Tamron 28-300mm Ultra Zoom XR lens?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Beowulf, Aug 18, 2003.

  1. Beowulf

    Beowulf Guest

    Anybody have opinions on the Tamron 28-300mm Ultra Zoom XR lens? Actually
    I just bought it for $360 (and there is a $40 rebate)--but I still have a
    few days to return it if the consensus is that this was a major mistake
    buying it. I want to use it for a digital SLR camera (Canon EOS 10D);
    for the price it seems like a good all purpose lens. Yes? No?
    Beowulf, Aug 18, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. <<Anybody have opinions on the Tamron 28-300mm Ultra Zoom XR lens?>>

    Forgive the bluntness, but why spend a lot of money on a great body like a 10D
    and then go with inferior optics.

    Any ultrawide zoom like this 28-300 requires signifcant compromises to get the
    10:1 zoom. The photographer for my daughter's wedding used this lens. While
    he did a superb job and captured excellent scenes, the optical quality of his
    pictures, especially at 8X6 and larger are noticeably inferior to pictures with
    my Canon L lenses (20-35 f/2.8 L, 200 f/2.8 L, etc) and also my cheaper Canon
    non-L primes (100 f/2, 35 f/2, etc).

    I would go with 2 lenses if you need to cover this wide range. With the 10D I
    would ideally want no higher than a 24mm low end too. A 24-70 f/2.8 L or the
    new 17-40 f/4. Add a long lens later or now.

    I think even the Canon 28-135 IS is a much better choice. You lose the long
    end compared to the 28-300, but you get better optics and image stabilization
    for about the same price.

    LarryLarry2003, Aug 18, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Beowulf

    Beowulf Guest

    Cost is a factor, and Canon brand lens 28-300 gets WAY more expensive
    than a Tamron. Actually I found reviews of this lens on the net and it is
    given 4 out of 5 stars by a variety of photographers. I need a single
    lens, not several as you suggest, because I photograph models and do not
    want to stop and change lenses during a photoshoot.
    Beowulf, Aug 18, 2003
  4. I've never needed anything as long as a 300mm for shooting models, my 28-135
    is more than sufficient, but that's film. A 24-70 would give you a 34-112
    on your 10D the 28-135 comes out as a 45-216, certainly enough length, but
    maybe not enough width. That 28-300 would give you a 45-480, enough to
    shoot wildlife, but more length than you can use at a fashion shoot, unless
    you're shooting a runway show and you're in the back row...
    Remember, those ratings are given by people who either have low expectations
    of the lens, and it met those expectations, or they don't know what a good
    lens is.
    An alternative is a third party 17-35 like Sigma, or 19-40 like Tokina and
    Tamron, and the 28-135 IS Canon or 24-135 Tamron.
    Skip Middleton, Aug 18, 2003
  5. Just to let you know, Popular Photography recently did a write-up on the
    progression of this series of Tamron lenses. They highly recommend this
    one as a jack-of-all-trades lens. Of course it's not going to compare
    directly with something like Canon's L-series, but for the price and
    convenience it's the best on the market.
    Ryan McGibbon, Aug 18, 2003
  6. That lens is dog shit!
    Johan Lexington, Aug 18, 2003
  7. Tamron is also one of PP's biggest advertisers, as is Canon. There are just
    too many optical compromises in a lens with a zoom ratio this extensive.
    But the rags aren't going to bite any hand that feeds them, their reviews
    always range from approving to glowing...
    Skip Middleton, Aug 19, 2003
  8. It can do this:

    These are scanned 4x6 prints, with just a touch of USM sharpening.

    It's performance is not bad for the price.

    jim h



    More than photographs: free downloads, prizes, a bit of humour...
    Jim Hutchison, Aug 19, 2003
  9. Beowulf

    Beowulf Guest

    "Can we be a little more constructive" (in criticism) -- quote from
    Terminator 2 (or close to it).
    Beowulf, Aug 19, 2003
  10. Beowulf

    c le Guest

    How about the new Tamron 28-75 XR Di ?
    c le, Aug 19, 2003
  11. Pfffffffff

    jim h



    More than photographs: free downloads, prizes, a bit of humour...
    Jim Hutchison, Aug 19, 2003
  12. Did you shoot those with a digital? They aren't very sharp, and the
    backgrounds aren't very pleasantly out of focus (the dreaded "bokeh").
    Skip Middleton, Aug 20, 2003
  13. Beowulf

    jim Guest

    "Pleasantly" out of focus? This bokeh thing is way over-rated.

