Thanks a ton for those who responded to my earlier query. what is the difference between tamron 17-50 vs Tamron AF 28-75mm? which is better of two?
1589714
As far as I understand it, the Tamron AF 28-75 is a full frame lens. Thus if you have a digital camera with a crop sensor (Canon Xti, T2i, T3i, T4i, 7D) it will actually magnify the lens to be 1.6x greater turning the lens into a 45-120mm. This is not the wide to just over standard lens that most people want for an all around lens. However, may be great for a portrait lens. The 17-55 is a crop sensor lens and is thus equivlent to a 27-80mm lens on a 35mm camera which is the sweet spot for the all around lens. If you have a full frame camera (35mm film, Canon 1D, 5D), then this 17-50 will not work on the camera. It has smaller optics that will not drape light over a full size 35mm frame and will cause severe vignetting on those cameras. Otherwise, I understand that optics are similar overall. I admittedly returned my 17-50mm due to some pretty severe back focusing issues on two seperate copies of the lens. From what I have read this may not be as much of an issue on the 28-75 and if I was willing to wait, I hear the Tamron customer service is pretty good about servicing these lenses. However, I ultimately went with the Sigma 17-50 with the IS, and have been more than satisfied except for the additional $100 cost.
1589715
In simple terms, the bigger the number, the greater the zoom. The 17-50 will allow you to get close and to shoot wide angle. The 28-75 will allow you to shoot a little farther away. You probably want the 28-75 unless you need to get super close to something. I have a 17-50 and a 70-200. I use the 17-50 to shoot basketball games and get right under the basket. I use the 70-200 for football games because the action is farther away from the sideline. Unless you need to get really close to something, or need a wide angle (like a dance group at a rally), you probably want the 28-75.
1526808
Have not tried the tamron the cannon 24-70 2.8L II . Is a a purchase I'll never regret. It holds up against my friends zeiss primes plus blazing fast auto focus
1345982
I'm starting to think Sony has something to do with this. It is my understanding that Sony owns a piece of Tamron, and Tamron makes some lenses for Sony (55-200 and 18-250). It may be that Sony does not want this lens to compete with it's 70-300 G since the Tamron is nearly half the price. I was looking for this lens to replace the 70-300G, after two bad copies I got rid of it, it's not worth $800.
102791
Don't fool around. Go with the 28-300mm. Less lens changes and it just the perfect walk around lens. I know, I've been shooting for 35 years.
1337629
Image quality between the 24-70 and 28-75 is leaps and bounds. The 24-70 is just as sharp as Canons 24-70 version. Not to mention having VC. Definitely worth it if you have the money. I owned the 28-75 and it was a great lens for what is was but the 24-70 is such a step up in my opinion. Cheers
20958
Here is what I read at Tamron and Canon,firstly the 17-50 is primarily built for smaller sensors ,like the 40,50,60D and so on, the lens is and EF-S even though its nit written as so,the DI format will work on a 5d mark ii or 3,but there are risk and it also states that there is only part of the sensor that will use the lens and work,so for all practical reasons, its a bust for big body,now if you decide to buy the Tamron 28-75 it is a EF lens and is made for both body small and large, Hope that helps, my next buy is the 28-75 ,if this current lens is good
1584173
Tamron lenses come with different mounts. Make sure you buy it with the Canon mount. Obviously this is a much shorter lens with a wider field of view at 18mm and the same as the other lens at 55. It will not zoom in nearly as much. The reason to buy this lens is the wide f2.8 maximum aperture which is maintained at all focal lengths. This allows pictures in dim light.
1049466
It depends on what you use the lens for. The Tamron will give you a much larger zoom range in a very lightweight lens. But the Nikon will give you better performance over the 16-85mm range. If you mostly use the 16-85 range or make enlargements you may be better off keeping the Nikon. If you want to take more telephoto images and don't need the sharpest possible images and don't shoot a lot in low light you will probably enjoy the Tamron.
1836660
Good Day; I own #2 Tamron lens the Macro 90mmf/2.8 is one of them the other is the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di with VC. I shoot with a Nikon D7000. The 90mm will work on the D5000 but ck the spec. to see if the AF will work on your camera; it does on mine. The thing you lose on using a Full Frame lens on a crop sensor body is a full f-stop which keeps u from allowing that extra light into the camera. I bought my 2 tamron lens for FX for one day soon I will step up to an FX body. So in the mean time I find other ways of getting the extra light I might need. The 90mm is a very good lens and Tamron is working hard to become world class glass. My next lens will be the 70-200mm F/2.8 from Tamron, sure they are not as good as the Branded Nikon but they are great lens and Lighter on the Back Pocket. Hope I helped you Oh One More thing; "If you are not going to become a pro photographer Nikon and Tamron make great lens made for DX bodies that are far cheaper.
24768
I have both lenses and the real question is how close can you get? Both lenses are great, the Nikon is a little sharper and will focus a little faster on my 5200, but the reach of the Sigma is really nice. another option is the new Tamron 150 to 600 when you can get it with the Nikon mount. So if you can get close the Nikon, if you need more reach the Sigma or the Tamron!
1749583
if you specify a cannon mount for your particular camera you should be amazed at the versatility and beautiful pictures a tamron gives you I just bought a new cannon and I have the 18-55 standard lens I wish I kept my last tamron but I sold it with my last cannon {darn it!!!!!}
2002964
The Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Lens Aspherical [IF] MACRO, works "without limitation" according to the website of Pentax. I use a Sony A99 and I have nothing to complain about, especially f: 8 and up. Good luck!
88040
I have a canon 24-70mm f2.8 (very comparable with your Tamron) and as with all variable ND filters there is a degree of vignetting at the higher points, especially if you tend towards more full daylight shooting. the Tiffen is manageable however and still offers up great image quality.
2058086
I have the Pentax lens and absolutely love it. I do not have, nor have never used, the Tamron lens. However, Pentax forums has some very good reviews of it (http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-70-200mm-f2-8-di-ld-macro.html). You might want to ensure that's the exact lens you are looking to buy.You lose one stop with the Pentax. Depending on the camera you have, that may be a big deal. I've found I can use the 60-250 with a TC in bright light without problems (it's a 5.6 lens when the TC is used with it) for action photography. I use mine for wildlife and sports photography (outdoor mainly) and it does everything I need. I have the Pentax lens and absolutely love it. I do not have, nor have never used, the Tamron lens. However, Pentax forums has some very good reviews of it (http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-70-200mm-f2-8-di-ld-macro.html). You might want to ensure that's the exact lens you are looking to buy.You lose one stop with the Pentax. Depending on the camera you have, that may be a big deal. I've found I can use the 60-250 with a TC in bright light without problems (it's a 5.6 lens when the TC is used with it) for action photography. I use mine for wildlife and sports... » Read More I have the Pentax lens and absolutely love it. I do not have, nor have never used, the Tamron lens. However, Pentax forums has some very good reviews of it (http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-70-200mm-f2-8-di-ld-macro.html). You might want to ensure that's the exact lens you are looking to buy.You lose one stop with the Pentax. Depending on the camera you have, that may be a big deal. I've found I can use the 60-250 with a TC in bright light without problems (it's a 5.6 lens when the TC is used with it) for action photography. I use mine for wildlife and sports photography (outdoor mainly) and it does everything I need. « Show Less
134989
I am very happy with this lens. I have not tried the Sigma. I have the tamron 28-75 and the 70-200 VC both outstanding lenses - fast and sharp. Tamron is slightly more expensive and reviews always slightly higher. Sorry I could not give you more info about the Sigma
2004640
Which one did you finish up with? I'm interested because you said that you shoot mainly lanscapes, so why would you part with the 17-40mm? If your option had been for the 16-35mm f2.8L, I could have understood the reason, but a 24mm lens on any new camera (assuming it's not a film body, 5D or 1Ds) is only going to give you 31mm (1D) or 38mm (the rest). Not much good for landscape work.BTW, the 24-70mm eats the 24-105mm alive when it comes to contrast and sharpness, IS or not!
1003720
According to many reviews online and on youtube, this new lens with vibration compensation/image stabilization (Canon equivalent) is far superior to the older Tamron 70-200mm without VC. According to most reviews, the Tamron has better IQ than even the 70-200mm benchmark (the famous Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS lens). The Tamron only suffers from more vignetting and it's AF is tad slower than the Canon. I have this lens and am extremely happy with it. IQ is amazing. The price you can't beat. The only downside (but it's with all lenses in this class) is the size and weight. It's a monster. And, you're sure to get a lot of looks from ppl when you carry this lens around. According to many reviews online and on youtube, this new lens with vibration compensation/image stabilization (Canon equivalent) is far superior to the older Tamron 70-200mm without VC. According to most reviews, the Tamron has better IQ than even the 70-200mm benchmark (the famous Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS lens). The Tamron only suffers from more vignetting and it's AF is tad slower than the Canon. I have this lens and am extremely happy with it. IQ is amazing. The price you can't beat. The only downside (but it's with all lenses in this class) is the size and weight. It's a... » Read More According to many reviews online and on youtube, this new lens with vibration compensation/image stabilization (Canon equivalent) is far superior to the older Tamron 70-200mm without VC. According to most reviews, the Tamron has better IQ than even the 70-200mm benchmark (the famous Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS lens). The Tamron only suffers from more vignetting and it's AF is tad slower than the Canon. I have this lens and am extremely happy with it. IQ is amazing. The price you can't beat. The only downside (but it's with all lenses in this class) is the size and weight. It's a monster. And, you're sure to get a lot of looks from ppl when you carry this lens around. « Show Less