The Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II

[aparmley]

I can't figure it out. . . Just as soon as I make a conclusion about this lens, I get results that force me to totally reconsider. . .

Here are two sample images from each lens, Canon 28-105 and the Tamron 28-75. They were taken from about 6 feet from the subject and both shot wide open at 75mm. . .

First the Tamron 75mm f 2.8
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/90126210-L.jpg

Canon 75mm f4.0
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/90126211-L.jpg

about a 67% crop of both

First the Tamron
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/90126212-L.jpg

Now the Canon
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/90126202-L.jpg

Absolutely no sharpening has been done to these - slight levels adjustment is all. Tripod used + wired shutter release cable. . .

:confused:

Real world shots cause me to example test images here. . . those of you who have been around long enough may have remembered a few portraits I've used this lens come out OOF/soft what have you. . . Certainly wide open isn't the Canon's strong point - but as you can tell, wide open on the Tamron isn't perfect but its certainly very acceptable. . . Thats what I'm really after. . . So maybe its a little clearer now why I own the Canon and yet don't really recommend it very enthusiastically.

[JMWallace]

Hey Andy, I noticed you shot the Tam at 2.8 and Canon at 4.0. I'd be curious to see 4.0 to 4.0 (even though the 28-105 is strongest at 8.0).

JMW

[cwphoto]

I reckon you have to stop testing Mate - this is gonna send you round the bend.:confused:

[coldrain]

It is not a shock that the Tamron is sharper, it is known for its sharpness. That would not be the reason to recommend an Ef 28-105 f3.5-4.5. Its colour performance and AF performance in lower light will though, as does its price.

[Vich]

First thing I noticed was poor contrast. It's like you slid the contrast slider the wrong way.

Coldy; I'd bank on that Tammy at least matching that Canon in low light AF. The color looks nearly identical to me (weak on both). If he adjusted levels, it's not really a great test for that though.

However in real world, you probably wouldn't be shooting in this kind of dimness.

Sure kills the nightime boredom though, hua?

[aparmley]

When people talk about low light shooting there will always be misunderstandings because the only way I can think to fully understand what you mean by low light and what I mean by low light is to make a standard. . .is low light ISO 800, F2.8 ~ 1/100 or is low light ISO 1600, F1.4 ~ 1/50. The later is my low light and The canon hunts in that kind of lighting as do most lenses. Color rendetion makes absolutely no difference as I correct WB. I can say that whatever difference there was between the two in terms of color rendtion was not noticed by me and I have yet to see any images out of the Tamron that make me think it produces different colors than any of my canon primes or this 28-105.

Christian - Its not about going mad over these things, but rather discovering what the problem is - I think I have figured it out once and for all - my copy just can't be used 5.6 and below. With all the recommendations for this lens lately and I've just kinda been sitting back not saying yay or nay. . . It just feels wrong. And its good to know its not me - put the tamron on my body and if I shoot wide open I get acceptable results - put the canon on my body and if I shoot at or near wide open - crap. Good glad I got that figure out. . . Its not me - I'm not the moron, this time ;) . You see the web and these forums can make you think all sorts of things and make you doubt many things and lead you to believe lots of things. . . Its just kinda shocking when your experience differs so much for other people who speak as if they know when cleary they don't - makes you wonder you know. For example - Forums and people on them have made me believe the following:

Tamron 28-75 F2.8
unusable wide open - FALSE
Poor color rendition - FALSE
extremely noisy AF - FALSE

JMW - there really isn't any point of posting an F4 shot from the tamron is there? it will be much sharper than the 2.8 shot and the 2.8 shot makes the canon look like doggy poo already.

First thing I noticed was poor contrast. It's like you slid the contrast slider the wrong way.
If you are talking about the Canon shot - this is par for the course with that lens! ;)

[Vich]

If you are talking about the Canon shot - this is par for the course with that lens! ;)
Actually; I think it's my laptop monitor. At work now, it looks a lot better. It just seemed pale and milky (both of them). Not really bad, just not stellar. And I couldn't see any difference, they both had it.