    Anyways, those were shot with 800 asa print film (which may explain a
    grainy "bokeh"), scanned on a flatbed, cropped tightly for pleasing
    composition, saturated a wee bit more, then slightly sharpened (USM).
    The original prints have outstanding sharpness for print film (I
    finally found a lab with consistent, sharp results), so what you see
    is not true to the original... the flatbed is a cheapy too.

    Short version: the original print is sharp; my scans turn out not bad
    all things considered, so let's be kind. ;-)

    jim, Aug 20, 2003
  14. Contrary to other posters who have poo-poo'ed Jim's images, I'd say his
    shots pretty accurately depict what one can obtain from this lens.

    I have a 28-300 that I use on both a D100 and F100. It's an okay
    compromise if you can only take one lens. That's the only reason I keep
    lens, for those days when I must travel light with one lens/one camera.

    My experience has been to stay away from the extremes of aperture. If
    you work it between f/8 and f/16 you can do pretty well. Just be aware
    that it can be a disappointing performer when shooting wide open or
    closed all the way down. Also, if you mount a teleconverter and shoot
    it at 300mm, don't expect miracles! Its worth a giggle to try though!
    As an experienced user of the 28-300, I agree with that sentiment...
    John W. Robbins, Aug 21, 2003
  15. I didn't disparage his mages (sorry, but I just can't use the term you used!
    heheheh) I, too felt they were an accurate depiction of what to expect from
    this lens, but now he says the reproduction was bad, not the original
    images. I wouldn't expect them to match a Canon 100-400 L IS USM, or
    anything of that ilk. But there are too many situations that can be handled
    better with another lens. The OP states that he wants to "shoot models"
    with it. There are optically better lenses that are better suited to that
    usage than a 28-300, for nearly the same price.
    Skip Middleton, Aug 21, 2003
  16. You miss the point. It's YOU saying the evidence is flawed, that I
    shouldn't have posted them. I originally stated the results were
    certainly good enough to say the lens was a good bang for it's buck.

    If you're an experienced photographer with some digital work-flow
    experience, you can see the _potential_ of the lens despite the film
    speed and scanner. I stated the original was pretty sharp, especially
    for 800 film.

    So, if the image is all that bad, then please post a
    similarly-composed image with your own equipment so I can see the
    difference. I'm not trying argue here, it would be interesting to
    compare my tulip image to a similar image of similar DPI and size to
    see HOW much of a difference a Canon 100-400 L IS USM makes... I
    know it'll be sharper, but how much?

    jim h
    jim h



    More than photographs: free downloads, prizes, a bit of humour...
    Jim Hutchison, Aug 21, 2003
  17. Jim, you even admitted the images were flawed. The lack of sharpness that I
    mentioned you laid to the poor quality of the film, even though you also
    said the originals were very sharp, the poor quality of your scanner, and
    any other excuse you could lay your hands on to explain why the lens wasn't
    at fault. I'm going to email you tow images, since I don't have links to
    them, and you tell me if they are as good as yours.
    If you've looked at my website, you'll know that I am an experienced
    photographer with digital workflow experience, and you won't find any images
    with the poor quality you put up. My only point was that those images you
    put up didn't support the argument that the lens gave "good bang for the
    buck." Having only one lens to do it all certainly doesn't help the
    workflow enough to settle for compromised image quality.
    Since I don't know what image size those of yours were done at, it would be
    hard for me to duplicate them. And I'm certainly not going to go out and
    shoot something just to prove, or disprove, a point.
    Skip Middleton, Aug 21, 2003
  18. Actually, I'm waiting on the 12-560mm f 1.1 to come out. I'm sure PP
    will give it *******.
    Michael Scarpitti, Aug 21, 2003
  19. Beowulf

    Tony Spazaro Guest

    Seriously, that lens is a piece of shit.
    Tony Spazaro, Aug 23, 2003
  20. Beowulf

    Tang Wong Guest

    I don't disagree with you. But I think you give yourself too much credit
    that you fail it see it in other person's place. This lens was designed for
    who wants convenience but accepts some compromise on optical performance.
    You need to give credit to lens manufacturers for designing such a difficult
    It is only through these designs that they can gain knowledge for designing
    better lenses, those lenses may not be of interest to you but to many, many
    Tang Wong, Aug 23, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.