Tamron Announces Full Frame 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD

[slclick]

This is great news, only I'm left wondering - it's already Feb and so far in this "year of the lens" we've got two Tamron superzooms and a Sigma 50 Art on the way. So, where's the Canon lenses we were told about??

The Canon Jedi's will come out and say "These aren't the zooms you were looking for"

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Given the size & zoom range of this lens, there is no way in hell this Tammy can match 28-300 L optics ... if it is better than the 28-300 L, I will give you my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC for free (excluding the cost of shipping out to you) and I mean it.

Canon 28-300 weighs 1670 g while Tamron weighs 540 g.

That was the only reason why I did not buy a Canon 28-300 L IS ... instead I went with the Tamron version but did not like it at all and sold it as fast as I could.

 

[cliffwang]

If the IQ of this lens is close to Canon 28-300mm L and price is about 1000, I will get one as my travel lens.

 

[dcm]

More the size and weight of the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. That might be a better comparison for IQ than the 28-300L.

 

[tianxiaozhang]

This one should be compared to Nikon's 28-300 right? Canon's is much older....

 

[slclick]

More the size and weight of the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. That might be a better comparison for IQ than the 28-300L.

I personally would rather make a comparison with focal lengths as opposed to weight and size. That's just me.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

For me, it is not very wise 28-300mm on full frame. It would be much more useful if Tamron makes a 24-200mm F3.5-5.6 VC. Could be more appropriate weight and size, and would promote the image quality and autofocus.

 

[emag]

"Elegant tungsten silver brand ring"

Well now........

 

[magna42]

As a few others here have shared, I've also tried the current version of the Tamron 28-300 zoom and quickly got rid of it due to poor image quality. I convinced myself that a used one for a good price would make the IQ acceptable, no go.

Personally I like the idea of a light all-in-one travel (vacation) zoom. The 28-300L has impressive IQ for it's range, but the size and weight just makes it generally prohibitive for me to use it as a travel lens.

Having been burned once with this Tamron, I'll wait until the dust settles and real world reviews are in before I get to worked up.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

I would love something like this so much!

I love the Canon 18-200 a lot! But I can't use it on my 5DMKII. The Canon 24-105 doesn't have enough range. The Canon 28-300 L is pricey and HUGE...

If this lens can do a little better in IQ and performance than the Canon 18-200, it's almost a no-brainier. If it's around $600, I'm in!

 

[Gino]

I own the Nikon 28-300mm, and I love the lens for travel. It doesn't have the fastest autofocus, but it's not bad, and the lens produces pretty good images. Plus, the lens weighs 805g, which is very manageable.

I wish Canon would produce a lighter weight version (1,000g or less) of it's current 28-300mm L, because the 24-105L just isn't long enough for an all in one travel lens.

Here are a few photos I took on vacation with my Nikon D4 and the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

IQ? - nowhere near the 28-300L, BUT if the IQ is similar to the 70-300 IS USM, then this could be a lense that causes a bit of trouble in the market place.

Shame Tamron haven't released anything else recently that puts the cat amongst the pigeons

I would not be so sure about your first statement. The 28-300 L is now 10 years old. 150-600mm

Given the size & zoom range of this lens, there is no way in hell this Tammy can match 28-300 L optics ... if it is better than the 28-300 L, I will give you my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC for free (excluding the cost of shipping out to you) and I mean it.

Deal

You just put yourself in a very dangerous situation, since "optical performance" can be intended in a number of very ambiguous ways - e.g. contrast, sharpness, CA, bokeh, fringing, etc etc

No problemo sir ... if this Tamron beats the Canon EF 28-300 L IS in any 3 (which must include sharpness) of the 5 parameters you've mentioned here i.e. Contrast, Sharpness, CA, bokeh, fringing, I promise to give you my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC for free (provided you pay for the shipping costs).

Check this out:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-28-300mm-F35-56L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III-versus-28-300-3.5-6.3-XR-I-A-Canon___595_436_211_0

Click ->measurements ->Sharpness->Field map

According to DXO's measurements the old Tamron28-300 (which I have) is sharper throughout the focal range
than the Canon "L"...

Yeah right ... in their dreams : ... they also gave a higher score for 50/1.8 II than the 600/4L IS II

 

[alek35]

IQ? - nowhere near the 28-300L, BUT if the IQ is similar to the 70-300 IS USM, then this could be a lense that causes a bit of trouble in the market place.

Shame Tamron haven't released anything else recently that puts the cat amongst the pigeons

I would not be so sure about your first statement. The 28-300 L is now 10 years old. 150-600mm

Given the size & zoom range of this lens, there is no way in hell this Tammy can match 28-300 L optics ... if it is better than the 28-300 L, I will give you my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC for free (excluding the cost of shipping out to you) and I mean it.

Deal

You just put yourself in a very dangerous situation, since "optical performance" can be intended in a number of very ambiguous ways - e.g. contrast, sharpness, CA, bokeh, fringing, etc etc

No problemo sir ... if this Tamron beats the Canon EF 28-300 L IS in any 3 (which must include sharpness) of the 5 parameters you've mentioned here i.e. Contrast, Sharpness, CA, bokeh, fringing, I promise to give you my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC for free (provided you pay for the shipping costs).

