Happy Mother's Day! Happy Father's Day! Happy Graduation! Photo.net has great photography gift ideas for the Mom, Dad, or Grad in your life. Shop for camera bags, lenses, DSLRs, and more...
Clubs, bars, and small venues are the places where most concert and live music photographers get their start, the reason being that there are fewer restrictions since the performers are less likely to...
Comparing the Tamron 28-300mm/3.5-5.6 Lens with the Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5 and
the Canon 50/1.8
In the center of the frame at 50mm, the 50mm prime shows highest image quality
at f4, followed by the 28-300 and the 28-105. When stopped down to f8 all three
lenses are pretty similar.
At 50mm the edge quality of these three lenses is pretty similar when stopped
down. At f4 the Canon 28-105 is a little soft but the Tamron 28-300 is close to
the 50mm prime.
28mm
Comparing the Tamron 28-3003.5-6.3 with the Canon 28-105/3/5-4.5
In the center of the frame at 28mm there's not a lot of difference between
these two lenses.
At the edge of the frame at 28mm, the Tamron 28-300 is softer than the
Canon 28-105/3/5-4.5. It sharpens up as it's stopped down and by f8 both lenses
how similar sharpness. The rightmost frame in the images above shows the
chromatic aberration in the corner of the frame. As you can see, both lenses show
visible color fringing. The Tamron shows a little more CA than the Canon.
Distortion
The crops below are full width crops from the top edge of the frame (image
downsized to 500 pixels wide).
As you can see, there is some barrel distortion (lines bow
outwards) at 28mm with the Tamron 28-300, though no more than with the Canon
28-105/3/5-4.5. At 50, 100 and 300mm distortion is low, with just a slight touch
of pincushion distortion (lines bow very slightly inwards). Overall this is
pretty good performance for a wide range zoom.
"Macro"
At the 300mm setting the 28-300/3.5-6.3 can focus on an object
about 10" in front of the lens (about 19" from the sensor or film plane), for a
magnification of 2.9:1 (Tamron specs). Here's an example:
As you can see, distortion is very low. Like all close focusing
lenses (as opposed to true macro corrected lenses), sharpness does drop off at
close focusing distances. Some chromatic aberration is also visible at the frame
edges. When operating under these conditions, sharpness is usually maximized by
stopping down to f11 or smaller. The above shot was taken at f16 using the built
in flash on the EOS 20D. Despite the length of the lens, the flash on the 20D was
high enough above the optical axis that the lens barrel did not shade the
image
Conclusions
In answer to the original question "Does the Tamron 28-300 deserve respect",
I'd have to answer that it does. While I think you could probably do better with
two zooms, one covering something like 28-100mm and one covering 100-300mm, not
everyone wants to do that. For those who don't, the Tamron 28-300 may be a good
choice.
There's no doubt at all, for example, that the Tamron 28-75/2.8 which I
recently reviewed is a much sharper lens than the Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.3 (and it's
obviously faster too). Both lenses cost about the same (around $380) and
are pretty close in size and weight. Whether the additional 75-300 range is
worth the compromises in lens speed and image quality is an individual decision
to make. For some people it is, for others it isn't.
The bottom line is that if you hate swapping lenses, need one small, light,
lens to do everything, and you're prepared to make some compromises, the Tamron
SP AF28-300/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro isn't a bad choice. It also
comes with Tamron's standard 6 year warranty, which is a plus.
Where to Buy
Purchasing through the following links helps to support photo.net.
It should be noted that the focal length of most zooms of this type shorten significantly when close focused. Of course this doesn't really matter, it's the final magnification ratio that counts.
The focal length affects perspective and working distance, both which are very important in macro, so I would say that for someone serious about closeups, it does really matter.
These 28-300 lenses are complex and thus I've always had two questions about them: What is the sample variation? and How do the mechanics hold up in use? These aren't that easy to answer.
A final note: some newbies tend to be attracted to the apparent ease of use of the 28-300 lenses, to which I usually ask: how much do you shoot above 100 mm (considering a 35 mm frame)? I don't shoot a lot, so I would be better served by a shorter zoom, but somehow long focal lengths tend to attract people/men :-)
The focal length affects perspective and working distance, both which are very important in macro, so I would say that for someone serious about closeups, it does really matter.
True, but anyone really serious about closups won't be using this lens!
Also, I gave the working distance (about 10"), so that's not really an issue. If you just care about the working distance and magnification, focal length doesn't matter much.
Perspective, or at least the angle of view of the lens and hence the amount of background covered, does indeed change and that's certainly something to bear in mind.
