Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical IF A-mount lens reviews
 AVLB#46957 date: Oct-9-2023 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24-105 f/3.5-4.5 Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art |
| price paid: | £89 |
| positive: | Sharp. Lightweight. Good build and sturdy hood. No rotation on zoom or focus. |
| negative: | Sun flares can be a problem at small apertures (F11 or more) |
| comment: | A good all round constant aperture lens for a full frame camera. Seems to work very well on the A99 and focusing is quick (camera set to fast). Balances very well on this camera. Certainly makes a great travel or walkabout lens. Centres are sharp at f/2.8, but certainly improve by f/3.5. Corner sharpness is not a consideration when using this lens for me, although at f/11 they are very good, so landscapes would not be a problem for it. Better all round that the Min 24-105, but the Sigma is much better at all FLs, even though there is a loss of one stop. The Sigma weighs about 375g more though. Makes a nice pairing with the Tamron SP 70-300 USD, to cover most scenarios. Strangely the Exif data reports that the lens is a Sony/Min 24-105. Rather annoying when cataloguing photos. Tried it on the A850 and it is the same there. Have to put a caption on all shots to identify the lens. Seems Sony gave Tamron the wrong chips! |
; 36MP| icameisaw#44270 date: Apr-29-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 16-105mm f3.5-5.6 Sony CZ 16-80mm f3.5-4.5 Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 Sony 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 Sony 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 SAM II Minolta 28-80mm f4-5.6 Minolta 35-70mm f4 plus Sony 50mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.8 primes |
| price paid: | £125 s/h |
| positive: | Good sharpness. Not quite as sharp as the primes, but there really isn't much in it. Available for a fraction of the price of Sony f2.8s. As FF lens, it's also sharp in the corners on an APS-C camera which helps there.. |
| negative: | .. but on APS-C, the range isn't as useful. |
| comment: | Having decided to keep the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, it was time to say goodbye to this. I then took it to a show, where it was just the right length and the speed meant I could get photos that the other zooms couldn't. Argh! So I've kept both, but it is annoying that there isn't an affordable 17ish-75ish f2.8 zoom given how much overlap there is between the two Tamrons. You have to spend a lot more to get noticeably better results for a fast zoom like this. |
| standfest#44226 date: Feb-11-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 20mm F2.8 Minolta AF 50mm F1.7 Minolta AF 70-210mm F4 Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Samyang 16mm F2.0 ED AS UMC CS Samyang 8mm F3.5 Asph IF MC Fisheye CS Sony AF DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM Minolta AF 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 II |
| price paid: | 120 USD |
| positive: | size and weight IQ auto focus manual focusing ring price |
| negative: | not as sharp as other lenses at F2.8 in low light indoor bokeh could be better could be wider (24mm) |
| comment: | Recently bought this lens in aftermarket for sweety price and it looks like it is going to be the main lens I'm carrying. I like autofocus, image quality and also it's size and weight. The main negative side is it is not as sharp as other lenes in F2.8 in low light indoor. Minolta 50mm F1.7 set to even F3.5 is sharper than this lens with 50mm F2.8. Second negative side for me is not very pleasant bokeh comparing for example to Minolta 50mm F1.7 or Sony 35mm F1.8 (crop) |
| QuietOC#43024 date: Mar-1-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Canon EF 22-55 USM Minolta AF 24-50 F4 Canon EF 24-85 F3.5-4.5 USM Minolta AF 24-85 F3.5-4.5 & RS Minolta AF 24-105 F3.5-4.5 D Tamron SP 24-135 F3.5-5.6 Sony FE 28-70 F3.5-5.6 OSS Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 Di III RXD Sony 28-75 F2.8 SAM Tokina 28-80 F2.8 AT-X Pro Minolta AF 28-80 F3.5-5.6 D Minolta AF 28-85 F3.5-4.5 Minolta AF 28-100 F3.5-5.6 D Sigma AF 28-105 F2.8-4 Canon EF 28-105 F3.5-4.5 USM II Minolta AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5 & RS & Xi Minolta AF 28-135 F4-4.5 Minolta AF 35-70 F4 Minolta AF 35-80 F4-5.6 II Minolta AF 35-105 F3.5-4.5/New Sigma AF 35-135 F3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 118 USD (used) |
| positive: | Fairly compact and light Good sharpness and contrast Nice zoom and focus grips No focus clutch |
