Your thoughts on Tamron glass.
- This topic has 15 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated Jan 22, 2009 at 7:56 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Ive been looking at some stuff Tamron is putting out and it all seems to be pretty impressive and good quality.
Hearing really good reviews of the 28-75mm 2.8 and the 10-24mm 3.5
Wondering if any of you have used or have Tamron glass and what you think of it.
My main concern is that the 28-75 is not going to be wide enough for my liking for a walk around lens.
After all these years I have noticed one thing for certain, folks need reassurances when buying other than Nikon or Canon lenses for their Nikon or Canon camera. If you want a lens that (in all likelihood) you will put on your camera and not put the images under the microscope in worry, or wonder “is it as sharp as _____?”, buy the brand names. What I think it is safe to say has happened over the years is that Tamron and others have significantly narrowed the gap between themselves and the brand names. Narrowed not closed. In the old days, you really were rolling the dice with anything other than brand name glass as I remember it. Most of the gaps in actual image quality may be subtly filled with Photoshop skills in my opinion. Mechanics is another, more difficult, variable though.shannon
I think Shannon summed it up nicely.
if I’m about to drop X on a lens, I want to sleep at night and not spend 2 weeks micro analysing every image for sharpness, IQ or other problems (CA, vignetting etc). Thats true if its 200 or 2,000…its all relative.
I’m not suggesting Tamron/Sigma/Tokina don’t make good lenses…not at all…….I just don’t think I could buy one and be absolutely comfortable with the decision as Im handing over the cash.
Where as if Im handing over the cash for Canons 24-70 f2.8 I am (was).
That said I have Tamron’s 180 f3.5 Macro and Im very, very pleased with it.
However we have talked about Macro lenses in the past and why they are different. If your really interested in it, I would suggest going to a store (more than once so you get more than 1 copy to test) and take dozens of test shots that you can bring home and micro analyse.
Lots of people have good things to say about that lens. Just dont know I could sleep at night for the first few weeks
I use a Sigma 5.6 400mm APO and a 2.8 70-200mm and I’ll admit that I’m constantly wondering what I might be missing. However for a wannabe on a budget those lenses are a way for me to shoot good quality glass and not go broke. I love the 400mm and I think it’s as good as any 5.6 400 out there. I haven’t shot the 2.8 much yet but initial tests look promising. I do love the HSM on it. It was $700 vs Sony for $1700 or a used Minolta G for $1200.
Something else I look for is older lenses that are highly acclaimed. An example for my Sony A mount is the 20 year old Beercan 70-210 F4. Its reputation among Minolta users is legendary and it’s no wonder. It’s a wonderful tack sharp lens made when Minolta and Leica were in bed together and you can pick one up in mint condition for $250 on Ebay. Take a look at some images this little $250 lens produces.
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11307
The one thing that sits in the back of my mind is after I’ve absorbed the cost of the off brand lenses I can always sell them for pretty much what I paid for them and upgrade to Sony G, Zeiss, or Minolta G, glass without taking out a loan. If money is the big factor and you’re not shooting for a living I’d say go for it.
Nikon USA offers a five year warranty on Nikon glass, but not on “gray market” glass, so it pays to get the USA versions.
For what its worth, a friend of mine, who used to work in camera store, said the markups are very high for Sigma and Tamron. Like the store doesn’t pay much at all for them. I don’t really know what if anything that means to the quality of the product, but it has given me pause.
The margins are better for the other than brand name lenses without question. But, the reason the names make cheaper lines of lenses is so they (their lenses) can be part of “packages” rather than sacrificing that income to other lens makers. So, the names make a “low line” of lenses as well. shannon
I’ve been eyeballing the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 IF lately. I’ve read reviews and seen out of camera results that show that the lens is on par with Canon’s 70-200 2.8 L in terms of sharpness, contrast and color reproduction. However, I’ve repeatedly been told that the Autofocus does not compare to Canon’s and therefore is not recommended sports or action shots. But at a fraction of the price I’m considering getting it. I haven’t done tests on it yet, but I plan to take my camera into a shop soon to see how it performs.
http://society6.com/grainfarmer Fly Fishing and Landscape open edition Photography prints.
http://grainfarmer.vsco.co/ iPhone photos
http://instagram.com/chad_simcox InstagramI am curious for no particular reason; can you tell me the cost of Tamron and equivalent in Canon? A fraction of the price can be a pretty big number. Thanks, Shannon
For the 70-200mm F2.8
The Tamron retails for around $619
The Canon retails for around $1190Prices from B&H.
http://society6.com/grainfarmer Fly Fishing and Landscape open edition Photography prints.
http://grainfarmer.vsco.co/ iPhone photos
http://instagram.com/chad_simcox InstagramYea there was a $1000 difference between the Sony and the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I realize there is some IQ difference but $1000 worth, I doubt it.
Sony kills me the way they negated the built in IS in their body’s by pricing their non IS lenses at or above competitors prices for stabilized lenses. And in reality the stabilization in say a Cannon lens is much better then the built in IS system in a Sony. On the other hand it’s nice to get an old piece of quality glass and have some IS.
On the other hand it’s nice to get an old piece of quality glass and have some IS.
This factor was one of the major reasons why I chose Pentax.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.