However; shooting those pale colors in dim lighting may get those results on any lens. Shooting nice sharp black tux and pearl-white dress in night light, with proper color settings, and more complete "all around" lighting, and I think a good lens (like that Tamron) would do just fine. Or a nice red flower, even better. Seemed more of a lighting issue then the lens.

Thanks for the testing! Regarding that Canon, I've only been regergetating what I've heard about it. That it's surprisingly good but has minor failings below f5.6 and has a sweet spot on it's zoom range too (don't remember where it is). The sample you posted here shows more than minor failings at f4.0, and I would concur with the "crap" rating. :D

[JMWallace]

there really isn't any point of posting an F4 shot from the tamron is there? it will be much sharper than the 2.8 shot and the 2.8 shot makes the canon look like doggy poo already.

Remember, just because my # of posts puts me as "senior" member in title, I am barely a toddler in the learning cycle.

My presumption was that you were testing wide open vs. wide open. But, I began thinking, if wide open on one is 2.8 and the other is 4.0 does that really make it a fair test or just an example/sample of 2.8 vs. 4.0? In my exteremly amateur understanding, I would expect the 2.8 to be better in that it is going to let more light in thereby giving a more crisp shot. So then I wondered, setting for setting, all things being equal, what would the result be.

:confused:

Wait....


wait....

CLICK - :D

BUT, considering that most lenses optimal setting are about 2 stops down from wide open and the Tamron is looking good at 2.8 vs. the Canon...I guess your right...no need.

THERE - I just talked myself through it....no one needs to explain this one to me.

<<<< Toddler is getting more sure-footed>>>> Where's my blanky!! I need a nap now.

JMW

[aparmley]

Remember, just because my # of posts puts me as "senior" member in title, I am barely a toddler in the learning cycle.

My presumption was that you were testing wide open vs. wide open. But, I began thinking, if wide open on one is 2.8 and the other is 4.0 does that really make it a fair test or just an example/sample of 2.8 vs. 4.0? In my exteremly amateur understanding, I would expect the 2.8 to be better in that it is going to let more light in thereby giving a more crisp shot. So then I wondered, setting for setting, all things being equal, what would the result be.

:confused:

Wait....


wait....

CLICK - :D

BUT, considering that most lenses optimal setting are about 2 stops down from wide open and the Tamron is looking good at 2.8 vs. the Canon...I guess your right...no need.

THERE - I just talked myself through it....no one needs to explain this one to me.

<<<< Toddler is getting more sure-footed>>>> Where's my blanky!! I need a nap now.

JMW

I was a little short with you sorry about that - My point was this. . .If I did a head to head on aperture F4 on both, We'd get a few people pointing out that its wide open for the Canon but stopped down for the Tamy - "Ofcourse the tamy is going to perform better." I wanted to prevent that by using the lens as I most likely would - I tend to need to grab all the avaliable light I can and shoot as wide open as possible so this is a fair test in my eyes - I used them both wide open as I know I will and I know that I have.

Vich - the only sweet spot I've been able to find is about 30-85mm F6.3 - F11.0. The lens focuses fast in good light and very quiet [USM] its wonderful. It performs great in the range I've outlined previously. It just doesn't cut it for me. . .

Heres where the rubber meets the pavement for me - 1 thousand people can say this lens will AF better than the Tamy in low light - thats fine and dandy. But heres the rub, you'll be at F5.6-6.3, in low light. . . you'll need a flash and that just torched any AF differences on general principle. I know Jamie used this lens and got rid of it for reasons I can't recall - I want to say its poor AF in low light and miscommunication with external flash. I've not found where this tamy hunts any sooner than this canon.

