Tamron 28-75 if sp di focusing isues with canon 5d...

[picturesque]

<p>I use a Tamron 28-75mm lens with my 5D for weddings. In fact, I have two of them because I beat the first one to death (first one now overhauled and performing flawlessly). I never use multiple focus points, however, and I don't have trouble with autofocus beyond the fact that the 5D is not the swiftest anyway. The IQ of the lens is great--the rest of it (build quality, focus speed and noise, zoom ring turns opposite) I don't find a liability. In fact, the size and weight I find, are advantages, as well as the extra 5 mm on the long end.</p>

<p>I found that on the long end, f2.8 is just a shade softer, but this is true to some extent for any lens (wide open equals slightly softer). It also sharpens up nicely in processing.</p>

<p>I'm surprised you used auto or multiple focus points successfully with the 24-70mm. I've heard nothing but complaints about how unsuccessful multiple focus points are, as well as the accuracy of the 24-70mm focusing (from some users, not all). Put together, I wouldn't think it would work well.</p>

[anna_nielsen]

<p>well Nadine and everyone else including Tamron : first let me say sorry for being unfair an impatient about this lens . Yes Nadin Now hear this: I got some closeup portrait images i did take 2 month ago with the canon 24-70 and to be honest- this lens does exactly the same as my (iyes i still have it:)) Tamron when used on multiple focus points. Finding out exactly that made me do some more tests with the Tamron (i had allready called to delevery back). Now for abóut a hour 2 hours ago i made a serie of shots on 2.8 with centerfocus point and oneshot set on the 5d being very very carefull getting the right focus (yes i know its very shallow) - anyway they where all very very acceptable - infact i compared them to some of my recent shots from both the 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8 and they really kick them in the bot. first let me say ive got what we here i Denmark call "red ears" - so i must apologies (is that spelled wright?). So thank you also for learning me to use center point focus folks - it never occured to me. This last shot is 2.8/75 with a littel smartsharpen - what more can i ask for . So folks - go ahead and get that lens from Tamron. Sorry but a learned something in this forum (again:))</p>

[anna_nielsen]

<p>and it wasent the spelling:)</p>

[anna_nielsen]

<p>and it wasent the spelling - hope you get my point anyway:)</p>

[unangelino]

<p>Not sure if you're still reading or not but I did want to say that the common instinct to <em>get another</em> lens is seldom the best idea. If I had a lens that I suspected wasn't right I would rather send to the manufacturer.</p>

<p>Why?</p>

<p>Because that will likely be the first time an actual human (other than the owner) has ever used it and the people who inspect and adjust/repair them really <em>know</em> the capabilities of the product.</p>

<p>I had this exact experience with my Sigma 30 1.4.</p>

<p>It came back spot on in all regards and has stayed that way.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>:)<br>

WW</p>

[anna_nielsen]

<p>"suspecion" - yes - and knowing by reading many reviews that these 3 part lenses can have problems the first thing i did was to test and test . I never did that with any of my canon lenses just took for grantet that they where ok. When that is said i must admit that using mulitple focuspoints with this lens on this particular body gives really bad results - worse than i ever had with my canon lenses.And yes the 5D focus system isent the greatets either. i can live with that. Maybe my last "eye image" is a bit oversharpend but as Nadin says : including sharpenig in pp is a part of it - just wanted to show that this lens can be really spot on - even at 2.8. It was a bit of a turn i did first saying that this lens was crap and then it is ok - but i wanted to be fair and honest and also i was very very happy to see that this actually worked. thanks again for helping out here.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I don't have Tamron 28-75, but I do have a Tamron 17-50 as well as a Canon 17-55 (I shoot crop). The Tamron definitely takes more "steering" to get correct focus. The Canon somehow just seems to know where you want focus. I'm not sure why, but that's just the way it is.</p>

<p>Don't let the focusing idiosynchracies get in the way of getting sharp photos. I too had trouble at first with the Tamron snapping onto the cheek, eyebrow, nose, or bangs. You just need to use a single AF point and point it straight at the eyeball, then recompose. A quicker method, but one that takes some skill, is to quick-focus on the face, let the lens front-focus, then while half-pressing the shutter you move the camera forward slightly to let the eye come into focus.</p>

<p>FWIW my Tamron focuses correctly out of the box, but my Canon needs +12 focus adjustment in order to focus correctly. Once calibrated it does great though.</p>

[anna_nielsen]

<p>Funny! - thats exactly the same i experience . it takes much more "steering" compared to the ex. canon 24-70 . Thats what ive been trying to explain. Now after the nice advices from you guys i do as you Arie. centerfocus point /one shot to lock focus and then recompose. And actually it gives me nice sharp images (incl pp) from 2.8 - 16 - again for the price. Ill try that quick focus method thanks.</p>

[anna_nielsen]

<p>Btw - does Tamron mak a 17-50 or something in that range for fullframe?</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Tamron makes a 17-35/2.8-4 ultrawide for FF.<br /> http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/288-tamron-af-17-35mm-f28-4-di-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-lab-test-report--review</p>

<p>There is also a Tamron 19-35 for full-frame. This is a lousy lens, I sold mine. Avoid it.</p>

[anna_nielsen]

<p>thanks arie</p>