Tamron SP AF28-105/f2.8 LD IF

[neal_thatcher]

I know, I hate these lens questions as much as the rest of you but am

pretty curious if any of you own this lens or have at least used it.

I have a 20D and am pretty happy w/ the Tamron 17-35 I own but need

something w/ a little more range and faster for weddings and events.

I have a bunch of primes that are in that range too so that is not an

option as I need the flexibility of a zoom. It is coming down to

this lens or save up for the Canon 28-70/f2.8.

[neal_thatcher]

oh, and Bob...didn't see a review of this one on your site...thought you might have...

[robert_davis7]

I've read nothing but horrible reviews about this lens. Try something like the Tamron

28-75mm f/2.8 or Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8.

[alan_chan4]

Both SP35-105/2.8 & SP28-105/2.8 should be avoided.

[tommyinca]

I have a 35-105/2.8, the previous generation of the 28-105. The 35-105 lens are made more for portrait purpose. At the long end it is soft and will sharpen as it stop down. It is not at its best when used for cases like indoor sport.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>I've read nothing but horrible reviews about this lens. </i> </p>

<p> Well, you seem to have missed <a href="http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/Tamron/PRD_83610_3128crx.aspx">my review</a>. <b></b> </p>

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

The above reviewers seem to really like the Tamron 28-105 2.8

[neal_thatcher]

Sounds like I need to go play with this in the store to see how bad it really is at 2.8. Anyone have any pics w/ this they would like to share? I see big differences in opinion. Is the Canon 28-70/f2.8 really worth the big price difference?

[blake_cameron]

I have this lens on my 20D and have really enjoyed it. I purchased it second hand from a professional photographer friend of mine, who takes immaculate care of his gear.

 

Sure - it is bigger and heavier than the 28-70L, it's also longer. My biggest knock on the lens is that focus is marginally slower than Canon (oh, and trying to find AFFORDABLE 82mm filters).

 

Personally, I find that it takes great pictures. I don't shoot it wide open all that often - usually f4 and higher.

 

When I was looking for a lens, I looked at the 28-70L, this lens, the Tokina 28-80 ATX Pro and the 28-75 2.8 XR di Tamron. The Canon was just flat out too expensive. I liked the Tokina, but found it a little soft, and I wasn't overly impressed with the other Tamron - it comes across as cheap to me (though I know there are many that like it).

 

The only lens I didn't look at was the Sigma 2.8. I would recommend the lens highly. I have been extremely satisfied with it. I am looking forward to picking up a 70-200 f4L in the next couple of weeks to add to my collection. I think they should complement each other very nicely.

[terry_smith2]

I've had this lens for about two years and it has become the default lens on my EOS 3. There were two versions, but the second one was not marked as "II" or whatever. You can tell them apart very easily. The original had the word "ASPHERICAL" in red letters while the second edition has it in gold. There were a number of other small cosmetic differences between the two but this is the easiest identification point. Mine is the second version.

 

I'm very pleased with it. I really like the 2.8 all through the range and the fact that it goes up to 105mm is a real bonus. When my 28-70/2.8 L died, this is what I replaced it with. I now have to change to my old war horse 70-200/2.8 L much less often than before. It is VERT sharp from 50mm on up at 5.6-8 so I usually run in AV set to 6.7 or 8. It also does wonderful portraits wide open. Like all fast lenses, it's rather weak wide open and it gets better as you stop down. What fallows is my translation of part of the test report that Chasseur d'Images, the largest French photo magazine, did in 1997 on the original version.

 

"Aside from a clear lack of contrast wide open, the performance is situated in the good range in all situations, especially at longer focal lengths. Distortion is very marked at 28mm and becomes acceptable as the lens is zoomed out. Vignettage is very well controlled and only noticible at 2.8. Color rendition is slightly warm.

 

This new Tamron has many advantages starting with a fixed 2.8 across it's broad focal range. It also offers good minimum focusing distances at all focal lengths.

 

Even if the performances are not at the same level as certain of its competitors, they are overall Very Good (Very Good equals a grade of "B" on a scale of A (best) to E). Taking all of its advantages into consideration, the high price (in France) is not exhorbitant. This new Tamron is a credible response to the very expensive 28-70/2.8 lenses of Canon, Minolta, and Pentax."

 

I hope that helps someone.

 

The only major gripes are the SLOW AF in low light and the fact that the zoom and focus rings run backwards to standard Canon practice. The build quality is very good and the controls are smooth. There's an anti-slip mechanism for the zoom ring so the lens doesn't extend when pointed downwards. The front element does not rotate during focusing.