Vich - I don't see where poor lightening plays a roll in my shots. . . if F2.8 [ISO 400] at 1/1000 and F2.8 [ISO 400] at 1/125 . . . gets you the same exposure :confused: Where does poor light fit into the picture. . . I'm have to assume either you mean it has some adverse effect on image quality or on AF. . . I just don't know which one you think is relevant here. . . I'll be the first to say this isn't the best light in the world in here, but I am failing to understand why thats going to be relevant in the comparison between the Tamron and Canon here - they both shot in the same light and one performed better - but I will do my best to run these two through various tests because I'm still curious. . .

Don was asking me about comparisons between these two. . . I wanted to get something up and I wanted to get started. . I've been putting it off for a while. . .

I'll do straight up Color tests for Coldy so we can see what he sees . . . I've stated I can't recall seeing anything that makes me think theres any color difference, but that doesn't mean its not there, maybe you just have to look for it. . . IDK . . .

Christian might think I'm mental, but I want an intimate knowledge of my lens'. I've used the Canon in real world situations and have been disappointed. I'll be using my Tamron to take photos of my GF's family and niece and nephew this week at a get together so I'm anxious to see how the Tamron performs as I intend to use it - to photograph our lives. The testing really takes on meaning in that If I don't do testing I'll always wonder . . . was it really just me or was it the lens. . . If I can control as many variables as possible and do some comparisons the results will help me sleep at night and I suppose thats mental to some. . . but if it helps me make a decision and it proves to be meaniful to someone else then I suppose all has not been lost - hold off with that straight jacket for a little while at least. :D

This was big reason I wanted to get into this all:

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/89964621-L.jpg

When I have some curtain climbers I want be able to capture their youth to the best of my ability. . . The above image is of Colt, my GFs nephew - 6mos [XT + 85 1.8] - He won't become as infamous as Kyle. . . but I do enjoy being there to photograph him as I can. . .

[aparmley]

Remember, just because my # of posts puts me as "senior" member in title, I am barely a toddler in the learning cycle.

My presumption was that you were testing wide open vs. wide open. But, I began thinking, if wide open on one is 2.8 and the other is 4.0 does that really make it a fair test or just an example/sample of 2.8 vs. 4.0? In my exteremly amateur understanding, I would expect the 2.8 to be better in that it is going to let more light in thereby giving a more crisp shot. So then I wondered, setting for setting, all things being equal, what would the result be.

:confused:

Wait....


wait....

CLICK - :D

BUT, considering that most lenses optimal setting are about 2 stops down from wide open and the Tamron is looking good at 2.8 vs. the Canon...I guess your right...no need.

THERE - I just talked myself through it....no one needs to explain this one to me.

<<<< Toddler is getting more sure-footed>>>> Where's my blanky!! I need a nap now.

JMW

I was a little short with you sorry about that - My point was this. . .If I did a head to head on aperture F4 on both, We'd get a few people pointing out that its wide open for the Canon but stopped down for the Tamy - "Ofcourse the tamy is going to perform better." I wanted to prevent that by using the lens as I most likely would - I tend to need to grab all the avaliable light I can and shoot as wide open as possible so this is a fair test in my eyes - I used them both wide open as I know I will and I know that I have.

Vich - the only sweet spot I've been able to find is about 30-85mm F6.3 - F11.0. The lens focuses fast in good light and very quiet [USM] its wonderful. It performs great in the range I've outlined previously. It just doesn't cut it for me. . .

Heres where the rubber meets the pavement for me - 1 thousand people can say this lens will AF better than the Tamy in low light - thats fine and dandy. But heres the rub, you'll be at F5.6-6.3, in low light. . . you'll need a flash and that just torched any AF differences on general principle. I know Jamie used this lens and got rid of it for reasons I can't recall - I want to say its poor AF in low light and miscommunication with external flash. I've not found where this tamy hunts any sooner than this canon.

