High speed at f2.8

Many!

This is my second post on this product, I felt that it was needed.

A person recently posted a comment that caught my attention, he stated that the lens was getting "softer", day by day!

I agree! I paid a lot of money for this optic and expected performance. Other than the 1-2 stops that I gain over a lower priced lens I feel this lens just does nothing for me. The photos are NOT crisp like you would expect, the auto focus speed is extremely slow, the lens is very CHEAP looking, and it feels cheaper! I could understand some of this if the lens were to only cost a couple hundred bucks, but $800 is rediculous for this optic. I got ripped off, cheated. This lens would compare favorably with the Nikon 28-80 that comes as a kit with the N80. Both are entry level optics, lots of plastic, lower quality. The only difference is about $650 dollars.

I am sorry for posting this review, but it my opinion based on my photos. I have shot over 100 rolls with this lens, I came up with every excuse in the book to justify my purchase, and yes, there was the occasional "awesome" shot. But believe me, they were far and few. My lesson, spend the big bucks and get something decent, or spend less and get the same quality as this Tamron. Sorry Tamron, I think this one is a stinker!

Customer Service

None

Similar Products Used:

I have tried lots of stuff.

It looks beautiful if you like those pro-like "tank-like" lenses. It also delivers sharp images in the overall, with fine color resolution and good contrast.

Too much heavy, difficult to fast shootings if used in manual mode. It is also very conspicuous and as others said above, intimidating or even scary to human subjects.

I bought both models - AF and MF, in that order. I tried the AF first - the MF came with a few dustgrains and a fiber - or even a hair - at that which seemed to be some of its inner elements. I found it unacceptable, given my expectations of the highest quality-control under its six-yrs warranty. Then I sent it back to be replaced. The new one hasn't been delivered yet. Then I started with the AF model. Well, when I personally evaluate a lenses, I take four aspects into consideration. (1) its sharpness; (2) its ability to render acute boundaries between distinct surfaces in the image; (3)its contrast; (4) a general, subjective feeling: namely, how good the resulting images look to me in print. (1), (3) and (4) are aspects which I can see with naked eyes; but I use a negative scanner and photo software to reckon (2). And that's where I had a big surprise with this lenses. It is somewhat soft as to boundary acuracy. This is a very objective evaluation. Using other lenses to take pictures - for instance of natural, strongly geometrical forms found in outdoors - or for the subject profile lines against background in portraiture, these lenses shows fuzzy boundaries mainly between it's extreme focal distances (but also at both ends). I see them fuzzy after showing the actual pixels of scanned (2720DPI) images of negatives simultaneously taken with different lenses at invariant settings over the same subject. Absolute judgements over these images would be inacurate due to digitalization biases, but comparative judgements would not. For the digital biases are the same for all negatives. This test revelaed the soft, fuzzy boundary of lines, planes and figure/background images. Some say this is helpless for Zoom lenses; either you go zooming or you pursue perfect imagery. However, I have an old Nikkor 70-200 f/4.5 AI that beats my Tamrom, from (1) to (4), but mainly as to (2) in every focal distances. I decided to trade the AF model back and am waiting the MF coming back to perform the same tests again. Yet I should stress that, as to (4), I have taken stunning pictures with this lenses.

Customer Service

Never required.

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 35-70 f/2.8; Nikkor 70-200 f/4.5

Fast, sharp, excellent color and great versatility. Far cheaper than similiar lens from Nikon or Canon.

Requires camera to be set to manual focus in order to manually focus lens.

Great lens for anyone shooting events(parties, weddings, etc). While shooting Weddings, using an Nikon F100, I have not found any reason to switch lenses. Results from two weddings and one birthday party have been very impressive. I am not sure how this would compare to a top prime lens that has F2.8 aperature, However, I have found that in the real world most people(women) complain about their facial imperfections so I tend to use diffusion filters on portraits. I definately would not require anything sharper if it exists.