| negative: | Not very wide Limited 2.7x zoom range Backwards focus direction Warm color cast Distortion at wide end Uneven glow wide-open at 75 mm Doesn't support Sony features like Lens Compensation, Hybrid AF (A99II), and LA-EA3 autofocus (E-mount) |
| comment: | A nice copy with original caps and hoods, and just a bit of white gunk on the rubber grips. This was easily removed with a dry toothbrush. This lens reminds me a lot of Tamron's later APS-C 17-50 F2.8. They share the same filter thread size, similar number of lens elements, and cover similar focal ranges for their formats. It is slightly larger than the F3.5-4.5 zooms and even a bit larger than the Sigma 28-105 F2.8-4 but considerably smaller than current 24-70 F2.8 zooms. "MADE IN JAPAN" This copy is not as sharp as my Sony DT 16-50 F2.8 SSM over much of their shared range. It does seems to be mostly sharper than the slower Minolta zooms at the same apertures. It is not very sharp wide-open, especially at the long end. The uneven glow on high contrast edges wide-open probably indicates an alignment issue with this copy. Stopping down to F4 mostly eliminates it. Overall a very decent fast kit lens for full-frame/film cameras, but not a very useful zoom for APS-C. The Sony version does gain a lot of benefits including in-camera lens compensations and hybrid AF support. |
| minfansony#29670 date: Aug-23-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 16-35mm f2.8 Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 |
| price paid: | £100 |
| positive: | Sharpness Light weight Distortion |
| negative: | Build quality (but good for the price) |
| comment: | This is a great lens for the money, I got a decent used one for £100 to replace my Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 which I just wasn't happy with the sharpness. This lens is far sharper in the edges the the 24-70mm version and just prefer the images this little lens produces. Ok its not as wide, but I can just use my Sony 16-35mm for if i want to go wider. Great lens if you want to travel light with the Sony A7II. Also prefer it over the almost identical Sony 28-75mm f2.8, its lighter and focuses better and a lot cheaper. |
| pderoij#17336 date: Aug-15-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony AF DT 16-105mm F3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 175,00 euro (used) |
| positive: | Sharp Colours Value for money |
| negative: | Sticky zoom Noisy |
| comment: | Previously owned a Sony 16-105 and bought this les for indoors shooting with a fixed 2.8 aperture. After reviewing the results it was immediately clear that it outperformed the 16–105 on sharpness and colours. Despite the limitations of range I use the 28-75 now for my day to day shootings. Really love the Tamron colours, details and sharpness. Build is not superb, zoom is not that smooth and a bit sticky. Focus speed is acceptable fast, quite noisy but that is normal for this conventional type of lens. Hunting only occurs at very low light conditions, acceptable good and accurate focus performance. This lens is excellent value for money, superb optical performance and acceptable build quality. Drawback that its optical performance shifted my standards to (sub) pro level! |
| robberly12#11619 date: Jan-18-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-135/f3.5-5.6 Sony 35/f1.8 |
| price paid: | $385 USD (new) |
| positive: | Sharp Solid build Good close focus Bargain price |
| negative: | Occasional slow AF in low light |
| comment: | A no-frills, but optically excellent lens. It's sharp starting at f3.5, and passable at f2.8. It feels solid, with a well-damped focus ring and and responsive, if slightly stiff, zooming. Autofocus is quick and accurate, and quiet for a screw-drive lens. I get great results with it photographing my grandchild in-doors without flash. In very low light, unfortunately, autofocus can sometimes hunt. Although it's not advertised to have macro capabilities, it's an excellent close-focus lens. [Edit: on closer inspection, it does carry a macro designation on the lens itself. In any case, it has better close-focus ability than the equivalent Sony lens.] Colors are fine. It's a little long for a walk-around/landscape lens, and is occasionally susceptible to flare. But overall, it's an excellent general purpose low-light zoom. I was lucky to pick up a new copy from CameraLand in Manhattan for $385 after the rebate. At that price it's a bargain lens, at well less than half the price of the similarly performing Sony 28-75/f2.8. |