Check this out:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-28-300mm-F35-56L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III-versus-28-300-3.5-6.3-XR-I-A-Canon___595_436_211_0

Click ->measurements ->Sharpness->Field map

According to DXO's measurements the old Tamron28-300 (which I have) is sharper throughout the focal range
than the Canon "L"...

Yeah right ... in their dreams : ... they also gave a higher score for 50/1.8 II than the 600/4L IS II

Their scores are - as has been pointed out by neuro - biased towards lenses with a lower T-stop
(i.e. higher transmission). In this case the opposite is true - T5.7 for the Canon vs T5.9 for the Tamron.
So unless there is an error in their measurments the old Tamron should be sharper across the focal length than the Canon L....

 

[neuroanatomist]

Their scores are - as has been pointed out by neuro - biased towards lenses with a lower T-stop
(i.e. higher transmission). In this case the opposite is true - T5.7 for the Canon vs T5.9 for the Tamron.
So unless there is an error in their measurments the old Tamron should be sharper across the focal length than the Canon L....

That comparison appears flawed (and it's far from the first time). First off, while their summary table states the Canon 28-300L is 'Best at 28mm f/4', in their sharpness maps the don't show data wider than 50mm.

Their P-Mpix map shows the Canon 28-300L to be generally sharper through the range, and that's borne out by the sharpness metric in the summary table (Canon 12 P-Mpix, Tamron 9 P-Mpix). If you 'Click ->measurements ->Sharpness->Field map' as you suggest, the Tamron 28-300 does indeed appear sharper, but their data are not internally consistent. For example, picking 50mm f/11 and looking at their actuance data, when displayed as a field map it shows the Canon as yellow (~55% actuance) and the Tamron as light green (~65% actuance). But, when you look at the data plotted as a profile, they're both in the mid-upper 60%'s for actuance. Somehow, the Canon 28-300 'lost' ~10% actuance in the maps.

So, it appears that there are a few errors in their measurements, or at least in the way those measurements are being displayed.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

So unless there is an error in their measurments the old Tamron should be sharper across the focal length than the Canon L....

... and you believe this?

 

[duydaniel]

Why buying a full frame and goes with this for "travel light"?
Get a G1 X II or a point and shoot 50x zoom. That would be lighter

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Why buying a full frame and goes with this for "travel light"?
Get a G1 X II or a point and shoot 50x zoom. That would be lighter

Because, a full frame sensor, even with this lens, will give far better results ... when we say "travel light" we mean in comparison to carrying 2 or 3 lenses covering the same FOV ... if "travel light" was the only criteria, my mobile phone with an add-on zoom lens or the GoPro are far more qualified then G1X II.

 

[capital1956]

I tested a handful of 28-300L and couple of dozens of Tamron 28-300mm VC (previous versions) for my clients.

In my personal opinion, the Tamron is not a close match to the Canon L. The image produced by the Tamron particular at the long end is awful. Not just soft, the overall feel is simply awful. To quote a previous poster in the 16-270 thread: ” a bit of a joke”.

 

[alek35]

So unless there is an error in their measurments the old Tamron should be sharper across the focal length than the Canon L....

... and you believe this?

Good question. I have no hands-on experience with the Canon 28-300 L.

I do, however have experience with the old Tamron 28-300 and my personal experience is this:
Stopped down to f/8 it produces images in the 35-200mm range which I find useable.
It has a lot of CA and fringing, but since I only shoot in RAW I have been able to correct most of it in
my raw converter.
At 28mm the corners get soft - but it is subjectively still better than my 7d/17-85mm combo at 17mm.

I previously owned a Canon 300mm F/4 IS. At face value (No mfa - my camera at the time was a 20d),
it was softer than the Tamron @300mm. After purchasing a 5dII - and doing the MFA - it was only slightly sharper wide open than the Tamron.

My point is this: Canon's "L" designation is no guarantee of optical excellence, there is nothing mythical about it.
I'm sure the build quality of the Canon 28-300 L surely is better (the Tamron's zom ring has gone loose, I have to push/pull the hood to zoom).

Best regards,
Thomas

 

[Rienzphotoz]

So unless there is an error in their measurments the old Tamron should be sharper across the focal length than the Canon L....

... and you believe this?

Good question. I have no hands-on experience with the Canon 28-300 L.

I do, however have experience with the old Tamron 28-300 and my personal experience is this:
Stopped down to f/8 it produces images in the 35-200mm range which I find useable.
It has a lot of CA and fringing, but since I only shoot in RAW I have been able to correct most of it in
my raw converter.
At 28mm the corners get soft - but it is subjectively still better than my 7d/17-85mm combo at 17mm.

I previously owned a Canon 300mm F/4 IS. At face value (No mfa - my camera at the time was a 20d),
it was softer than the Tamron @300mm. After purchasing a 5dII - and doing the MFA - it was only slightly sharper wide open than the Tamron.

My point is this: Canon's "L" designation is no guarantee of optical excellence, there is nothing mythical about it.
I'm sure the build quality of the Canon 28-300 L surely is better (the Tamron's zom ring has gone loose, I have to push/pull the hood to zoom).

Best regards,
Thomas

I cannot comment on your particular copy of the lens, but I've owned the Tamron 28-300 VC and the 17-85 IS (not at the same time ofcourse) and going through my images, my copy of the EF 17-85 IS was much better than the Tamron 28-300 VC I owned. True, there is "nothing mythical" about L series of lenses, but they are a hell of a lot better than the competition (maybe with the exception of the recent Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens).