I really like your weird lens reviews. They add spice to your channel and a little historical perspective on lens technology which I find very interesting. Keep up the good work.
This has been my go-to lens since I bought it in 1999. I shoot full frame 35mm with a Canon Rebel G. Of all the lenses I own, the wide aperture and long zoom range make it worth the few minor deficiencies.
I got this lens for about €150 not too long ago, which is a steal. Initially intended to (possibly) use it on a Canon C200 for television items. But it's pretty much unusable for that. Way too soft, no full time manual focussing, loud auto-focus, weird ergonomics. So after not being used for years, I now almost constantly have it on a Canon EOS 620 film camera from the 80's. When used on film this lens is amazing. The range, bright aperture, flares, vignette, all work well when you're going for that nostalgic film look. Also, Chris, you forgot to mention the best feature of this lens: pull back on the zoom ring and it'll snap into "Anti Slip Mode". Probably initially meant to stop the lens from extending under gravity. But currently it does absolutely nothing whatsoever. The click with which it snaps into place is satisfying though. So at least it has that going for it.
the retro 90s like quality in the photo look nostalgic. That's the advantage to these lens to brink back a sense of nostalgia and character to the picture as it ages.
This describes my Canon EF 28-105mm too. Released in the 90s, cheap, virtually unknown to Google or TH-cam, too soft wide open, distorted, but a lot of fun.
I actually love the flares and the image quality (the latter to an extent only), and I think it would be a lovely lens for video. But I'm skeptical about the focus throw on this lens - too short of a throw is not very useful.
Update to my last post. I bought the Canon 24-105mm f/4L lens finally on Ebay for $550 used in mint condition. I will tell you this lens is awsome. Shots were super crisp focus and at f/4 bokeh is very nice. I shot more pics of the child in my last post and got many portraits. This lens may be a kit lens for FF cameras but it is worth having. I'm still having a hard time deciding on selling the Tamron, but it did very well in concert photography.
there are 3 versions of this lens, 176D, 176A (adaptall) and 276D, the lens in this video is the 176D, I just bought the 276D for just a little over $100 on ebay and had similar results, however after fine tuning the focus I've found it to be quite sharp even wide open, not sure about the corners yet as I've only photographed people, but I'm quite impressed with it on my D750, looking forward to using it for some landscapes when the weather improves some
@@Marshallchandra the 276D is one of my favorite lenses, the focal range is very useful, I use it on my D750 and my N4004, I use it for Landscape, Portrait and Macro, the bokeh almost has a painting look to it, CA can be a pain though. Tamrons quality control was hit and miss back in the day and I had to adjust it for the D750, no issues with the N4004 though
@@colorist-idealist not so much adjusting the sharpness as much as adjusting the point of focus, older lenses will sometimes need to be adjusted in camera due to issues with back or front focusing, you would need to have the ability to fine tune or micro adjust the lens in camera and not all cameras can do that
@@DarqueSoul Thanks for the answer. I thought that the adjustment is inside with screws. I use it on Sigma fp in video mode and it has a pretty strong soft effect.
I bought this for my Nikon when amateur photographer was positive about it in a review, then another magazine, cant remember which, said it was pretty dreadful. I was so upset I wrote a letter of complaint to AP, never did get a reply. Still, water under the bridge. I did enjoy shooting with it.
As a couple other people said similarly, looks like it could still be sharp enough for most types of film and so fun on an older body for the right price (under 200$).
I knew a guy who was an insurance investigator and he used this lens with a Fujifilm S2 and he loved it. I borrowed it once a few years later and used it with my Nikon D80 (10mp) and hated it, nothing was sharp wide open and it's heavy. It seems the more megapixels the softer it gets.
The 50mm f/2.8 shot shows softness in the window frames, but the bottom and right side are much softer than the top and left side. This could indicate a centering problem with this copy of the lens. So another copy may be better. Also, if you use the same image for judging both center and corner sharpness, if the lens has curvature of the focus plane, this will make the corners look softer than the lens is capable of, especially when using a big aperture. A separate shot, refocused for the corners, would be better (this may be an issue in your other videos too).
Hi, I recently purchased this lens with a nikon mount. Please do you have any idea the type of adapter i can use to make lens work on a canon body. Did you think i would have problems with Aperture ans focus control ? thanks
Thank you very much for the review. I've heard there is a newer version of this lens, 276D (yours is 176D, I think). Do you know if that one performs a bit better in terms of softness and AF?
@@christopherfrost Great review! Since this video have you had the chance to test out the 276D version? I have the opportunity to choose from both versions in mint condition for about 30 bucks difference. If they perform identically I prefer to go for the older model for the nostalgia! There's still nothing out there quite like it today.
Before I did any research on this lens I got this lens on Ebay for under $300 thinking wow an f/2.8 for crazy cheap. Well depending on what your using it for I'm a little disappointed in it. I have the model without the Tamron logo on the barrel. I used it with the Canon 6D for landscapes, portraits, concerts, pics look great. This lens could not keep up with a 1 yr old child at a jungle gym in a park. I chased this kid in circles trying to predict all her movements so I could get great angles, but she moved so fast the lens was slow as a turtle on focus speed. Could not lock focus, even changed setting to AL SERVO for movement. I shot at least 50 to get 2 or 3 descent pics from it and yes the pics look soft and has vignetting. I don't think I will use this lens in the future for a job for a family. I'm going to save penny's for a Canon 24-105mm f/4L.
i did research this lens a long time ago i find the same results as you have..however Tamron did do an earlier version that was 35mm to 105 and much sharper but its less common than this lens ...
i have this lens, except the zoom ring has ridges on it instead of Tamron logos for grip. There's two different models of this one. And it is discontinued because at 2.8, it's too soft, whereas the recent 28-75mm 2.8 is very sharp at the same aperture. Also, is mine even rarer that it's in Sony A-Mount?
