Bad copy Tamron?

[herma]

I have been taking my new Tamron 28-75mm on some shoots. While post processing

I am imagining that maybe it is not so sharp... I noticed when I process

pictures taken with my Canon 10-22mm required less contrast boost. 1)How

prevalent are bad Tamron copies and 2) How do I REALLY know if I have one.

(maybe its just not as great a lens as I hoped) and 3) What do I do if I have

a "soft" copy.

 

Thanks

 

Herma

[les]

Or, maybe the light was different, and the aperture, and exposure in general...You would have to take pics of the same subject, with the same light and same aperture/shutter/focal length. Then you can start talking comparisons. In your case, since using same focal length is clearly out of question - at least you could move forward/back to have approximately the same view with both lenses. So - do a proper check first. Unless, of course, this is just an excuse to get another lens - in which case just go and get it ;>)

[danield]

Herma

 

Could you post an image with EXIF data as a sample of what you think is soft? It's most often the case that the softness of images is due to user/technique error rather than a problem with the lens. The quality variations of (all) lenses are in fact quite small and not the first thing to bring into question...

[manuel_zamora_morschhaeuse]

Tamron has a slightly better QC as Sigma, but still, the chance of getting a bad sample is higher than with genuine manufacturers' lenses. And still you can have bad luck with original Canon or Nikon glass.

 

Nevertheless, if you check the review sites, the Tamron 28-75/f2.8, while being very good in terms of sharpness compared to its price and its aperture, /is/ soft wide open. Probably not much softer than the Canon 24-70/f2.8 or the corresponding Sigma is. Color and contrast is also influenced by the lens coating, which gives the same look from all Canon L lenses.

 

Check photozone.de or the-digital-picture.com for reviews and pixel peeping samples.

[picturesque]

My 28-75mm Tamron is very sharp. I use it on my 5D. It used to be that there were quality variations with this lens but that was a while back. Lately, it seems not to be such a problem. However, it is possible. But before concluding the lens is at fault, you need to rule out user error. For instance, contrast can enhance the apparent sharpness of an image but does not actually make the sharpness better or worse. Sharp is sharp.

 

There are also possible calibration issues--calibration of lens to body. I would search about testing lenses and conduct a test--on a tripod. This involves using a ruler and/or newspaper print. When I get a new lens, I do those tests, but I also just shoot a lot of stuff, using difficult targets and easy targets, and look at everything on the computer at 100%.

 

My Tamron is very sharp throughout the f stop and zoom range. At the long end, f2.8 is every so slightly soft-er (not soft), while at the wide end it remains very sharp.

[ant_nio_ferreira]

I bought mine two weeks ago. Very sharp in the center, not very sharp at the edges. It just can't be compared with Canon's. But it is much smaller and lighter, AND one third the price. You get what you pay.

[marknagel]

I gave up on Tamron, I tried 4 copies, here are my experiences (samples):

 

http://www.nagelhome.com/phototest/Test%20Final.jpg

 

M