# Dustin Abbott Reviews Tamron 28-300 FF



## JumboShrimp (Aug 7, 2014)

You can find it here:

http://dustinabbott.net/2014/08/tamron-28-300mm-f3-5-6-3-di-vc-pzd/


----------



## Click (Aug 8, 2014)

Thanks for the link.


----------



## 360_6pack (Aug 9, 2014)

Thanks Dustin. 
The lens appears to be what I was looking for, a compact good lens for travelling, this and a 16-35 II should be all I would need with my 5D3 for travel.
It will be interesting to see if Canon release a 28-300L II as rumoured and if so how it compares.
Michael


----------



## Arctic Photo (Aug 9, 2014)

Jumboshrimp, are you Dustin's alternate user name here?


----------



## Niterider (Aug 9, 2014)

This is the same guy that reviewed the Tamron 24-70mm. He repeatedly compared the lens to the Canon 24-70mm ii , but later admitted he had never even used the canon once. How can anyone find a reviewer credible when he makes such audacious claims!

After reading that review, I told myself I would never read another review of his. So thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 9, 2014)

360_6pack said:


> It will be interesting to see if Canon release a 28-300L II as rumoured and if so how it compares.



I think a new 28-300 from Canon is plausible, just not that it will be an L lens.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 10, 2014)

Arctic Photo said:


> Jumboshrimp, are you Dustin's alternate user name here?



No. I'm not quite sure who Jumboshrimp is, but I think it is someone connected to the site.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 10, 2014)

360_6pack said:


> Thanks Dustin.
> The lens appears to be what I was looking for, a compact good lens for travelling, this and a 16-35 II should be all I would need with my 5D3 for travel.
> It will be interesting to see if Canon release a 28-300L II as rumoured and if so how it compares.
> Michael



It's a surprisingly competent lens. I agree with whomever said that Canons replacement will probably not be a giant white lens. That doesn't really say "travel" at all. Even the color makes one more a target, while this lens (Tamron) is pretty much invisible.


----------



## surapon (Aug 10, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Jumboshrimp, are you Dustin's alternate user name here?
> ...




THANKS you , Sir Dear Mr. Dustin .
Thanks for the great review which open my eyes. One question , Sir. I have Tamron Aspherical LD IF 28-300 mm. F/ 3.5-6.3 MACRO about 12-15 years already. And Never use this Lens past 8 years, After have money to by the " L " Lenses.
In your Idea, Do you think this Old lens still useful and get the Good Photo quality for me ?
Thanks for your great job, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## Admin US West (Aug 10, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> 360_6pack said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Dustin.
> ...



Thanks for the review Dustin, I've owned both the 28=350mm L and the 28-300mm L IS. They are wonderful lenses, but heavy and the aperture only makes them suitable for at least moderately good light.

I do wonder about the even smaller aperture of this lens.

I think its great to see so many affordable new FF lenses that are ever improving in quality. This will allow more and more photographers to move from crop cameras to full frame without fear of having to spend a small fortune on new lenses. It also puts pressure on the OEM's to reduce prices and improve quality. That will happen if there continue to be more and more competitive lenses.

Nikon FF users should be very happy, since Nikon FF lenses are priced very high. They are probably feeling this more than Canon is.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Aug 13, 2014)

JumboShrimp here. No connections to anyone or anything here.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 14, 2014)

CR Backup Admin said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > 360_6pack said:
> ...



I just returned from traveling and used the 28-300 VC almost exclusively (I also carried the 35mm f/2 IS for low light situations). While the 28-300mm doesn't have the resolving power of the 35IS when compared side by side at a pixel level, I was very pleased with the overall quality of the images that I got on the trip with the 28-300VC, including this one:



Quebec City by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 14, 2014)

Thanks for the review Dustin, I've owned both the 28=350mm L and the 28-300mm L IS. They are wonderful lenses, but heavy and the aperture only makes them suitable for at least moderately good light.

I do wonder about the even smaller aperture of this lens.

I think its great to see so many affordable new FF lenses that are ever improving in quality. This will allow more and more photographers to move from crop cameras to full frame without fear of having to spend a small fortune on new lenses. It also puts pressure on the OEM's to reduce prices and improve quality. That will happen if there continue to be more and more competitive lenses.

Nikon FF users should be very happy, since Nikon FF lenses are priced very high. They are probably feeling this more than Canon is.
[/quote]

I'm not crazy about f/6.3, either, but it is also 1/3rd of a stop of light. It is rare that the 1/3rd stop makes much of a difference, and the high ISO performance of the 6D that I use it with means that I can get away with cranking ISO and still get very nice images.

I suspect that the 28-300L probably has higher resolution than this lens...but I doubt the difference is significant. This lens is surprisingly competent (I wasn't nearly as impressed with the new 16-300 VC for crop).


