"The Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR may shine with glory on APS-C DSLRs but it has found its master within the full format scope"
Not the sort of summing up that makes you want to go out and buy the lens. But is it fair? The corners are a little poorer than the reviewed canon 24-75mm f/2.8 but you have to take into account that it was a single sample with some decentering. The canon was the best of four. Add the canon's field curvature issues and in practice even that selected sample will have questionable corners.
But what made me mad enough to write this rant was your review of the sony 24-75/2.8 It was an excellent review of a decent lens. No "met its match" there. So why trash the tamron that pulled in a better performance at a cheaper price?
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
*blink blink*
The Tamron pulled in a better performance? Really?
They are not miles apart, but in no single category I see the Tamron doing better (except bokeh). The Sony scores a bit higher on almost all measurements.
The Sony gets a 3 star rating, the Tamron a 2.5 start one.
Yes really.
The difference in stars is just not justified by the facts in the reviews. In terms of sharpness the lenses were level at f/8 but at wider apertures the tamron was a clear winner. The tamron was slightly ahead in CA and slightly behind in vignetting but nothing significant in ether. Bokeh is not measured with numbers but I defy you to look at the samples and pick a firm winner. In short the theory that underneath the plastic the tamron and sony are optical twins is certainly not disproved by these tests if you assume that the tamron was a slightly better copy.
Posts: 430
Threads: 7
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
Eventually, you overestimate the signifficance of tests (here in PZ or elsewhere)!
If you understand, how PZ places its points/stars, and what the reasons are for
a reduction of them, you'll find, that there is no fast standardzoom for FF with a
really good result. But at least, this is quite consistent through all tests.
My point is: 2.5 to 3 points/stars in PZ is not a bad value for a fast FF standard zoom.
I admit, that PZ is too picky (with wide and std lenses) ... but at least it is consistenly
too picky ... this way, its relatively easy to interpret the results.
Rainer
PS: BTW ... I use the 28-75/2.8 on a 5D occasionally ... and it a very handy and reliable
lens.
Rainer.
I can only agree. FF f/2.8 standard zooms are not the best performers. I just think the tamron was short changed even by PZ's standards - at least relative to the sony.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='Blame' timestamp='1320656511' post='12728']
Yes really.
The difference in stars is just not justified by the facts in the reviews. In terms of sharpness the lenses were level at f/8 but at wider apertures the tamron was a clear winner. The tamron was slightly ahead in CA and slightly behind in vignetting but nothing significant in ether. Bokeh is not measured with numbers but I defy you to look at the samples and pick a firm winner. In short the theory that underneath the plastic the tamron and sony are optical twins is certainly not disproved by these tests if you assume that the tamron was a slightly better copy.
[/quote]
Maybe it would help if you get the focal length numbers correct for the lenses you mean.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1320829734' post='12787']
Maybe it would help if you get the focal length numbers correct for the lenses you mean.
[/quote]
And maybe it would help if you corrected my mistake instead of leaving it for me (and anybody who also read your comment) to figure out that you actually meant not the message you quoted but my previous one.
OK. I should have said Sony 28-75/2.8 and not 24-75/2.8. My apologies to anybody who was actually confused by my mistake. You however were not, so well spotted.
None of this changes anything much. We both clearly knew what I was talking about. You challenged me on the grounds that the conclusions were consistent with the star ratings (which I admit I didn't spot, so well done again) but that just compounds the reviewers crime which is of inconsistent summation.
It would be nice if, as you seem to be interested in correcting me, you checked the full reviews and then commented on my conclusion rather than just dismissing it on a detail.
