Tamron 28-300 F/3.5-6.3 super zoom

[jgredline]

Hi folks.
As I am going through my lenses to see about getting rid of the ones I don't use, I came across this Tamron 28-300 F/3.5-6.3 super zoom...Anyway, I took it out and it's ok as far as super zooms go. NOT in the same class as the Tamron 18-250mm super zoom ''IMO''...Anyway, this lens seems to suffer from PF but I was also shooting in the very harsh middle of the day sun....Anyway, take it for whats it's worth. All n all not to bad and PF could be removed in PS pretty easily...

[PeteE]

Those are some neat photos Javier. It is hard to pick out a favorite. The one with the grapes trips my trigger. Then the humming birds etc.

[Photo-John]

I'm testing the Canon mount, VC (image-stabilized) version of that lens right now. The VC works great. It is definitely not the sharpest lens I've ever used. I love the range and the VC. But I don't think I could accept the softness. I haven't noticed any purple fringing. But I haven't looked for it yet, either. It's possible that they've improved it for chromatic abberations? How old is your lens?

[Snapac]

they are all nice, but the 2nd hummingbird is my favorite.

[jgredline]

I'm testing the Canon mount, VC (image-stabilized) version of that lens right now. The VC works great. It is definitely not the sharpest lens I've ever used. I love the range and the VC. But I don't think I could accept the softness. I haven't noticed any purple fringing. But I haven't looked for it yet, either. It's possible that they've improved it for chromatic abberations? How old is your lens?

John,
My lens is about two years old. I also have the Tamron 18-250mm that is leaps ahead of this one. I remember when I bought this 28-300 lens and thought it was way soft so I exchanged it only to find it the same. I am sure the new ones have got to be better.
I look forward to reading about your findings.

[spiraleyes]

Great pictures, Javier! I can't pick a favorite.

[Photo-John]

John,
My lens is about two years old. I also have the Tamron 18-250mm that is leaps ahead of this one. I remember when I bought this 28-300 lens and thought it was way soft so I exchanged it only to find it the same. I am sure the new ones have got to be better.
I look forward to reading about your findings.

I looked at the Tamron 28-300 F/3.5-6.3 user reviews today. It has a pretty poor rating. We didn't actually have the VC version of the lens in the reviews yet. I did a bunch of controlled testing today but haven't had time to wade through the images yet. I did brick wall tests at 28mm, 70mm, 200mm, and 300mm, at a range of apertures from the largest to f/22. And I shot comparison photos with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di, Canon 20-700 f/2.8L, and Canon 300mm f/4L. I have a lot of photos to look at. But the comparison should tell a pretty complete story. The Vibration Compensation works great. It's really impressive.

[jgredline]

I looked at the Tamron 28-300 F/3.5-6.3 user reviews today. It has a pretty poor rating. We didn't actually have the VC version of the lens in the reviews yet. I did a bunch of controlled testing today but haven't had time to wade through the images yet. I did brick wall tests at 28mm, 70mm, 200mm, and 300mm, at a range of apertures from the largest to f/22. And I shot comparison photos with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di, Canon 20-700 f/2.8L, and Canon 300mm f/4L. I have a lot of photos to look at. But the comparison should tell a pretty complete story. The Vibration Compensation works great. It's really impressive.

I too had read many of the poor reviews on this 28-300 lens ''after'' my second copy. Thinking back, I should have just returned it, but for some reason I held on to it. If I had to compare it to the new 18-250 Tamron / Pentax lens, it is not even close. The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 also kicks butt. Atleast on Pentax mounts.

[Photo-John]

The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 also kicks butt. Atleast on Pentax mounts.

The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is an awesome lens. I've had one for two or three years now (thanks, Liz!). I have it with a Canon mount. I'm sure it doesn't make any difference. It's an awesome lens. one of my conclusions about the 28-300mm is it's just too much zoom range - at least for $500. That's something I've always believed. But this lens surely backs up that theory. An exception would be the Canon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS lens. But it costs $2500! They're not really in the same class.