| chriseen#11500 date: Nov-26-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 24mm f2.8 28mm f2,8 35mm f2 50mm f1.4 85mm f1.4 135mm f2.8 35-70mm f4 70-210mm f4 50mm Macro f2,8 100mm F2,8 macro 80-200mm f2.8 500mm f8 Reflex Sony Zeiss 16-80mm f3,5-4,5 |
| price paid: | 295 euro |
| positive: | - good for price - internal quality is excellent, good build quality - Good performance, nice bokeh - Sharp & fast f2.8 lens - Very good flare & distortion control - Good build quality - Light & Cheap - Relatively fast AF speed - Fixed f2.8 at all focal range - Comes with a hood - Zoom Lock - Very good flare & distortion control |
| negative: | None for the price |
| comment: | Good performance on full frame, gives stunning pictures in the dark on my A700.The best value new standard zoom for the a900& a850. Can deliver the resolution the full frame sensor needs. Good size and weight for a walk around lens IMHO better choice than very similar SAM 28-75. the lens is lovely to use at 2.8. Sharp at 2.8 & razor sharp by 4. Sharp at all apertures Wonderful quality. Stopped down a little yields very SHARP pics. Solid build. Very good value. Wonderful for indoor, ambient light shots. It's great for portraits/candid shots of my children/dog. Build is decent; I wanted a lightweight lens. Flare control is good. CA control is very good in harsh lighting. Focus speed is good. This is admirable the more I've tried other lenses. A lovely walk around lens Very usable in the end for many many situations. Can it beat the primes I own ? no can it beat the build quality of the 80-200 f2.8? no can you find anything as good for the same price? again, No I would highly recommend this lens. I think this Tamron worth it`s price and the best price/performance choice among other /2.8 zooms at that range. If you can find a copy, grab it. |
| SakuTT#11328 date: Sep-4-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | -Sony 50mm 1.8 DT -Sigma 15-30mm 3.5-4.5 -Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG II -Minolta 50mm 1.7 -Minolta 28mm 2.8 |
| price paid: | 250€(used) |
| positive: | -Build quality, though plastic -Lightweight -Constant 2.8 -Sharpness (when adjusted) -Zoom Lock -Price |
| negative: | -Extends when zoomed -Needs micro-adjustment -Noisy AF -AF hunts in low light |
| comment: | First of all I have to say that it´s a great value for money. Get it around 250€ and you´ll have a sharp standard zoom for full frame body. Good build quality, feels very solid despite from the fact that it´s plastic. Focusing ring moves very smoothly. Zoom ring seems "sticky". In low light AF tends to hunt. And if you´re shooting for example wedding ceremony in a church, you´ll get noticed. And not in a good way. Distortion and flares are very well controlled. CA might appear on some situations. To sum up: Needs micro-adjustment. If you shoot inside and especially if you do it for money, go get Carl (Zeiss), or try Sigma, or the new Tamron 24-70. AF is a bit slow and noisy. If you´re shooting for fun, this might be the lens for you. Sharp, constant 2.8 aperture at a very low price. |
| whisperer#11255 date: Jul-16-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24-105 Minolta 50 1.7 Minolta 28 2.0 Minolta 85 1.4 Sony 70-300 G |
| price paid: | 200 GBP |
| positive: | Sharp Cheap Light |
| negative: | My copy underexposes consistently by 1/2 stop Good colors but a bit warm, not neutral Would be perfect with 24mm |
| comment: | Good price-quality ratio. Light as a walk around lens, great on A99 which is also a light camera, making it balanced. Sharp overall, nothing that hasn't been said. Good bokeh, nice colors but not the "minolta" ones we're always hearing about, just because it's a bit warmer. My copy underexposes constantly which might be a quality control issue. I originally thought it wasn't that sharp because while comparing to other lenses I set it to manual focus at first with perfect focus and then shot the several f.stops - the focus ring is so light that it moved slightly with the shutter vibration, looking like it was sharper at f2.8... so very light focus ring!! The zoom ring on the other hand is stiff, although not too much. It has a play though, therefore the build rating (I'd give it 4 if it didn't have the play while still being plastic). If you're not a millionaire and want a good walk around lens, if you can live with the 28mm instead of 24mm, this is your lens! |
| derekw#10949 date: Feb-26-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 17-50 Sigma 17-70 Minolta 24-85 Minolta 35-105 tamron 20-40 |
