Comments on: Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD Aspherical for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

By: Greg Acuff

Greg Acuff — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:44:16 +0000

After reading everything on this goal I was excited, but I’m no longer so excited. I was in denial when the pictures did not come out alive. But that is all, the images just are not sharp. Then I took a picture of a turtle in a field of grass, with the center (spot) focus on the nuts dead gopher and guess what? The grass about a foot behind the gopher is in perfect focus. Now I have to send the lens to the work under warranty. Can you say “annoying”. Right now I’m wishing I bought the Canon 28-135 IS USM instead. The price is about the same, the focal length is better and the IS can be obtained in some of the same places I 2 constant. 8 apperature can (not all). However, I am very disappointed.

By: Philip T. Ganderton

Philip T. Ganderton — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:57:19 +0000

I could not get through the ring of fire that moves with AF. Funky and distraction and unnerving at times. Optically was OK, with some CA. A lens good price, I ended up going for much more expensive Canon 24-105 F4 – slower, but with IS, is a part of this objective, although 3x more expensive.

By: Gustavo Santos

Gustavo Santos — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:22:37 +0000

Do not know about you, but I do not want to miss important opportunities for photography, changing lenses – Yes, the resolution and detail are a must, and I am pretty sure that this pack of high quality in an affordable package, but the reason the People use the zoom instead of prime numbers is essential to avoid swapping lenses in the first place – with money, and (1 zoom vs 2 or 3 primes), so if you’re shopping for a walk-around zoom, I think you want to avoid as possible, highlighting the slow and often risky swapping. Considered one study that I did believe you will be swapping lenses a lot with this, because so much time in a 1. 6 FOV body. Become a 44. 8mm, for the love of Christ, a normal lens! If I made you curious, keep leggere.La my research: I analyzed the EXIF tags of all the pictures I took with my point-and-shoot Powershot A520 in a few days. Has a wide range (35 to 140 millimeters equivalent). I have considered only the albums on trips or walking, not party boy were analyzed. Boat trips, travel and tourism in general. I did a frequency analysis of the lenses I used for every shot, and lately I’ve been compared to the ranges of many possible targets on mercato.Queste are the percentages of photographs taken with the (converted to 35mm equiv) range: 35mm — 41.7% 47 mm – 7.0% 59 mm – 4.0% 71 mm – 10.0% 83mm – 13.0% 96 mm – 4.0% 112 millimeters – 11.0% 140 mm – 44, 0% Now, these are the percentages of shots taken I could have done with each of these objectives in a 1. 6 FOV cropped sensor camera. Here are my conclusions: Canon EF-S 17-55mm (kit lens) (74. 6%) Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5. 6 (100%) Tamron SP AF17-50mm f / 2. 8 XR (74. 6%) Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (63%) Canon EF 17-55mm f/2.8 L IS USM (74. 6%) Sigma 17-70mm f / 2. 8-4. 5 (82. 1%) Canon EF 24-70mm f / 2. 8L (82. 1%) Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f / 3. 5-5. 6 (100%) Canon EF 24-85mm f 3.5-4.5 USM (100%) Canon EF 28-105mm f / 3. 5-4. 5 II USM (58. 3 %)*** Tamron AF 28-75mm F2. 8 (40. 4%) Sigma 24-60mm f / 2. 8 (65. 8%) Cosina 19-35mm f / 3. 5-4. 5 (63. 0%) (319 hits I considered in my research, you should be prepared to cope. To be honest, I considered 38. 4mm to be close enough to 35mm, then the good results of 24mm + lenses). As you can see, you should believe in my research, the 28-75mm was one of the worst coverage based on reports of a hit on a 1. 6 FOV crop (for the lenses in question). Only 40%. The large short Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM scored a 63%. In fact, 40% means a lot of lens swapping. BTW, in a full-frame camera (SLR film included) is another story entirely. Jumps 28-75 coverage to 68. 3% of the shots. I personally would not consider anything away from 70%. There is a reason for Canon 17-55mm zoom packs with their cameras, though a soft: it is a range rather commonly used, such as 74. 6% of my shots would be covered by that obiettivo.Non I have never used a ~ 50 millimeters as a walk-around lens on an SLR? Certainly, and for a long time. My opinion? It ‘was a real pain. It is never large enough in the house (never been in a crowded restaurant, on a walk around?) Is not large enough for a group photo (photo of themselves inside a tram, trying to photograph your friends, as I did once. Please Wrong). Ever creative options, even a modest 35 millimeters wide angle would give you. My idea? Do not want to miss the range of 35 millimeters in your goal every day. It ‘a great perdita.Il My advice? Another study of alternatives, such as the Tamron SP AF17-50mm praised F / 2. 8 XR (74.6% scored a beautiful, juicy and has a 2. Opening and 8). Or at least consider a lens that starts at 24 mm. These extra 4 millimeters becomes 7 millimeters wide, and this is a big difference. A 38. 4 millimeters wide angle and is not a large but close enough to 35mm and in my opinion a world apart from 44. 8mm.

By: A. Rich

A. Rich — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:40:11 +0000

You get what you pay for. The lens does a good job in low light. I prefer to stick with Canon lenses, thanks to the quality and reliability.

By: Salty

Salty — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:07:49 +0000

This is my first experience with a lens, and my other Canon ultimo.Dopo the many great things I’ve read on this goal, all on the internet, I received a nasty copia.Speravo to be able to use it for a ride slow, small oggetti.Questo goal was feeling very plastic tutto.Ho tried for a day, and I could not concentrate for a macro shot of a fiore.I own 2 high-quality Canon lens macro and have the ability taking pictures eccellentiQuesto goal was a DISAPPOINTMENT great for me. I returned it and bought the Canon 100 millimeters macro lensC’è take time to be credited back to me. Amazon said it would pay the shipping costs of return, required a phone call, to “discuss this”, to get my shipping credited