Customer Service

$100 rebate

Similar Products Used:

Tamron 70 - 300, Sigma 28 - 70, Nikon 85MM, all Pentax prime lenses from 28mm to 200mm.

HIGH F STOP 2.8 FROM 28MM TO 105MM, EQUALLY SHARP COMPARE TO MY OLD NIKON 35-70/2.8 AF. PRETTY DURABLE. MUCH CHEAPER THAN THE NIKON 28-70/2.8 AF-S AND PROVIDE GREATER ZOOM. 6 YEARS WARRANTY. THE CPU INSIDE IS DIRECTLY FROM NIKON USED BY THIS TAMRON LENS.

1. PLASTIC CASE
2. NOT FOCUSING AS FAST AS NIKON AF-S TECHNOLOGY (BUT YOU CAN'T ASK FOR IT WHEN YOU ARE PAYING ONLY HALF OR THE AF-S VERSION THAT COST OVER 1500)
3. WEIGHT

EXCELLENT FOR THE PRICE I PAID FOR. THIS IS A ALL IN ONE PARTY LENS FOR SHOOTING DIFFERENT OCCASION. GREAT FOR PORTRAIT, GENERAL LANDSCAPE, AND NORMAL DAY TO DAY USE.

Similar Products Used:

NIKON 28-70 2.8 AF-S
NIKON 35-70 2.8 AF
SIGMA 28-105 2.8-4 AF-D FOR NIKON

Focal range and aperture.

PLASTIC.
Not sharp.

Don't buy this lens unless you really can carry only one lens and need the speed. Compared to the high speed zoom from other makes (Nikon, Canon), it feels cheap. The others are more money, but if you can afford a grand (CDN), and want sharp pics, you can afford to pay for the brand lenses. I tried one (actually three, I thought I'd got a dud at first and tried a couple others), and compared to my usual zoom (a 35-70 F4 Leica R - I own Leica as well as Nikon), the Tamron fell apart. With the Leica (admittedly it costs twice as much) I can get great 16X20" prints, I couldn't get more than 11X14 out of the Tamron.

Customer Service

Okay

Similar Products Used:

Many

Pretty Sharp, Nice and fast

weight, size, appearance, plastic for a thousand dollar lens(in CDN)

I like this lens. It is great for travelling, except for the size/weight. It really is all I need. Pretty good for the price, but I've never triedn anyhting else like it- only fixed focals and old Nikon zooms. I use it on the Maxxum 9, and I think that the focusing is fast enough.

Customer Service

never used

Similar Products Used:

none

(shooting with Canon EOS equipment) fast max aperture.
large size is comfortable with large hands like mine..Fits nice and snug in Chevy Suburban cup holder for convenient transport....

I thought it was my imagination, but I am pretty disapointed after shooting several weddings with this lens. SOFT, and the autofocus is TERRIBLE! sometimes it refuses to focus at all and will stop before even coming close to range of focus. Hunts! Slow!!
Lens flare monster. I expected that though with an 82mm front element. 82mm filters can get pricey.

Like I said, I am a big Tamron fan, but this one was a real buzzkill.. Not cheap and I thought the fast max aperture would really be the bomb... 0h, it's a bomb alright.... Oh well, I am saving the money on 82mm soft/diffusion filters by using it. Win a few, lose a few.

Customer Service

I haven't tried it, although I probably should relay my disapointment.

Similar Products Used:

Big Tamron fan:
28-300
24-135
couple of Sigmas, Canons and slew of Zeiss/Hassy stuff.

Fast lens (f2.8) and just the right zoom range (28 to 105). Very intimating and impressive. Everybody asks, "what is that"?

No.

The lens is heavy, but love the zoom range and f2.8.

Picture are not quite as sharp as my old canon eos len.

No competition.

Customer Service

Got a rebate!

Similar Products Used:

Orginal lens was a cannon 28 to 70, f3.5 to f4.5. Not enough zoom and not fast enough to do weddings.