| price paid: | £200 GBP mint |
| positive: | Sharp - even at max aperture Good natural colours Reasonably lightweight Distortion well controlled on APSC Full frame |
| negative: | Needs stopping down for edge sharpness. Build - considering the price - my copy has a stiff zoom ring between 50 and 75. Range on APSC |
| comment: | At maximum aperture sharper than all the above lenses (at least my copies) except the Tamron 20-40. The build for a lens costing circa 300GBP new is rather poor - not talking about the cosmetics but the general feel of the lens. The Sigma 17-70 is much better in this respect. As mentioned my copy has a stiff zoom ring between 50 and 75 whick makes precise composition tricky - maybe this will right itself with use. Notwithstanding the lens delivers very good IQ only spoilt by slightly soft edges below f4. Recommended if the range suits. |
| alphabart#10916 date: Feb-11-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 5 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta Kit 28-80 24-70 2.8 Zeiss 24-70 2.8 Sigma |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp wide open all Focal lenghts Supersharp stopped down all Focal lengths Very Close focus .33 cm all focal lenghts (1:3.9) Angle on FF is good Very good flare / ghosting control IQ better than Zeiss 24-70 wide open IQ eguals the Zeiss 24-40 stopped down So cheap, no need for UV filter |
| negative: | Vignets quite a bit at 2.8 Focus ring rotates in AF Build is not a Zeiss, feels cheap, is cheap Distortion is quite large at 28mm without correction |
| comment: | My quest for a nice walk around lens started looking at an empty wallet, and thinking of the Zeiss 24-70 2.8; But what supposed to be a long journey working to the bone, ended up on a relaxed search online comparing lensdata, posting questions and reading comparisons. Tamron and Sigma have some affordable lenses. Sony has a nice small 28-75 and also there is minolta. But one lens stood out, the cheapest and ugliest of the class.. But it's about what's inside. The tammy 28-75 2.8 has superb glass and I got it for free this time together with my Sony A99. Now I call that "A deal". The short time I have this lens, I'm totally amazed about it's performance. It has diamonds inside. Be sure you get a good copy and heard some stories about front / back focus which mine doesn;t have luckily! Good luck with your quest for good lenses... This lens is a good one and very versatile. |
| MVKregg#10830 date: Jan-11-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | ~ 500 USD (new) |
| positive: | Easy to use--low-drama lens Relatively fast and sure focus Good in low light or high-specularity (like shooting plays) Good ergonomics and balance with A850. Size and weight are reasonable for f2.8 |
| negative: | Color and contrast not as punchy as the more expensive options. Wish it could focus closer. |
| comment: | Had it for about 3 years, and it is on my A850 more than any of my other lenses. I rarely need my 50mm f1.4 for low light. The body and camera work together extremely well, especially with a flash--better than my Sony lenses! Very few missed shots due to exposure problems. |
| linearamp#10823 date: Jan-8-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 70-300G Minolta 28-135 Minolta 50mm F1.4 Sigma 10-20 |
| price paid: | 170 GBP |
| positive: | this lens is Sharp .Tack sharp .even wide open. Love it ,A definate keeper |
| negative: | only negative as mentioned in other reviews is the build .im used to old Minolta Beercan type lens .this is plastic. only nit picking really |
| comment: | missing |
| Jan Chers#10586 date: Oct-14-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 370 EUR (new) |
| positive: | best value in this class sharp wide open fast AF ADI function |
| negative: | plastic build in a short time I noticed dust inside the lens |
| comment: | missing |
| 3.0#10516 date: Sep-17-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Tokina 28-70 f/2.8 |
| price paid: | 370 CAD(Used) |
| positive: | -Fairly Sharp -Fast Focus -Compact but solid -Excellent Glare/Haze control |
| negative: | -Build could be better there seems to be barrel movement but that's nit picking, especially for the price compared to it's Sigma/Sony counter parts. |