Vich - I don't see where poor lightening plays a roll in my shots. . . if F2.8 [ISO 400] at 1/1000 and F2.8 [ISO 400] at 1/125 . . . gets you the same exposure :confused: Where does poor light fit into the picture. . . I'm have to assume either you mean it has some adverse effect on image quality or on AF. . . I just don't know which one you think is relevant here. . . I'll be the first to say this isn't the best light in the world in here, but I am failing to understand why thats going to be relevant in the comparison between the Tamron and Canon here - they both shot in the same light and one performed better - but I will do my best to run these two through various tests because I'm still curious. . .

Don was asking me about comparisons between these two. . . I wanted to get something up and I wanted to get started. . I've been putting it off for a while. . .

I'll do straight up Color tests for Coldy so we can see what he sees . . . I've stated I can't recall seeing anything that makes me think theres any color difference, but that doesn't mean its not there, maybe you just have to look for it. . . IDK . . .

Christian might think I'm mental, but I want an intimate knowledge of my lens'. I've used the Canon in real world situations and have been disappointed. I'll be using my Tamron to take photos of my GF's family and niece and nephew this week at a get together so I'm anxious to see how the Tamron performs as I intend to use it - to photograph our lives. The testing really takes on meaning in that If I don't do testing I'll always wonder . . . was it really just me or was it the lens. . . If I can control as many variables as possible and do some comparisons the results will help me sleep at night and I suppose thats mental to some. . . but if it helps me make a decision and it proves to be meaniful to someone else then I suppose all has not been lost - hold off with that straight jacket for a little while at least. :D

This was big reason I wanted to get into this all:

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/89964621-L.jpg

When I have some curtain climbers I want be able to capture their youth to the best of my ability. . . The above image is of Colt, my GFs nephew - 6mos [XT + 85 1.8] - He won't become as infamous as Kyle. . . but I do enjoy being there to photograph him as I can. . .

[Vich]

A.: Nice capture! Apron a little blown, but even so a really great kid shot. Nice angle!

I was able to use the Tamy pretty well on kids except when they run towards or away from me. 3 and 4 year olds love the game of "catch me if you can" and very fast AF becomes critical. I can show you 2 - 300 very in-focus running shots, and probably 2,000 slightly OOF running shots, then maybe 800 very OOF running shots, so it usually did pretty well. When I got a good USM lens, I became very impressed that instead of .5 seconds, it got there in .2 seconds (I'm guessing on these times, but as fast as the Tamy is, my 24-105 and 50f1.4 are much faster).

It's a very nice kid lens.

Also; for the 1st 4 or 5 months, they can't even roll over, much less run at you. The Tamy is fast enough to catch a "yikes, baby's tipping over again!". :eek:

[aparmley]

A.: Nice capture! Apron a little blown, but even so a really great kid shot. Nice angle!

I was able to use the Tamy pretty well on kids except when they run towards or away from me. 3 and 4 year olds love the game of "catch me if you can" and very fast AF becomes critical. I can show you 2 - 300 very in-focus running shots, and probably 2,000 slightly OOF running shots, then maybe 800 very OOF running shots, so it usually did pretty well. When I got a good USM lens, I became very impressed that instead of .5 seconds, it got there in .2 seconds (I'm guessing on these times, but as fast as the Tamy is, my 24-105 and 50f1.4 are much faster).

It's a very nice kid lens.

Also; for the 1st 4 or 5 months, they can't even roll over, much less run at you. The Tamy is fast enough to catch a "yikes, baby's tipping over again!". :eek:


Thanks vich . . . I suppose flash was the order of the day that afternoon. None the less I made compromises, blowing some whites to bring up the eyes a little and I'm pretty happy with those images.

[cwphoto]

Christian might think I'm mental, but I want an intimate knowledge of my lens'.

Nah I don't think your mental (OK, maybe just a little), I've just seen you doing a fair bit of the sharpness testing over the last few months - and to be honest I've seen some contradictory results - which can be really frustrating (especially for you - it's entertainment for us!:D ). I don't have any answers.:(

Hey, did I hear you were getting married?