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 14, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I'm not crazy about f/6.3, either, but it is also 1/3rd of a stop of light. It is rare that the 1/3rd stop makes much of a difference, and the high ISO performance of the 6D that I use it with means that I can get away with cranking ISO and still get very nice images.
> 
> I suspect that the 28-300L probably has higher resolution than this lens...but I doubt the difference is significant. This lens is surprisingly competent (I wasn't nearly as impressed with the new 16-300 VC for crop).



Does f/6.3 affect AF performance when using off-center AF points?


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 14, 2014)

Dustin, thank you for another thorough and fair lens review. It sounds like it's a great match for the 6D for travel and great boardwalk shot, BTW!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 14, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not crazy about f/6.3, either, but it is also 1/3rd of a stop of light. It is rare that the 1/3rd stop makes much of a difference, and the high ISO performance of the 6D that I use it with means that I can get away with cranking ISO and still get very nice images.
> ...



It doesn't seem to on my 6D (and also on a 60D that I tested it on). I think there is some kind of trickery that makes the camera "think" it is f/5.6, and it acts accordingly. AF is actually very good on the lens, and seems accurate. Other than rather slow apertures, the only downside I've discovered is that resolution/micro-contrast isn't as good as my best lenses at higher magnification, but that's hardly a shock. I've been more surprised at how good the images actually are.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 14, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> JumboShrimp here. No connections to anyone or anything here.



Thanks for sharing. I assumed that somebody at CR had shared it. They've shared my last 3 or 4 reviews themselves.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 14, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



On the 6D, outdoors, using the center point, my 70-300L with a 1.4x extender has worked pretty much flawlessly for me even at the long end, where it is equivalent to f/8. Experimentally, at f/12, it fails reliably, but almost works (gets the focus right, but doesn't acknowledge that it did) much of the time. So I'd guess that the 6D's daylight focusing limit is somewhere just shy of f/12. I wouldn't think f/6.5 would even be a challenge for it except in fairly bad lighting conditions unless you stick a TC on it.

Out of curiosity, what does the EXIF tagging show for the f-stop? From what I've seen when working with MF lenses, I'm fairly certain the lens can't lie to the camera about its wide-open aperture, or else every shot would be underexposed by a stop. But perhaps it could get around that by lying about every setting equally. If that were the case, wide-open shots would claim to be f/5.6 at the long end, even though they really can't be.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Aug 15, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



First of all, the EXIF data is always correct. But somehow third party lenses have had a workaround that bypassed the f/5.6 maximum aperture limitation for many years. I understand that the trickery is not so much about metering as it by bypassing that limitation. Magic Lantern software also can bypass that same limitation for all lenses, so it obviously more of a software limitation than it is a physical limitation.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 15, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Out of curiosity, what does the EXIF tagging show for the f-stop? From what I've seen when working with MF lenses, I'm fairly certain the lens can't lie to the camera about its wide-open aperture, or else every shot would be underexposed by a stop. But perhaps it could get around that by lying about every setting equally. If that were the case, wide-open shots would claim to be f/5.6 at the long end, even though they really can't be.
> ...



After studying the lens protocol, I think I get it. The camera asks the lens to report its maximum aperture, but that's the maximum aperture for the whole lens, not for the current zoom setting. When the camera sends a command to fully open the lens, the lens reports the actual aperture. I'd imagine that the check to decide whether to autofocus or not is based on the maximum aperture reported by the lens, rather than the aperture that the lens reports when the camera tells it to open all the way at the beginning of focusing.

So as long as the lens says that it can open up to f/5.6 or wider, even if it really fails 100% of the time in practice, the camera will make the attempt.

With that said, I only spent about three minutes looking over the lens protocol, so I could be wrong.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 15, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...



Of course the lens 'fools' the camera to think it's f/5.6. This is similar to the 'tape trick' on 'reporting' teleconverters or using a 'non-reporting' teleconverter to AF on non- 'pro' bodies even at f/8.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 17, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



What I'm saying is that I don't think the lens is fooling the camera at all. It's just telling the truth—that it is an f/4 lens, albeit not at that particular zoom setting.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 17, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> What I'm saying is that I don't think the lens is fooling the camera at all. It's just telling the truth—that it is an f/4 lens, albeit not at that particular zoom setting.



Are you in politics by any chance? ;D


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 18, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > What I'm saying is that I don't think the lens is fooling the camera at all. It's just telling the truth—that it is an f/4 lens, albeit not at that particular zoom setting.
> ...



Ah, I see the confusion. The camera doesn't ask what the maximum aperture is at a particular zoom setting. It asks what the maximum aperture of the lens is. No lying (or even political distortion) is needed; it simply reports the answer accurately.

Later, when you actually take the picture, it says "open wide and tell me what the aperture is", at which point the camera then knows the maximum aperture for that particular zoom setting, but doesn't really care about that detail at that point.