| comment: | Was looking for a FF lens as a walk around for pre-ordered a99, lens was tested and compared on my a77. I absolutely love my Tamron 17-50mm so looking into this lens was a no-brainer for the Sony FF. I'm not disappointed at all although the lens did need a micor-adjust for back focus, not a big deal I've adjusted most of my lenses especially the older ones. I like the range even on a cropped sensor, I can shoot into the Sun and get maybe one little glare; while haze is controlled extremely well. The only thing about Tamron lenses is compared with my Tokina's and Minolta's the colors seem muted, but not a big deal these days with ACR or Photoshop. Highely recommend the lens. |
| ifreedman#10016 date: Mar-10-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50 f1.7 Sony 18-55 kit Tamron 18-250 SMC Takumar 50 f1.4 Various other manual focus lenses |
| price paid: | 290 used |
| positive: | Fast zoom lens, lighter and less expensive than many similar lenses, yet it maintains excellent image quality. |
| negative: | A bit heavy. 28mm isn't very wide on ASPC. |
| comment: | I love this lens and I love the focal range! Even shooting on an APSC camera, it's fairly rare that I wish it was wider. I find that I can use this for all sorts of shooting, but it's particularly good for weddings, family events, portraits or other photos of people. AF is quick and accurate. Colors are nice. If the 24-70 f2.8's I've seen weren't heavier and more expensive, I might consider switching just for the extra 4mm at the wide end, since I wouldn't be sacrificing too much on the telephoto end. The Zeiss 24-70 F2.8 looks awesome, but it's so heavy and expensive compared to this jewel, that even if I had the $, I'd probably stick with the Tamron for convenience. Overall, I couldn't be happier. If I'm not shooting with this lens, it's usually because I'm shooting with a prime or a longer zoom. Edit (Sept 2012): I still love this lens, but I've decided to order a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. On a cropped sensor camera, I've decided that I sometimes do need a wider lens. Still, this remains a favorite of mine. In the long run, though, I'm not sure if I can justify having both the 17-50 and the 28-75, so I'll have to make a decision on which to keep. On a FF camera, this lens seems like a no brainer to me. |
| lifeispixels#9971 date: Feb-24-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tokina AT-X 270 PRO 28-70 f2.6-2.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | BEST VALUE in this class! Eye-bleeding sharp right from f2.8 |
| negative: | Many copies tend to back/front focus by a LOT. So it can be useless if your camera doesn't have micro-focus adjustment. |
| comment: | I bought the Tokina 28-70 f2.8 for 1 day and returned because there was fungus inside (I also reviewed that lens). Then I got myself a used Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and I never look back. The Tamron is optically much better in every regard. Colors rendition however is different from Tokina's and subjective. The Tamron's colors are bright and vivid like the Sony's modern lens with a slight bit of red tint. The Tamron is eye bleeding sharp right from f2.8 (make sure you micro adjust the lens since it seems to back/front a lot). My copy requires as much as -15 adjustment! So you gotta check carefully before buying if your camera doesn't have micro-focus adjustment. Because of this, I give build rating 4 on the otherwise perfect lens. I took the Tamron and went to a street where I tested the lens with street's spot light. The Tamron did many times better than the Tokina to control flare and all the details in the picture were kept well. Although Tamron's build quality is nothing special to be desired, it's good enough and on par with currently available lens in the market. The advantage is however a much lighter weight. So it's no longer a pain to carry around with A850 like it used to with Tokina 28-70. Control of CA is better with the Tamron and focusing speed is also noticeably faster. I can't recommend highly enough to choose this lens for your Sony full frame. It's the absolute bang for the buck! Why paying 2 times more for the Sony version that performs nearly the same. For the price of Sony version, you could get this Tamron + a 50mm f1.4 or some Samyang lens. The best money I ever spent period. See my photos with Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and Tokina AT-X 270 PRO 28-70 f2.6-2.8 at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lifeispixels/collections/72157628204412995/ |
| godsakes#9958 date: Feb-21-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | minolta 28-70mm g tamron 17-50mm |
| price paid: | £180 GBP |
| positive: | Sharp wide open Insanely good value fast AF |
