Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens Review: Sample Images and Conclusion

I've used the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR Di for around 18 months on film and DSLR Nikons. It replaced an AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm F2.8 and AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm F3.5-4.5. My low tech tests showed the Tamron out performed both lenses at all apertures - except the fast Nikkor wide open at 70mm was a tad sharper in the center. Of course the AF-S lenses focus faster and more quietly. Just wish the little Tamron was 24-70mm!

-- Robert.

Comprehensive reveiw, Bob. Thanks.

I've been using this lens professionally for about 12 months. Its simply fantastic. I tested it head to head with a Canon 24-70/2.8 L, and the Tamron was sharper. And it weighs half as much as a 24-70L - I'm happy giving up Ring USM and weather sealing for that !

My result are far from as professionally published as your comparison with the 28-135 IS, however can be found in my lens test folder here on Photo.net, linked Here.

Bob thanks for the review! Did you check color balance or contrast at the 50mm setting vs the prime? Also did Tamron report the correct zoom position to the canon camera, the only reason I ask is the Sigma lenses tend to lack in this area?

Thanks again for the great review.

I didn't notice any significant difference in color and contrast between the Canon prime and the Tamron 28-75, but I didn't do any specific testing for color balance.

Looked like the EXIF data was good. When I set the zoom to the "50" mark the EXIF data recorded 50mm, when set to 28mm it reported 28mm and when set to 75mm it reported 75mm

Wow, this is quite an eye-opener. I will have to reevaluate my opinion of third-party lenses. Too bad it's not a 18-55 DX (or EF-S).

Bob, any ideas why Tamron is able to make a 2.8 zoom that is so much smaller than both Nikon and Canon? I particularly note the 67mm filter diameter. It looks only slightly larger than my 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 DX, yet is both full-frame and faster!

Scan from C-Print. Snakehead Moth

I have been using this lens on a D70 DSLR and N75 Film Slr for a month now. It really is as good, or better than most Nikon lenses. On a full frame 35mm SLR it's worth noting that there is virtually no distortion at the 28mm setting. In particular, there is no "Mustache Distortion" so common in Nikon wide zooms. Also, the front element does not rotate during focus so a circular Polarizer can be used.

Thanks for the excellent review Bob. I've had the pleasure of reviewing a number of recent Tamron SP Di lenses - The 28-75, 17-35 f/2.8-4, 90mm f/2.8 macro and the 180mm f/3.5 macro. All have been excellent performers and wonderful value for money when compared with the Nikon or Canon competition.

Some of the early release of the 28-75 were apparently not very good - there was a significant quality variability. This seems to have been overcome. If Tamron can keep producing these wonderful designs, and (more importantly) maintain the quality of their output, they will be a major force to be reckoned with in professional lenses.

I have this lens. It replaced my Nikon 35-70mm f2.8D for weddings and people portraits. From a professional's viewpoint, it is very hard to beat this lens. I consistently get great results on the Fuji S2 Pro and Nikon D70, and at 1/3 the price of the Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 AF-S, I consider it a bargain. I particularly like the fact that it is on par with my primes. So I can cover everything from an environmental portrait with plenty of the subject's surroundings showing, to a tight headshot at 75mm. At $350 or so, it is very affordable. My conclusion is that this is an excellent lens to add to one's bag. I use this lens for about 75% of my portrait work.

HI there Bob.

Very nice review.

I'd like to ask you how you did the flare resistance test. Did you use lens hoods on all lenses?

Cheers

Nelson

I did the same test as the first comment posted. I compared this Tamron to the Nikkor 28-70 f2.8. I wouldn't say the Tamron was sharper all the time, but I will say I couldn't distinguish between them in most of my test shots. I agree that the Nikkor was a tad sharper wide open at 70. The Tamron controlled color frindging better which was a big plus for digital and was the easiet way to tell the lenses apart in pictures. But considering the Nikkor is $1000 more expensive, I don't think it's really worth the money unless you need the silent autofocus. The nikkor did have faster autofocus, but not that much faster. Also you save even more money with the Tamron with the smaller filters. It's also significantly lighter. Build quality was nice...it was just a great lens. I did return both lenses in favor of lighter primes...but I definitely thought long and hard about keeping the Tamron. I may buy it again someday when I give up prime lenses.

Do you know if there are MTF-curves available for this lense somewhere in the net?

i had gotten what i thought was a wonderful lens perfect for my portrait AND product photography when i purchased the 17-85 image stabilized canon 4 to 5.6 lens...i had been horribly happy with a tamron zoom prior to getting the canon 3 years ago, but the autofocus broke down on the tamron...well, from the get go the canon just had problems with distortion, at just about any focal length...i had pros look at the pix and say they didn't see anything obviously wrong, but it just didn't have the image the glass on the tamron had...well, i was wary of getting another tamron after the autofocus breakdown...however, i needed to get out of that canon lens...which was not an aberration (if you pardon the pun) as other efs canon lenses i had gotten in the past were biG disappointments as well... so, whilst buying a flashcard for my canon 20d i inquired about what the store had in the range i was seeking, and the tamron came up, this one, and some guy started raving about it, and comparing it to thousand dollar nikon and canon lenses...have to admit, i just purchased the thing at the store without doing any investigation, just hoping thiS autofocus wouldn't go under...and remembering how superb the pictures had been through the tamron glass using my other tamron lens... i was quite happy to read this review, and other reader comments, tonight, several days after getting the tamron...i must admit, from the first picture out of the bag, to hundreds later in the last few days, the lens produces some simply gorgeous image capturing, none of the awkward loss of proportion, or something, as from the canon lens...and the 2.8 fstop makes up for the loss of image stabilization, giving me the same effective low light shooting range...if the autofocus holds up, this is simply an amazing lens...it accomplishes what is most important in a lens, beautiful crisp pictures that hold image shape as beautifully as some pretty expensive lenses i've had in the past, including a nikkor prime 105 that was the most amazing lens i ever had back when i was shooting nikon many years ago...thumbs uPPPPPPPPPP