Who's lobbying for the pictures? Hmmmm, tough job - Jamie, are you game? He's a tough marker.:p :D

[aparmley]

Nah I don't think your mental (OK, maybe just a little), I've just seen you doing a fair bit of the sharpness testing over the last few months - and to be honest I've seen some contradictory results - which can be really frustrating (especially for you - it's entertainment for us!:D ). I don't have any answers.:(

Hey, did I hear you were getting married?

Who's lobbying for the pictures? Hmmmm, tough job - Jamie, are you game? He's a tough marker.:p :D

We all have to be a little mental. . .

Ya . . . its unoffical still but its gonna happen shortly. . . [the engagement that is. . .hell she could say no LOL]. . .

Contradictory results. . . I think that was curtousy of the XT. . . I haven't done many by way of the 30D.

[JMWallace]

We all have to be a little mental. . .

Ya . . . its unoffical still but its gonna happen shortly. . . [the engagement that is. . .hell she could say no LOL]. . .

Well, hopefully she doesn't know you spend time here and look it up:eek: and .....cats out of the bag!!!!

JMW

[aparmley]

Well, hopefully she doesn't know you spend time here and look it up:eek: and .....cats out of the bag!!!!

JMW

Cats already out of the bag. . .she knows where I stand and that I'm getting my finances in order to purchase a ring. . .

[24Peter]

Cats already out of the bag. . .she knows where I stand and that I'm getting my finances in order to purchase a ring. . .
Congrats Andy! Will Cooper be in the ceremony with you guys? :)

[24Peter]

Oh - and as you know I love my 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II. It's my most used lens. I had the Tamron 28-75 and finally got a refund from Tamron. Darn thing was soft/OOF at f4 or below.

[aparmley]

Oh - and as you know I love my 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II. It's my most used lens. I had the Tamron 28-75 and finally got a refund from Tamron. Darn thing was soft/OOF at f4 or below.

I know you use/and love your version - I know Jamie feels nearly the same as you with his. . . I'm considering send it in for calibration if my girlfriend is interesting in picking up the hobby with me. . .

I think I'm gonna put the XT, BG-E3, 50 1.8, 28-105 back in their boxes, set them on the kitchen table and tell my girlfriend - If you are interested here is a decent starter kit, you'll out grow it, but its a good system to learn on. . . and see if shes interested. . . It would certainly free up time for shooting as we could spend time shooting instead of spending time finding ways to entertain ourselves. . .

if she bites I'll send it for a once over. . . who knows what that will result in??

I've got some color samples I'm up loading now. . .

Thanks for the congrats Pete - although as I stated before, it may be premature. . LOL . . .

Cooper most likely won't make it to the ceremony unfortunately. . . He has already stated he wants a privacy fence even though I've told him a thousand times thats not a normal wedding present. He's persistent - gotta love it. ;)

[aparmley]

Here ya go Coldy [I'm drinking a coldy mmmmmm]

Oye mate fancy a pint?

The best color I had available to me. . .Focus doesn't matter but I focused on the Large Black E in Exposure on the front of that book. . .

Images are straight RAWs converted to JPEG, saved for web 60%. Thats it.

Canon:
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/90317373-L.jpg

Tamron:
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/90317297-L.jpg

Crops:
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/90317578-L.jpg

I'll call the color difference so slight its not worth mentioning. :D

the background cubicle like wall, the Tamron did reproduce that more accurately, in the canon shot its more grey and in reality it looks more like the color reproduced by the Tamy.

so there you have it untouched RAWs converted straight to JPEGs absolutely untouched and as close to RAW as they come. . . "You make the call!" [Who of you are old enough to remember the "you make the call" commercials during televised sporting events??]

[aparmley]

Seriously? This isn't as important as the new lenses and XTi ? :cool:

Silly kids. :rolleyes:

[cdifoto]

They pretty much look the same to me.

[DonSchap]

The first thing I do when I get may hands on a new lens is crank that aperture to full on... widest setting and we do a close up. Then, we back off and get a ten-footer.