I'm not sure what the "best" way to determine the effective focal length at close focus is. Certainly you could say that IF the lens were a simple lens (i.e. a single element thin lens) and IF the minimum distance between the subject in focus and the image plane was 0.49m (which it is for the Tamron 28-300) and if, under those conditions you got a magnification ratio of 2.9:1 (which it is for the Tamron 28-300), then the focal length of that simple lens would have to be about 95mm. I suppose that's a reasonable way to define the effective focal length at close focusing.
If you do the same calculation for the Canon 75-300, which has a subject to focal plane distance of 1.5m and a magnification of 4:1, you calculate an effective focal length of 240mm when close focused at 300mm.
So the Canon 75-300 gives you a lot more working distance, but less magnification when close focused at 300mm than the Tamron 28-300 does.
True, but anyone really serious about closups won't be using this lens!
Indeed, that's why I noted that I was nitpicking :-)
The complex optical formulas make the calculations a bit difficult, but your way of assuming a simple lens is probably the best way to get a ballpark figure. There is of course the situation that one would like to do a closeup when traveling lightly, which should be somewhat nice due to the reasonable close focusing distance (OTOH, the lens is slow.)
Good reviews for two Tamron zoom lenses. Every lens has its own characteristic of drawing the picture besides of the sharpness and resolution. What is your subjective feeling on these lenses in real life shooting ? How are their color rendition comparing to Canon counter parts ?
Actually I 've recently reviewed three Tamron lenses. Of these I'd say that I like the 28-75/2.8 Di the most. It's a very good lens at a very good price and I'd have no hesitation buying one if I needed (another) lens that covered that range.
I think the 28-300/3.5-6.3 is OK if you want a single lens to do everything and you're prepared to accept the inevitable compromises that go along with that. Personally I'm more inclined to split that range among several lenses and put up with the additional size, weight, cost and inconvenience for the sake of faster lenses and higher quality images.
The 200-500/5-6.3 also seems pretty decent if you're looking for a telephoto zoom. I prefer to use telephoto primes myself, but not everyone wants the associated size, weight (and cost!).
My impression is that the Tamron lenses handle pretty well in the field. They seem pretty well constructed. The lens barrels are made of plastic rather than metal, but then so are most consumer cameras! Focus isn't quite as fast or silent as Canon USM lenses, and they don't have full time manual focus, but that's not a feature that I use a lot anyway so it wouldn't worry me much.
As for color rendition, it's not something that really bothers me. No film or digital sensor gives "true" colors. The difference between two types of slide film, for example, is greater than differences you'd usually see between lenses. If you're shooting digital, your white balance will have more effect on color than the lens will, plus changing color balance is a trival task in any image editor. I think you can see from the sample shots that color rendition isn't very different between any of these lenses.
got the 28-75 lens in part on the basis of bob's review. the contrast is exceptional and the coloring is fine, less yellow cast than other third party zooms i've tried. its clarity in the field is very good, including at 2.8; comes close to my 85/1.8. my one quibble is that in the first two weeks, the focus, which is a little slow, also sometimes misses, particularly at closer ranges. admittedly, i'm shooting at 2.8, but its happened often enough to comment on. also, on a 10d, the 28mm is not particularly wide. but overall very pleased. thanks bob!
The review of this lens in AP (29 Jan 05 issue) largely confirms Bob's excellent piece here. Some additional comments worth noting are that the MTF curves are much better at longer focal lengths than at shorter ones, and even full frame the performance at 300mm is surprisingly good in the corners. This is in sharp contrast with many previous hyperzooms, which tend to become very soft at longer focal lengths. Vignetting is quite noticeable at wide apertures at either end of the focal range on full frame images, particularly at the short end.
A very interesting review, it convinced me to order this lens. I already have a 28-200 Tamron I am very satisfied with for travelling. Here you can see some pictures I made with the Tamron 28-200
A detail: The TITLE of the web pages says "Tamron 28-75" instead of "28-300"
Thank you Bob, I also bought the 28-75 mainly based on Bob's other review. The 28-300 is indeed slow at the long end but just think its like having a 500m! Anybody with some interest in wildlife would probably love this lens as it means that they can cope with animals running around without having to switch the lens too often, 28mm is wide enough on digital and 500mm would give a decent separation between the shooter, and not disturb the subjects. I may purchase this lens in addition to my Tamron 19-35 and Tamron 28-75, (hmm, there is a pattern here) but for now I am learning to cope with 75mm and very sharp/quick focusing during daylight. Plus I would not be accused of trying to compensate for any thing with that monstrous extending zoom.
As for the full time manual focusing, it would not be too important on cameras with wide AF areas like Canons, however Nikons (except D2s) only have 5 AF areas which more than often misses the target so I often had to manually focus at the long end of my lenses to great frustration.
Have you compared this lens with the Canon 28-300 lens. I know the 2 lenses are in vastly different price ranges, but I'd be interested to see how they stack up.
