Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di vs Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

[marcin berduszek]

Does anyone can compare EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lesn with this new

Tamron SP AF 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di (especially I'm interrested in your

experiences on non-digital camera)?

[chris_kedrowski]

I can't compare them, but I'm happy with my Tamron on an Elan 7. I was also on the fence while trying to decide between these two lenses, but in the end, the 2.8 aperature was the deciding factor.

[james_barber1]

What is it they say about IS? allows you to handhold 1 to 2 stops slower shutter speeds or something i think...

 

now the 2.8 is 1 to 2 stops faster optically, and is a very sharp lens (I am very very pleased with mine). The thing with IS is it makes the camera more steady, but not necessarily the action you are shooting. If you could shoot at 1/20th on the IS lens, or 1/50th on the 2.8 tamron - I'd take the faster lens any day. IS is useless for moving subjects.

 

Just my 2cents. :)

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

You indeed have a tough choice between those two.From all i've seen thay are both very good to excellent optically.

Make your choice on wether you need the extra zoom range or IS or wide aperture (eg for portraits)

[yakim_peled1]

A friend of mine compared them and the 28-70/2.8 USM L on his EOS3. Naturally, the L lens was first. Surprisingly, the Tamron was a very close second with differences only visible at f/2.8. The 28-135 IS was a distant third. HTH.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[andrew robertson]

Canon claims 2 stops for that lens, but with good technique, shots with shutter speeds as

slow as 1 second can be made with reasonable sharpness. Shots made at 1/4th or faster

are generally REALLY sharp.

 

Really, you're comparing apples and oranges.

[shaun westlake]

Marcin:

 

Marcin:

 

I went back and forth between these two for quite some time. I also considered the Canon 24-85. Comparison shots between the three favoured the Tamron in colour and contrast. Tamron was sharper wide open in my opinion with less distortion in the corners. While the Canons where good, the Tamron was better especially in 8X10 and larger enlargements at wider apertures. The fixed 2.8 aperture throughout the zoom range was the deciding factor. "IS" although kept swaying the argument back towards the Canon 28-135. The 24-85 was eliminated first.

 

I did not notice a discernable difference in focusing speed using an Elan 7e between all three.

 

From a economic standpoint the Tamron is about US $80 less, comes with a decent lens hood (the canons don't), and uses the same 67mm filter size as my 70-200 f4L which I tend to have with me all the time.

 

One should also take a look at what and how you shoot, not just the technical aspects. The greatest piece of glass is useless when it sits in your bag. You may also want to consider primes if a fixed focal length suits your needs and shooting style.

 

Happy Shopping

[richard thompson www.fotoz]

Optically, the 28-135 is supposed to be 'about' the same quality as the 28-105 mk II (f3.5...) which is what I replaced when recently purchasing the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8.

 

I am keeping the Tamron. In fact, I chose the Tamron 28-75mm over the Canon 24-70 or 28-70 L f2.8 too - due it being half the weight and 1/4 of the price (in the UK). Its certainly not 1/4 of the quality.

 

Also I read (don't know if this is true - so anyone who does please comment) that after a few years, IS needs 'tightening up' / 'servicing'. Your extra stop(s) gained from the Tamron aren't going to cost a service every few years (if this read rumour is true)

 

I also own a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro 1:1 - and have been very pleased with the make. The only thing I miss with Tamrons is Ring USM.

[marcin berduszek]

Thank You very muche, for all Your answers...

It was very helpfull

 

I think, I'll get this Tamron

It's the best choice :-) at the moment

 

Marcin

[bobatkins]

I've never heard of IS requiring servicing. Sounds like something a camera salesdroid might make up to steer a customer towards a lens on which they make a bigger profit...

[patrick_cox1]

Marcin,

It sounds like you have already made your decision but I will throw my 2 cents in. I currently own both of the lenses you are inquiring about. I have used them both on my Elan 7. In terms of sharpness, they are both very close when stopped down in my opinion. They are also both a bit soft wide open, but at F4, I believe the Tamron is better. Obviously you can get sharper pictures using longer shutter speeds with the Canon IS but for my needs, that hasn't proven to be a big benefit. I guess if I was taking photos in museums or other such applications, it would be nice. Regarding color and contrast, I prefer the Tamron. In certain circumstances the Tamron does have a slight yellow cast, but I find the color spectrum pleasing. With respect to size and handling, I believe the Tamron is also a better fit. The diameter of the Canon is a little too big for me. I would say the two complaints I have about the Tamron are the reach (or lack thereof) and the zoom direction. When you zoom the Tamron, you turn the dial in the opposite direction as Canon. This can get a bit confusing if you use other Canon lenses. But overall I prefer the Tamron to the Canon. I hope this helps.

[igsman]

I only have the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di, so I can't tell you anything about the Canon 28-135 one. However, I join others here in praising this lens as one heck of an "objektif". It's true, it is a little soft at f/2.8 but only at 75mm) in my opinion.

 

Example at 75mm: http://www.photo.net/photo/2246087&size=lg &

 

Example at 50mm: http://www.photo.net/photo/2216935&size=lg)

 

And at f/4.0 it's pretty darn sharp (example at 65mm: http://www.photo.net/photo/2254160&size=lg).

 

Here's another example at f/11 and 28mm: http://www.photo.net/photo/2262610&size=lg.

 

This lens handles beautifully and the only qualms I have with it are "backwards" zoom and slight pincushion distortion at 75mm. I haven't noticed any barrel distortion at 28mm, which is wonderful. Autofocus is very fast and it's not nearly as noisy as I had thought it would be.