Yes, my TAmROn SP AF28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD came in soft... and I had it corrected... nicely, I might add.

When I got the TAmROn SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR DiII LD, I figured I may have the same issue... but it was razor.

Like the all of the lenses seem to be, today, it's hit or miss. I'm not sure why this is happening, but it is. Canon seems to suffer no less, as I sent the EF 28mm f/2.8 off to get it adjusted and it came back in great shape. Yeah, I'm $90 lighter for it, but it works... and that's the important thing.

I suspect, if you send the Canon EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II off to be corrected, you'll get back a much sharper lens. I say give them a chance to "tune it up" and hopefully, you'll get that focus you desire. Worse that can happen... it comes back the same. None of mine have, yet. As you have witnessed, they all have been improved. :D

Just say goodbye to it for a couple weeks and you'll probably have what you desire... at f/4

Good luck :)

[ReF]

When people talk about low light shooting there will always be misunderstandings because the only way I can think to fully understand what you mean by low light and what I mean by low light is to make a standard. . .is low light ISO 800, F2.8 ~ 1/100 or is low light ISO 1600, F1.4 ~ 1/50. The later is my low light and The canon hunts in that kind of lighting as do most lenses. Color rendetion makes absolutely no difference as I correct WB. I can say that whatever difference there was between the two in terms of color rendtion was not noticed by me and I have yet to see any images out of the Tamron that make me think it produces different colors than any of my canon primes or this 28-105.

Christian - Its not about going mad over these things, but rather discovering what the problem is - I think I have figured it out once and for all - my copy just can't be used 5.6 and below. With all the recommendations for this lens lately and I've just kinda been sitting back not saying yay or nay. . . It just feels wrong. And its good to know its not me - put the tamron on my body and if I shoot wide open I get acceptable results - put the canon on my body and if I shoot at or near wide open - crap. Good glad I got that figure out. . . Its not me - I'm not the moron, this time ;) . You see the web and these forums can make you think all sorts of things and make you doubt many things and lead you to believe lots of things. . . Its just kinda shocking when your experience differs so much for other people who speak as if they know when cleary they don't - makes you wonder you know. For example - Forums and people on them have made me believe the following:

Tamron 28-75 F2.8
unusable wide open - FALSE
Poor color rendition - FALSE
extremely noisy AF - FALSE

If you are talking about the Canon shot - this is par for the course with that lens! ;)

good for you for being skeptical about what you hear. a lot of complaints seem to come from people who don't have any hands on experience with the products at all. i've been following threads about a certain product elsewhere and people were either clearly making things up or just repeating other people's complaints in one-line posts (real owners of a $2000 product would likely have more to say than that). your samples do look a bit soft (though better than the 28-135), but jamie's sample pics look great...:confused:
if that 28-75 works for you then great - you just saved a crapload of $$$ and time looking for a suitable product. although i might suggest sticking to the sample you have now if you decide you want this lens, since all the regular posters here who bought one seemed to have had problems with it

the color difference you hear of is what you see in the gray from those books shots you took. very slight and unnoticeable unless comparing tests. to me the sigmas and tamrons are actually more accurate and the canons have a slight blue cast (i think i said this in an old post). i think the whole thing just gets turned around as the 3rd party stuff having a "yellow cast" and then blown out of proportion.

BTW i don't think you're nuts for doing all these tests. i do them with new lenses too, to know what the limits are, and the differences are between lenses.

[aparmley]

good for you for being skeptical about what you hear. a lot of complaints seem to come from people who don't have any hands on experience with the products at all. i've been following threads about a certain product elsewhere and people were either clearly making things up or just repeating other people's complaints in one-line posts (real owners of a $2000 product would likely have more to say than that). your samples do look a bit soft (though better than the 28-135), but jamie's sample pics look great...:confused:
if that 28-75 works for you then great - you just saved a crapload of $$$ and time looking for a suitable product. although i might suggest sticking to the sample you have now if you decide you want this lens, since all the regular posters here who bought one seemed to have had problems with it

the color difference you hear of is what you see in the gray from those books shots you took. very slight and unnoticeable unless comparing tests. to me the sigmas and tamrons are actually more accurate and the canons have a slight blue cast (i think i said this in an old post). i think the whole thing just gets turned around as the 3rd party stuff having a "yellow cast" and then blown out of proportion.

