Tamron 28-300mm as walk around lens with 5D Mk III???
- Thread starter Gino
- Start date
- Status
L
Loswr
Guest
No experience with the Tamron 28-300mm, but test results suggest that the compromises inherent in a superzoom are in the IQ (as is the case with almost all superzoom lenses).
I have the Canon 28-300L - that lens is a very close match for the IQ of the 24-105L across their respective ranges. In the case of the Canon 28-300, the compromises are size/weight and cost, rather than IQ.
I have the Canon 28-300L - that lens is a very close match for the IQ of the 24-105L across their respective ranges. In the case of the Canon 28-300, the compromises are size/weight and cost, rather than IQ.
Upvote
0
I don't have first hand experience either with the exception of trying it at a store but resolution characteristics of the Tamron seem to be it's weakness, especially at the long end. One cannot expect anything stellar out of a super zoom at that price point though... I would expect the 24-105 to be significantly sharper in the comparable focal lengths...
Upvote
0
As much as I like primes, a walk around zoom would be nice now and then, but for everyday won't the wide end have more use? Which is what I consider so the extra wide of the 24-105 holds more value for me than the extra zoom, which being able to reach farther will be nice but especially if IQ is the compromise then meh
Upvote
0
to be honest if you want a lightweight super zoom the best option is a nikon crop body and the nikkor 18-200 VRII
the canon 28-300L sets the benchmark for image quality but its expensive, heavy and still only a 3.5 to 5.6 aperture but it is quite sharp wide open
the canon 18-200 is not very good
the canon 28-300L sets the benchmark for image quality but its expensive, heavy and still only a 3.5 to 5.6 aperture but it is quite sharp wide open
the canon 18-200 is not very good
Upvote
0
I have the 24-105 with the 6D and I find that it's a good General Purpose lens. That being said I tried the Tamron for a couple of weeks and I didn't care for it, particularly when compared to 24-105.
The issues I have with the lens is that (as noted) IQ is fair. It does get better from about F8 on, also it has a tendency to overexpose. Others have had this issue, it appears that the lens mis-reports the aperture setting to the camera.
The compromises are more acceptable if you can find a good used copy, but as a new lens I passed on it. I recently got a deal on a used copy for about $200 less that new, at that price I can work around the flaws
The issues I have with the lens is that (as noted) IQ is fair. It does get better from about F8 on, also it has a tendency to overexpose. Others have had this issue, it appears that the lens mis-reports the aperture setting to the camera.
The compromises are more acceptable if you can find a good used copy, but as a new lens I passed on it. I recently got a deal on a used copy for about $200 less that new, at that price I can work around the flaws
Upvote
0
drmikeinpdx
Celebrating 20 years of model photography!
For walking around and snapping targets of opportunity, I've become very fond of the stabilized kit lens (18-55) that came with my T2i. The combination is super light and I'm not worried about accidents or theft. I had several images published in a travel magazine a few months ago.
The idea of carrying my 5D3 around with a big superzoom makes me feel tired just thinking about it!
A few days ago I tried out the 55-250 stabilized kit lens which I purchased recently for the T2i. Know what? You can take some very nice photos with that puppy if you know what you are doing. I'm thinking about trying both of these plastic kit lenses on my 7D just for fun.
The idea of carrying my 5D3 around with a big superzoom makes me feel tired just thinking about it!
A few days ago I tried out the 55-250 stabilized kit lens which I purchased recently for the T2i. Know what? You can take some very nice photos with that puppy if you know what you are doing. I'm thinking about trying both of these plastic kit lenses on my 7D just for fun.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
pearlpoet said:
Interesting. All I can say is that blogger's definitions of terms like 'plenty of detail', 'amazingly good', and 'extremely sharp' are very different from mine. The images are usable, but certainly not 'tack sharp' (although in some cases, subject motion is a factor, in addition to the lens).
Upvote
0
drmikeinpdx said:
Sorry OP, can't resist answering somebody on 55-250.
You'll not be very disappointed with those plastics though of course their IQ are very far from the IQ of my primes even stopped down. But considering the price and the weight, it is not so bad that a little bit of PP won't be able to make it acceptable.
55-250 IS
18-55 IS
Upvote
0
i use the tamron 28-300 on my 5d III and the results are good enough to be printed. the qualitiy goes down >200 mm, but it´s still useable if the light is ok. i use the lens when there is no time to change lenses or while hiking/biking to reduce weight. it´s for sure a compromise, but in my opinion the results are better than expected. and every picture took with the 28-300 is better than no picture caused by the wrong lense on the camera ...
Upvote
0
On a trip to Hong Kong I bought both the Canon EF 70-200 F/2.8 L IS USM II and the Tamron 28-300 for my 5dmkII.
In a way I'm happy to own both. Having bought them, I cursed the Canon for its weight and (for my style of photography) restricting zoom range and adored the Tamron for its fantastic range and ease of use.