| negative: | wish it started at 24mm prone to flare Clinical colours |
| comment: | For the money it's a no brainer, this is a really solid performer. It is much sharper than the copy of the minolta 28-70 G I briefly had with fewer drawbacks (faster AF, better MFD). The only thing the Minolta had over this was better colour and build (and even then do you really want it weighting a ton?) The only real technical negative I've found so far is the lens can be prone to flare if the sun is just out of shot, though this could just be down to the hood design. My main gripe with the lens is the colour is very clinical and lacks the magic you get from other lenses |
| Rebecca#9851 date: Jan-25-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 24-135 Sony 18-55 kit lens |
| price paid: | 350 USD (new) |
| positive: | Fast Sharp Affordable Good color |
| negative: | None |
| comment: | I bought this in combination with the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. The two together give me a combined focal length of 17-75mm at f2.8 at a great price. This lens is sharp, easy to use, and very flexible in terms of light. I can take smooth non-grainy photos with lovely color indoors without a flash in all sorts of circumstances. I don't have to fiddle with the camera, trying to squeeze the last little bit performance out of the sensor to compensate for a dark lens. I also don't have to stuff a big flash in my purse and then stop what I'm doing to put it on the camera while the child/cat/elderly person stops doing whatever made me want to take their photo in the first place. It seems unfair to compare this lens with the Tamron 24-135, but it's the closest I have. Suffice it to say that owning and using the 24-135 and the Sony 18-55 kit lens was what made me decide to take $ out of my savings and buy this one. I'm glad I did. |
| revdano1#9517 date: Oct-22-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony, Sigma |
| price paid: | 450 |
| positive: | Excellent sharpness, color, weight and range. |
| negative: | none |
| comment: | This is a great lens. I wanted a fast Aperture for indoors, and a great all around walk around. I use it on A580, and its still plenty wide enough. Having no issues at all in group shots, indoors ect.... Read a lot of the lens not being wide enough on a APS-C body, and I am not sure as to why??? In what I do using the lens, I am having no issues not being wide enough. Anyhow, its sharp, colors are great, speed is great. I have no complaints as it easily out performs my expectations. Granted a 17-50 is wider but I wanted the reach more than the wide and I am finding I am not missing the 17mm. You will not regret this lens. All around Great. |
| megrim#9042 date: May-21-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | About 400 Euro new |
| positive: | Price Weight Size F2.8 in the full range Relative Sharp |
| negative: | No super quick focus or silent focus. It isn't build like a tank |
| comment: | This is my zoom lens of choice. Even though the crop factor makes me miss some width. It is a good performer both inside and outside. In light conditions and dark conditions. It has its limits it certainly is not a super light strong Prime. What matters for me is image quality and this lens has to offer that. Great contrast, great sharpness when used right and its range allows for many different types of shots. Portraits, Family pictures, birthday parties, pets and images of nature. It is versatile and with its price lets say I see every amateur buy a lens like this. My A200 works very nice with this lens and of all the lenses I gotten my hands on. Mostly old glass this one is the sharpest. Understand though that I don't shoot most picture at F2,8 I usually go as wide as F3,5 of F4 that combined with the focusing length is usually enough for a lovely DOF. I have found F2,8 a bit soft but usuable if you can accept the softness. I mostly use the F2,8 for its quick light strong handling. A lovely walk around lens that might lack in width but that is a worthy sacrifice. Very usable in the end for many many situations. Will it beat primes? NO! Will it beat tank build quality of some of the highest levels of lenses? NO! Do you find anything as good at the same price? Again No! The only sad thing is now that my other lenses are very little used :! Guess I sell them! |
| saxbike#9024 date: May-14-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 28-75SAM CZ24-70 Tamron 17-50 Primes |
| price paid: | 320 USD |
| positive: | Small and light Sharp Good range f2.8 Good balance on the camera |