Or at least I think that's what's happening.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Oct 27, 2015)

After much deliberation, I've put in an order for one of these because I have an upcoming holiday that has several occasions that may ask for longer focal lengths in good light - and I'm looking forward to the kind of uncomplicated convenience that my girlfriend is enjoying every time with her Panasonic G5 and 14-140mm (28-280mm FF equiv). I expect to use the Tammy at f/8 most of the time.

I'm still not totally convinced that I will be happy with the image quality, but I quess time will tell. I'm still contemplating if I will bring my 17-40L as well, or throw in my venerable Canon 24mm f/2.8 or possibly Samyang 14mm as a wide angle solution in case I find 28mm doesn't quite cut it. In any case I will save a lot of weight and bulk bringing the 28-300 instead of 24-105L + 70-300L. As usual, I'll throw in my 35mm f/2.0 or 50mm f/1.8 Mk I as well for a low light solution.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Oct 31, 2015)

After a quick real-life test yesterday, I can happily report that this lens lives up to my expectations  Thanks for the great review Dustin, it was your review that gave me the confidence to purchase this lens. 

FWIW my copy is made in China...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 1, 2015)

mrsfotografie said:


> After a quick real-life test yesterday, I can happily report that this lens lives up to my expectations  Thanks for the great review Dustin, it was your review that gave me the confidence to purchase this lens.
> 
> FWIW my copy is made in China...



Thank you. I've strongly considered adding the lens to my own kit for a travel option. I've just done another quick review for a magazine of the 16-300 VC, and I definitely prefer the overall image quality of the 28-300, particularly on the long end. As long as you have reasonable expectations, the 28-300 is a very capable lens.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 1, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > After a quick real-life test yesterday, I can happily report that this lens lives up to my expectations  Thanks for the great review Dustin, it was your review that gave me the confidence to purchase this lens.
> ...



I think it is indeed a very capable option for travel for those of us who don't pixel-peep too much, in particular if you take into account those important qualities that are often overlooked because most are concerned about sharpness. 

These qualities are the good color reproduction, lack of CA, non-distracting bokeh, flare resistance (it is really very impressively good with back lit scenes), acceptable distortion, full time manual focus, good-enough construction with weather sealing and no zoom creep, quiet and accurate AF. And very good image stabilization. I'm especially impressed with the lack of play in the dual barrel, a construction I usually avoid in any lens I purchase.

Finally, it balances exceptionally well on a 5DMkIII body without battery grip and it slips easily into my Lowepro Fastpack via the side-entry flap due to the modest size of the lens and hood.

All in all this lens is capable of taking some very nice pictures which is what counts in the end. So for the sake of portability, the sacrifices one has to make to optical quality are not too great.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Nov 1, 2015)

I am off to Kyoto, Japan in a few days to photograph their spectacular fall color, and have just finalized my gear for that trip: Canon 6D, EF 16-35/4 L IS, EF 24-105/4 L IS, and the latest Tamron 28-300 VC. I feel that I can carry this kit for most of the day without breaking my back and cover all the focal lengths and situations that may come up. Additionally, I can just carry the 6D with the 28-300 attached if I feel a bit lazy, which seems to happen more and more ... but that's another story. PS: My copy is made in Japan.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 28, 2015)

Hi Dustin

I was just reading your Tamron 28-300 VC review, and I see you have also looked at the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM and the Canon EF-M 55-200 IS. Just wondering if you have any comment on the comparative IQ of 
6D + Tamron 28-300 
M3 + 55-200 
SL1 (or whatever crop camera you have) + 55-250 STM?

At the moment I use the 6D + 70-200 4L IS as a travel telephoto, but have been thinking about whether there might be a good option which is even lighter and more portable.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 28, 2015)

jd7 said:


> Hi Dustin
> 
> I was just reading your Tamron 28-300 VC review, and I see you have also looked at the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM and the Canon EF-M 55-200 IS. Just wondering if you have any comment on the comparative IQ of
> 6D + Tamron 28-300
> ...



I don't think any of them are a bad option. The FF kit is more of a one lens solution, though. 55mm (88mm equiv) is really not very wide at all.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 31, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Dustin
> ...



Thanks very much for the feedback Dustin. I think I will have to get to a shop and try out the tamron and the other options first hand.

I seem to go around in circles looking for longer focal lens for travel. I have the 70-200 f/4L IS, which is certainly a nice lens. It's primary drawbacks (in my view) are its length and the fact it is "only" f/4. I've thought about the 135L (short enough to store vertically in a bag, wide aperture, but no IS or zoom), but decided previously - after various comments from CR members which were split fairly evenly between the two options(!) - I would end up missing the zoom in the travel context. There is the 70-300L, of course, but for some reason I just struggle to get excited about than lens. Then there are the options I have been thinking about recently. I see my 6D + 24-70 f/4 IS + 35/2 IS as the heart of my travel kit, so if I went with the Tamron (or any of the other options) I would only use it for longer focal lengths.

Anyway, I just saw a landscape pano Sporgon posted in the 135L thread, which has got me thinking about that lens again ...! Maybe I just need to stop thinking about lenses


----------