That was until I came home and saw the results.
Wide open the Tamron is a textbook example of optical flaws: barrel distortion, soft corners, dramatic chromatic aberrations and fringing in the wide end - general softness, dramatic chromatic aberrations and fringing in the long end as well.
The Canon was so flawless I had a hard time even picking an ill-focused image.
But in all due fairness: I would not have appreciated the Canon if I had not bought the Tamron - and the Canon
is a beast - I still curse it when deciding which lens to take with me - but the results are so good with it...
If you stop down the Tamron to F/8 and avoid the extreme zoom ends (35-130mm is fine) AND shoot raw AND are willing to fix the Chromatic aberrations + distortion in Post you can get decent results.
When you walkabout and just suddenly need 300mm it's definately better than nothing.
I still use it as a party lens or when I want to be discreet. Not all images need to be printed in A3 format.
For those purposes the Tamron does a good job. I would however not like to depend on it as my prime
photography tool.
Hope this helps. I can post some images later if you're interested...
In a way I'm happy to own both. Having bought them, I cursed the Canon for its weight and (for my style of photography) restricting zoom range and adored the Tamron for its fantastic range and ease of use.
That was until I came home and saw the results.
Wide open the Tamron is a textbook example of optical flaws: barrel distortion, soft corners, dramatic chromatic aberrations and fringing in the wide end - general softness, dramatic chromatic aberrations and fringing in the long end as well.
The Canon was so flawless I had a hard time even picking an ill-focused image.
But in all due fairness: I would not have appreciated the Canon if I had not bought the Tamron - and the Canon
is a beast - I still curse it when deciding which lens to take with me - but the results are so good with it...
If you stop down the Tamron to F/8 and avoid the extreme zoom ends (35-130mm is fine) AND shoot raw AND are willing to fix the Chromatic aberrations + distortion in Post you can get decent results.
When you walkabout and just suddenly need 300mm it's definately better than nothing.
I still use it as a party lens or when I want to be discreet. Not all images need to be printed in A3 format.
For those purposes the Tamron does a good job. I would however not like to depend on it as my prime
photography tool.
Hope this helps. I can post some images later if you're interested...
Upvote
0
Hi Gino
I asked the same question about a week back, but with the 6D. Check here for more input (against the Tamron) http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13228.0
I asked the same question about a week back, but with the 6D. Check here for more input (against the Tamron) http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13228.0
Upvote
0
Last month (Feb 22 Feb 2013) I bought the Tamron 28-300 VC lens (from B&H) for those times when I only want to carry just one lens mounted on my 5D MK III ... I am not sure if it was my copy of the lens or it is always like that, but that lens was very soft, made strange audible creaking noise when the VC & AF were being engaged and the AF point would jump after taking the shot ... so I returned it and bought a Nikon 18-300 VR lens & a refurbished Nikon D7000Gino said:
Anyway here are a few images made with the Tamron 28-300 VC (mounted on 5D MK III) ... the firt and the third images are straight out of the camera ... the second and the fourth are after editing.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Oh BTW, all the above images are taken at the 300mm focal length ... (I could not mention it in the above post as it kept giving me error messages when I tried to modify)
Upvote
0
It's not your copy. I bought one when they first came out and you described it perfectly. The only think you left out is how slooooooow (optically) it is! It transitions from f3.5 to 5 to 5.6 and then 6.3 rather quickly in the zoom range. I also own the Canon 28-300mm beast but picked this one up thinking it would be "good enough" for casual photography. Wrong! Slow, soft and noisy...
Upvote
0
Thank God I got rid of it as fast as I could ... I actually got taken in by David Zeiser's good review of Tamron 28-300 VC (http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2012/04/test-driving-new-tamron-28-300mm-vc.html) ... but now I'm thinking maybe he was paid to do that review ;D or maybe he actually got the one and only good copy Tamron ever made ;DJoeDavid said:
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Rienzphotoz said:
As I stated when this link was posted above, if you actually ignore his words and look at the images which he describes as 'tack sharp' it's pretty clear that they aren't.
alek35 said:
Sorry, I picked up the 28-300L after I had the 5DII and I never even used the 28-300mm on the 7D. IMO, 28mm on APS-C is not wide enough for general purpose use (it's 45mm FF-equivalent, which is normal not wide). For APS-C users, I dont' recommend the 24-105L or 28-300L as walkaround lenses due to the lack of a wide AoV - the 17-55mm or 15-85mm are much better options. I did use the 24-105L on the 7D occasionally - I initially bought it for use mainly in inclement weather with the 7D, but I didn't put the lens to serious use until getting the 5DII.
I have compared the 24-105 and the 28-300 on the 5DII, and as I stated, they are pretty similar (both better at the wide end, a little worse at the long end, similar in terms of CA, etc.). Neither is a stellar lens in terms of IQ, but I'd say both are very good, and very convenient.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