BTW i don't think you're nuts for doing all these tests. i do them with new lenses too, to know what the limits are, and the differences are between lenses.

This is what I've found and I concur - Canons are cooler and the tamron is a little warmer than the canon - but appears to be more accurate to my eye - neither result should have any bearing on any discussion of possible purchase, it is irrelevant IMHO.

Thanks for weighing in ReF

[Vich]

First off; I mentioned it once, but (premature) CONGRADS. Sure you have some dashingly romantic scheme all planned out for the proposal. Hope you get to capture it, or at least her reaction. Buddy in the bushes, wireless remote, etc. Hey, maybe even a series of replication shots!

This is what I've found and I concur - Canons are cooler and the tamron is a little warmer than the canon - but appears to be more accurate to my eye - neither result should have any bearing on any discussion of possible purchase, it is irrelevant IMHO.

Thanks for weighing in ReF
It's really funny you should say that.

In February, on an outing I forced myself to use the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and the Canon 24-105 f4.0L, I took an EXPO-Disc reading by pointing the Tamron at the sun and snapping. 10 minutes later I pointed the Canon at the sun, attached the Expodisc and snapped.

When I got home, the difference was the Tamron being, as I recall, about 800 degrees warmer! I shrugged it off to some error or fluke. Never repeated it (for shame). This can certianly happen if you take a reading pointing away from the light source (the Sun) and I have repeated this test (same lens, Expodisc attached, pointed different directions). The instructions say to point directly at the light source.

Same thing can happend if your gray card or white reference is in the shade or not. However; having a difference between lenses does seem a little odd.

Andy, since you love to test lenses, maybe pit one of your primes against the Tamron for a color test. Ummm, if you feel like it that is. :)

[coldrain]

Noyt all lenses of the same manufacturer are the same in the colour and contrast they produce. Take the 17-85 EFS for instance, it has NOTHING in common to a 70-200 f4 L or a EF 85 f1.8.

I have not heard of colour casts of Tamrons though, but of Sigmas. And my Sigma definitely is VERY warm/yellow. Nothing to do with Canon lenses being blue. I will post some examples to show the difference between my Canon 70-200 and Tamron 90mm compared to my Sigma 18-50 to show just how big the colour cast is.

The whole colour issue in this thread was caused by me saying that the colour and contrast of the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 is very good, especially for the price.
I did not say anything about the 28-75 Tamron...

And that Andy doesn't/does/doen't/does/doesn't like his copy of the 28-105 is very interesting, but he has to realize that his copy does not reflect how every 28-105mm is performing and is appreciated (see this thread for 2 owners who are very impressed with it). And when you look at what Peter does with his 28-105, you may understand why I am impressed by this $220 lens.

Very nice to see photos in indoor low light of hardrives and book covers, but that does not always capture that certain something that makes a lens have that certain something extra that is hard to grasp.

And also, I am not negative about the 28-75 tammy. I used to be very impressed with it 1.5 years ago, infact I am to blame Rhys ended up with the 28-75 and 17-35 Tammies :eek:. But since numerous people on here have told about problems with focussing with flash, and focussing in low light, and inaccurate focus on 350D's (and I think even 20D's) I skip it in my recommendations, but if you want the sharpest lens on the block, go for it.

Have I seen any photos posted of the Tammy that make me go "wow"? No.. why that is I have no idea, maybe the good photographers just go for other lenses :D ;)

[noyjimi]

Andy,

Thanks for sharing the results. Looks like that Tammy copy's pretty good. I might get a copy and put it through a low light workout. I'm curious as to how well it works with the AF assist on my Metzes.

-noyjimi