Tamron 28-75mm f2.8?

[ablyth]

<p>Has anyone used this lens? Is it possible that this is the same as the Sony 28-75mm f2.8 SAM? Perhaps just rebadged and a different AF motor. anyway, what is the Tamron 28-75mm like? What problems have you had with it?</p>

[vancouverphotographer]

<p>I have the Minolta 28-75mm f2.8 D ... not sure if this was a Tamron lens which got rebadged. Anyway, I seem to have a backfocus issue with this lens when focussing on something small or something far away on my A700, I didn't really notice as big a focus problem with this lens on my old A300 but I never did do comparisons.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is widely considered to be an extremely sharp lens with decent build quality; the main criticism seems to be relatively high geometric distortion. The Konica Minolta 28-75mm f/2.8 was widely considered to be <em>basically</em> the Tamron, except with different lens coatings and zoom and/or focus rings that turned the opposite direction from the Tamron's. Presumably the Sony is based on the Tamron and Konica Minolta, with the main change being the addition of the SAM.</p>

 

[ablyth]

<p>"...the main criticism seems to be relatively high geometric distortion" ouch. Thanks for the replies. Is there any other options of similar focal length, sharpness, but without this kind of distortion... without going into the Carl Zeiss price bracket?</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Andrew, the geometric distortion--which is not unusual in a zoom lens that starts fairly wide--is unlikely to be critical unless you are shooting something like architecture, and to some extent can be corrected in the digital darkroom. At one point I was thinking about getting this lens myself (Tamron version), but cheaped out and stayed with my trusty old Minolta AF 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5, which is a pretty good lens.</p>

<p>For another option, the new Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 (<strong><em>NOT</em></strong> the old version--this is the $900 lens, not the $400 lens) is supposed to be an excellent lens; it is much cheaper than the Sony / Zeiss, but much more expensive than the Tamron.</p>

[theaudiodoc]

<p>Andrew,<br>

Check out Kurt Munger's reviews of the lenses you are asking about:<br>

http://kurtmunger.com/tamron_af_28_75mm_f_2_8id144.html<br>

http://kurtmunger.com/sony_28_75mm_f_2_8id110.html<br>

http://kurtmunger.com/konica_minolta_af_28_75mm_f_2_8id255.html<br>

Here is a compareson review:<br>

http://kurtmunger.com/tamron_sony_28_75mmid141.html</p>

<p>Problems? Any lens can have problems! I'm sure you could find users of any of these lenses that have gripes.<br>

Also, these are zoom lenses. By their very nature they are a compromise in some way over a single focal length lens (prime).<br>

All these lenses are based on the Tamron design, but they are different in some wa,y as per the requirements of KM and Sony. Not sure about rotation direction, but the gearing is different between the KM and Tamron. The Tamron has a zoom lock, the KM does not. I believe the Sony has the lock. The Sony has an internal focus motor, the KM and Tamron do not -- they require an in-body focus motor. Beware of this, as the rumor is some of the new Sony camera bodies will not have built in focus motors. Sources (credible?) say all these lenses come (came) off a Tamron production line.<br>

Anyway, I have the KM version and it is a great lens! A bargain when compared with the Sony ZA 24-70mm SSM (which is better lens, as it should be at that price -- it has been rated "best-in-class). </p>

<p>Robert</p>

[ablyth]

<p>I had the 35-80mm and thought it all right. Without realising what the KM18-70mm really was, I got that and gave my 35-80mm to a friend who broke his. Anyway, I've mostly been surviving with the 50mm 1.4, but having a zoom again would be awesome.<br>

Looking at the Tamron review (thanks Robert for those links) it looks mortifying. However, then comparing those to the Minolta 28-70mm G... the Tamron ain't so bad.</p>

[william_markey]

<p>I have and use this lens and it is one of my favorite lenses...razor sharp! No complaints whatsoever with it. I do shoot it on a Canon though...my reason for reading this forum...recently fell back in love with film and am loving my new (used) X700 system.</p>

[theaudiodoc]

<p>Andrew,<br>

Don't be so quick to dismiss the Minolta G. You should read David Kilpatrick's post about the history of Minolta lens design here:<br>

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Minolta/message/138625<br>

Minolta glass had a very consistent look and color and some of the best were the G lenses. That lens has a very typical Minolta quality to it that many die-hard Minolta users love. I would take the G in a heart beat over the Tamron, but you have to pay at least twice as much for it and it is much heavier, that maybe a drawback for some that don't like to carry heavy gear around.<br>

Robert</p>

[theaudiodoc]

<p>William,<br>

Read the article that I mentioned to Andrew on Minolta Lens design. Maybe you will understand better why Minolta Rokkor lenses are very special. Canon DSLR users are responsible for scarfing up Rokkor lenses to convert to EF mount (sacrilege!) especially the MC Rokkor 58mm f1.2. What's interesting is, I switched from Canon FD MF cameras and lenses when I went Auto Focus to the Minolta Alpha AF mount because I didn't like the Canons available in my price range. Wise move on my part. I discovered Minolta glass! I then back-tracked to Minolta MF cameras and lenses and am so happy I did. They blow Canon MF (FD) out of the water!<br>

Robert</p>

[ablyth]

<p>The X700 is nice. I grew up with a Seagull license-make version with MD lenses. It came in handy last year when it was much too humid and hot for my digital. I do know the reputation of the G lenses, I've got the Sony 70-300mm G. It's not a perfect lens, but seeing that review of the 28-70mm G showed me that even that lens suffers from croma and CA. Though I don't think it suffers from distortion, at least that much.</p>