70-200 4L IS as a travel telephoto, but have been thinking about whether there might be a good option which is even lighter and more portable.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Hi Dustin

I was just reading your Tamron 28-300 VC review, and I see you have also looked at the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM and the Canon EF-M 55-200 IS. Just wondering if you have any comment on the comparative IQ of
6D + Tamron 28-300
M3 + 55-200
SL1 (or whatever crop camera you have) + 55-250 STM?

At the moment I use the 6D + 70-200 4L IS as a travel telephoto, but have been thinking about whether there might be a good option which is even lighter and more portable.

I don't think any of them are a bad option. The FF kit is more of a one lens solution, though. 55mm (88mm equiv) is really not very wide at all.

 

[jd7]

Hi Dustin

I was just reading your Tamron 28-300 VC review, and I see you have also looked at the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM and the Canon EF-M 55-200 IS. Just wondering if you have any comment on the comparative IQ of
6D + Tamron 28-300
M3 + 55-200
SL1 (or whatever crop camera you have) + 55-250 STM?

At the moment I use the 6D + 70-200 4L IS as a travel telephoto, but have been thinking about whether there might be a good option which is even lighter and more portable.

I don't think any of them are a bad option. The FF kit is more of a one lens solution, though. 55mm (88mm equiv) is really not very wide at all.

Thanks very much for the feedback Dustin. I think I will have to get to a shop and try out the tamron and the other options first hand.

I seem to go around in circles looking for longer focal lens for travel. I have the 70-200 f/4L IS, which is certainly a nice lens. It's primary drawbacks (in my view) are its length and the fact it is "only" f/4. I've thought about the 135L (short enough to store vertically in a bag, wide aperture, but no IS or zoom), but decided previously - after various comments from CR members which were split fairly evenly between the two options(!) - I would end up missing the zoom in the travel context. There is the 70-300L, of course, but for some reason I just struggle to get excited about than lens. Then there are the options I have been thinking about recently. I see my 6D + 24-70 f/4 IS + 35/2 IS as the heart of my travel kit, so if I went with the Tamron (or any of the other options) I would only use it for longer focal lengths.

Anyway, I just saw a landscape pano Sporgon posted in the 135L thread, which has got me thinking about that lens again ...! Maybe I just need to stop thinking about lenses