Rangefinder Magazine
February 2005

Click Here for printable version of this article.

First Exposure: Four Tamron Zoom Lenses by John Rettie

Canon EOS-20D with Tamron 200–500mm lens set at 500mm, manual focus, 1/500 at f/6.3, ISO 100.

Given the choice, I bet most of us would like to own a luxury car from a company such as Audi, Mercedes-Benz, BMW Cadillac or Lexus. Some would even love to own an exotic car such as a Bentley, Ferrari or Porsche.

Most of us, though, end up owning less costly vehicles, which are just as effective at getting us from point A to point B, even if they are not as satisfying overall.

Is it an analogy that translates to our choices in cameras and lenses? Yes and no. At least that’s the conclusion I’ve come to after spending some time trying out lenses made by Tamron.

Like most pros using Canon gear, I have opted for the L line of lenses—top-of-the-line lenses with better glass and more rugged components. Naturally they cost a lot more than the mainstream Canon lenses, and because most of them have wider maximum apertures, they are a lot bigger and heavier.

The Tamron lenses I tried included four zoom lenses covering a wide range of focal lengths and are worthy of being considered by pro photographers:

• SP AF 17–35mm f/2.8–4.0 Di LD Aspherical (IF); approx. price: $480

• SP AF 28–75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF); approx. price: $370

• AF28–300mm f/3.5–6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF); approx. price: $400

• SP AF200–500mm f/5.0–6.3 Di LD (IF); approx. price: $880

Like so many modern lenses, the naming includes a crazy alphabet soup of acronyms. SP stands for Super Performance; AF, auto focus; Di, Digitally Integrated; LD, low dispersion elements; IF, internal focusing; and XR, extra refraction glass.

The Tamron 17–35mm zoom (left) compares favorably with the Canon model (right).	The difference in size, weight and cost between the Canon and Tamron 28–300mm lenses is amazing.	Small size and light weight make the Tamron 28–300mm zoom an ideal everyday lens.

The Di designation indicates a lens that has been optimized for use with digital cameras and contains specially designed elements that lower chromatic aberrations and increase contrast, according to Tamron. Nikon and Canon have also introduced lenses designed specifically for digital cameras, so it is obviously something that is warranted in order to obtain the maximum quality possible from any given lens. There is nothing to stop these Tamron lenses from being used with film cameras. Other companies have “digital” lenses that will not physically fit on a film camera body.

With its lens hood attached, the Tamron 200–500mm zoom is quite massive even when set at 400mm.

Traditional Tamron lenses are available with mounts for 20 or so different camera systems, but these particular high-tech auto-focus lenses only have mounts for Canon, Nikon, Minolta and Pentax cameras. Although these Tamron lenses are considerably less expensive than the equivalent L lenses, they are still expensive compared to other Tamron lenses.

As you can see from the photographs, the 17–35mm and 28–75mm lenses look similar to the equivalent Canon lenses in appearance. They feel well made and appear to work well. The speed of focusing is not as rapid, but it does not affect my shooting style.

One minor feature that is welcome is the design of the lens caps. They have center-mounted, spring-loaded tabs, so the cap can easily be put on or removed with a lens hood installed. I have experienced lenses where it is impossible to get a cap on or off with a hood installed as there is no room to get one’s fingers between the cap and the hood. Why all lens manufacturers cannot use this feature beats me.

	The quality of images obtained by the Tamron 28–300m lens should satisfy most users.

Of course nothing really matters but the quality of images obtained from these lenses. Without having lab equipment to do accurate testing, I had to rely on my own results using the lenses in the field and doing some quick side-by-side tests. As best I could tell, the Canon L lenses consistently produced crisper images when used wide open. With the aperture set to f/8, there was virtually no difference between the images obtained on each lens at different focal lengths.

In my opinion the 28–300mm zoom was the most unique lens among the ones I tested, as it is so compact and light. It’s actually slightly smaller than the 28–75mm zoom, although its maximum aperture is smaller. It takes less than one-quarter turn to zoom all the way out to 300mm, making it an ideal lens for sports action requiring rapidly changing focal lengths. Fortuitously I had the newest Canon 28–300mm f/3.5– 5.6L zoom lens on loan for some of the same period, which made for an interesting comparison. Yes, the Canon did produce sharper images, especially wide open, but there was very little difference when stopped down to f/8. The Tamron 28–300 doesn’t have the image stabilization capability of the Canon 28–300 lens, but then again it is one-fifth the price and one-quarter the weight (14.8 ounces).

One shortcoming I noticed during my testing is that neither of the 28–300 lenses appear to zoom in as fully as my old Canon 75–300 zoom lens. At the fully extended 300 setting, the Tamron is probably only reaching about 270mm even though it is marked at 300 on the barrel and the EXIF file indicates it is correctly set at 300mm.

I was unable to compare the 200– 500mm zoom, the newest lens in the Tamron range, directly with a Canon lens, as I did not have the Canon 28–300mm zoom in my possession at the time of the loan. However, I used the lens to photograph aircraft at the Reno Air Races and found it ideal, although it was too slow to follow focus aircraft traveling at 400–500mph. I ended up using manual focus most of the time, which also avoided the problem of losing focus if the aircraft moved out of frame. The lighting was dull most of the time, so the images were not as crisp as they might have been if it had been bright and sunny. This lens has a detachable filter effect ring that allows one to rotate a polarizer filter with the lens hood attached.

Admittedly, neither of these two long zoom lenses has image stabilization limiting their use in low light conditions. However, newer digital cameras are producing such good images at high ISO ratings that it’s possible to adjust the ISO rather than rely on image stabilization at slower shutter speeds.

I found myself liking the Tamron 28–300mm zoom so much I ended up purchasing it. I have since gone on several shoots with just that lens attached to my EOS-10D camera as it gives me a range equivalent to 45–480mm on a 35mm film camera. At other times I also packed my Canon 17–35mm L lens if I knew I would need some wide-angle shots. If you’re toting around a camera and lens all day, the weight can sway one’s decision, especially if you’re going to be shooting in conditions with ideal lighting.

Overall, I think it’s accurate to say there is not a tremendous difference between the best Tamron lenses when comparing like to like and under ideal lighting conditions. I’ll admit I’d love to include the Canon 28–300mm zoom in my arsenal, but I cannot justify the cost, and I know all too well that most of the time I would not want to carry it around because of its weight. In my view, the Tamron is an ideal alternative choice. As an added bonus Tamron lenses include a six-year warranty, which provides an added level of comfort. Maybe it’s fair to say Tamron is the “Hyundai” of lenses—good value, ever-improving quality and a long warranty.

John Rettie is a photojournalist who resides in Santa Barbara, CA. Readers can contact him by email at john@johnrettie.com or by snail-mail c/o Rangefinder.