| negative: | Not as sharp at f2.8 Needed microadjust of +12 |
| comment: | I bought this lens as a general purpose zoom for the a850. It's range is adequate and the images are consistently sharp with good color saturation. One of the reasons I went with this lens was Kurt Munger's tests on his website. I was able to test the Tamron and the Sony 28-75 side-by-side and came up with very similar results to Munger. Tamron seemed to be slightly better overall at all apertures and focal lengths, except wide-open at 75mm. I did not test the CZ24-70 but did get a chance to use it on my a850. I was not thrilled with the feel of the lens. It's bulky and somewhat awkward compared to the Tamron 28-75. I will use this lens for walk-around and casual shooting, but I will switch to primes for critical work. This lens is close but even the 50mm 1.7 is better. 2023 Update: Well, my Sony a850 is long gone but I never sold this lens. I Purchased an IR converted a99V and use this lens almost exclusively. Very pleased with the results with some work in Capture One Pro. I saved the settings as a preset so I can apply them on import. Without the settings the lens has definite hotspot but with accurate exposure it is workable. Still need the microadjust of +12. |
| PeteMag#8880 date: Apr-7-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-135 Min 28-105 Min 100mm f2 Min 18-70 kit 50mm 1.4 Min |
| price paid: | 250 I think |
| positive: | versatile sharpness good Light |
| negative: | colour not in line with Minolta |
| comment: | If you look around reviews of other "cheap" lenses which are 2.8 or below, you'll find comments about a lens (not this one) being soft wide open. For me I feel a lens that is soft wide open, becomes pointless. This lens whilst sharper at f4 is certainly still acceptably sharp at 2.8. There's nothing fancy on the lens, but it does have the advantage of a zoom lock at 28mm, non rotating front element, being light and has good close focus. Some might point to the plastic feel, but I like Tamrons design, certainly prefer it to Sigmas coatings. The one problem is the Colour is not as rich as the Minoltas, but the advantages do outweigh this. |
| Cav#8701 date: Feb-25-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 17-50 Minolta 24-105 |
| price paid: | 300 USD (Used) |
| positive: | Sharp 2.8 Nice range |
| negative: | None yet |
| comment: | I purchased this lens used a few months ago. So far it has performed very well for me. It's sharper than my 17-50 wide open at the long end. Color looks the same as the 17-50 so it can be difficult to distinguish comparative test shots. Build is standard Tamron. I find I now keep this lens on the a700 and the 17-50 in the bag unless I need to go wide. If you find a sharp copy, grab it. |
| ERH#8682 date: Feb-20-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-70G Tamron 35-105/2.8 Tamron 24-135/3.5-5.6 Sony 35/1.4G Sony 50/1.4 |
| price paid: | 350 USD (used) |
| positive: | Sharpness Lightweight Fast aperture Bokeh at long end |
| negative: | Plastic build Colours a little warm (red-brown) |
| comment: | Own this lens at my A350 and now at A850. Use it as lowlight and "winter tavel zoom". It is very sharp for zoom (Minolta 28-70G much weaker (softer). But it has disturbing colours (red-brownish). It`s OK if you shot people, but if there is green grass, leafs or snow in the photo - it`s looks not fine for me. Also it sometimes "selfzoom" from 28 to ~35mm (need to use zoom lock to avoid this). So after couple of years of ownership - now I want to sell it. And leave Minolta 28-70G as lowlight and winter travelzoom. Instead of it`s softness at wideopen aperture, but Minolta 28-70 G-zoom has perfect colour in my opinion (almost the same as Sony 35G and Minolta 85/1.4). But, I think this Tamron worth it`s price and the best price/performance choice among other /2.8 zooms at that range. P.S. I have to mention, that I avoid focusing problems - at A350 I sees no issues, and at A850 this Tamron needs only homeopathic "-1" microadjust. (For example Sony 50/1.4 needs "-12" correction, but 28-70G, 35G, 85/1.4, 135ZA and 200G needs no correction at all). |
| My December#8502 date: Jan-10-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 Sigma 18-250mm DC OS HSM |
| price paid: | 1650 MYR (New) |
| positive: | - Sharp - Very good flare & distortion control - Good build quality - Light - Cheap - Relatively fast AF speed - Fixed f2.8 at all focal range - Comes with a hood - Zoom Lock |
| negative: | - Not wide enough on APSC - Soft corners. - Soft at wide open (f2.8) - Quite loud AF - CA at 75mm |
| comment: | I have mentioned the negatives, but I really don't have serious problem with the lens' performance. My only problem is, I'm using A350... meaning the lens is not wide enough LOL!. I select & bought the lens during the time when I have very limited knowledge about lenses and sensor types. I saw the lens with fixed f2.8 and up to 75mm and bam! the lens reached my house 3 days later. Boy, what a mistake. I usually take landscape and group pictures, and so the lens is not wide enough for my needs. But I wouldn't go for the Tamron 17-50mm anyway, it's range is too limited for me too. Now, I only use the 28-75mm indoors and functions that does not require group shootings. The lens perform very well, except sometimes it will refrain from snapping in low light, even with the help from external flash. My A350 above ISO 400 is disastrous. It is nice for portraits in APSC too (55~60mm is equivalent to 85mm~ish + f2.8). It is quite soft at f2.8, but still usable. The colors are not that interesting, but still OK. Looks kinda yellowish. I'm not sure if it is normal for Tamron lenses, I only have experience with this one. The lens hood fits firmly and I rarely (almost none) have problems with flare (unless of course if you purposely shoot directly at the sun). At 75mm, there's a slight color abbreviation but most of the time, it is hard to notice. It has zoom lock, but I don't find any zoom creep problems. I'm planning to get the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4. It might not have the optical quality of this Tamron, but at least it is more versatile for my needs (16-80mm CZ is too expensive for me atm!). I will sell this Tamron once I get my hands on the 24-70mm CZ in the future. All in all, for APSC users, this is a very good lens if you rarely shoot wide landscapes and needs further range than the normal 17-50mm/18-50mm/18-55mm range. |
| Mr_Canuck#8490 date: Jan-7-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 24-85 Min 28-135 Sony 70-300G (at short end) Min 35/f2 Min 50 Macro RS |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Size and weight Low price Good performance No SAM motor (AF/MF button on camera works) |
| negative: | None for the price |
| comment: | (all on Sony a850) This lens delivers what I was looking for: an affordable, lightweight walk-around with good quality and f2.8 speed. I didn't want to lug around a kilo of lens with the CZ24-70, and I have primes as an option if I want the very best quality. It goes well with the Sony 70-300G for hiking. Wide open it's sharp in the centre and a little soft in the corners. For portraits and people shots though it works well as corner sharpness often isn't critical, and the bokeh is really decent. It's competitive with the Min 28-135 in similar range in terms of sharpness and overall image feel, which is saying something. Though it misses that certain smooth, natural feel of the better Minolta glass. Colours are slightly yellow but can easily be tuned; I never worried about colour. Build is decent; I wanted a lightweight, plastic lens anyway. Flare control is good. CA control is very good in harsh lighting. Focus speed is good. This is admirable the more I've tried other lenses. Probably not a long-term investment, but based on my intended use, I would highly recommend this lens. On a budget, it could serve as your only lens. |
| ibarradigital#8320 date: Nov-30-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 450 usd new |
| positive: | price and sharp |
| negative: | .... |
| comment: | Perfect lens hiper sharp and versatil Realmente una buena compra comparada con el carl zeiss de 1500 dolares Hay una comparacion creo de kurtmunger donde hay fotos de los tres lentes en ese rango el sony el carl zeiss y el tamrom Por el precio que vale lo vale cada centavo |
| eLCee#8186 date: Nov-5-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 35-70/4 Sony 18-55 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | internal quality is excenllent |
| negative: | nothing important perhaps its sometimes a bit slow |
| comment: | this ended up as my most used lens. Good sharpness, no noticeable distortion, nice colours, well build for a plastic lens. the only thing that lacks is that on APS-C its not wide enough. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 92
- sharpness: 4.59
- color: 4.57
- build: 4.22
- distortion: 4.55
- flare control: 4.51
- overall: 4.49
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login