Even though you knocked it a lot, I think I'll probably buy one if I can get a good deal on it, it would be a bit of a fix to my 24-105 for when I need a bit more speed.
I have this lens. I got it with a Nikon 90s decades ago. Can it be adapted to use with my Canon DSLR 2000D? It weighs over a pound, like a pound and a quarter.
*How good is this lens for strictly video? resolution, i just wanted to see if it can hold up to 4k* Bernardus Bagus I want a remake too. even if they change nothing else other than autofocus motor and build quality.
Often photographers consider old lenses as poor lenses but I have a few old lenses that are fantastic, the best I have is the Canon 100-300 5.6L, no stabilisation, relatively slow and also quite ugly and very old design but it'd compete without shame with today's "L" Canon lenses, its only drawback is the lack of IS, I'm not an IS fanatic but on a 300mm 5.6, it's a huge improvement. I still use this lens for 2 reasons, 1st it's optical quality and 2 it's weight , especially compared to the 300mm f4L.
Hello Chris, I think we're all waiting for you to review the Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM so we can use your grid to create a lens profile for Adobe Camera Raw.
''The image quality may be bad...'' This is a joke right?! This lens literally rivals Leica and Zeiss in image quality. Sharpness and distortion aside, this lens produces about the same images (even color) as Leicas 1.4/50 Summilux. If you don't zoom in 9 billion percent into the image and know how to press the correct distortion and CA button in Lightroom/Photoshop, then this lens is basically a cheaper version of the 1.4/50 Summilux PLUS the versatility of having 24-105mm focal range.
Just came across this lens earlier today. Is this lens worth £33.7 mint? (I am using the currency on 3/15/2017) I am looking for a lens that is capable of heavy flaring.
For under $200 is it worth it? I want something wide for me 5DII. Any of the good primes are way more money. I think if I can get this Tamron for $150 I'd be willing to give it a try.
GAHHH why can't canon release a 24-105 f/2.8 IS? We need to marry stabilisation with that sweet, sweet focal range and SWEET, SWEET 1-stop-more-light 2.8!!!
I used it on my D3200 and my d90 with very soft results not workable at all. I couldn't get much sharpness in any of my photos. Is there anything I could do to change this?
The Nikon version was screw drive and requires a focus motor in the camera. This lens was discontinued in 2003 before Nikon really started making AF bodies that require an AF-S lens.
That's a rare one! I've never handled it. It's actually f/2.8-f/4, so it's not a constant aperture lens. I'm sure it's okay though, if you can find one, give it a try.
tankpigSTS Hehe cool. I think I saw you bidding for it when I gave it a quick check on eBay. If you lend it to me for a few days I'll do a review if you like, hehe...it sounds interesting :-)
This lens can't be all that bad - just looked on ebay and you can only get them for around 200 pounds. Not cheap. Maybe they've aquired collector status or something.
Thanks for this very great test ! I like your tests all the time. I have two of this copy on both nikon and canon, and the canon version work much worse than the nikon one. On nikon bodies it focus much faster than on canon, and focus accuracy also much better. After using hundreds of lens accross brands, it is a common sens that the canon system has the least compatibility to third party lenses especially for the old film days ones according to the focus shift situation are often seen. In short, I really love this lens for it give you artistic bokeh and very good sharpness in center area after step down to f4, and can close up to 50 cm. When wide open it is not sharp but can create dreamy art effect like soft focus lens. The elements of the glass is superb, and body well assembled. What can you ask more for it for $300 usd used. The test result from you may be caused by focus accuracy which it performs much better on nikon mount. By the way, I also found some field curvature effect which explains your test about the edge performance. Considering it is made by much older technology, we should value it with another aspect of view. It's one with much fun with great CP value just as you said. The only thing I don't like is the distortion, but it can do soft focus, close up, portrait, and also landscape. What can you ask more??
Too bad the optical quality and AF is so poor with this lens. IMO, a 28-105mm is a perfect focal length (especially on a crop camera) for shooting people. I like my Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 ATX Pro (copy of the Angenieux) and replaced by the inferior SV version.
This focal range and maximum aperture is just IDEAL. Making a modern sharp equivalent would be the lens to break the bank. Sigma Tamron Canon are you listening? Ditch the stupid 24-70/2.8 and make the standard zoom lens that is as wide on one end as tele on the other.
Hi Chris. As usual, nice review. According to your review, it seems like a very bad lens. Is it possible that you have a bad copy? Judging from photos taken with this lens by various people on the internet and reviews done my others, it's a sharp lens. It has a good rating. Btw, I've just bought a used one as well and can't wait to play with it.
I might sell mine. Mine is in great condition because I never used it much. It cost me a lot back in 1999. No scratches, no fungus, smooth movement, E+++++ condition. It is just not my thing. I might even trade for something I want. I am more of a prime lens guy. However, if you want to look like a man's man walking around out there, then this is the baby that will do it. These days I am more into vintage prime lenses. Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar etc.
I have the nikon version of the lens. I've had 2 copies and I've combined parts of them to create 1 not too terrible lens. The build quality is absolutely TERRIBLE. The inside zoom sleeves are made from plastic and wear out quickly, causing the lens to sag down. This in turn causes massive coma which ruins the image enormously. The assymetric coma (the halo at contrasting edges) is a telltale sign of the problem. The newer Tamron 28-75 F2.8 uses metal sleeves but with metal pins, again wearing out quickly causing serious coma. I'd recommend to stick with Sigma, nearly all my lenses are from Sigma and they are far better in build quality.
It's strange you've found the build quality to be bad, because I've owned this lens for 20 years, and never experienced these problems using it with my Canon SLR.
Hi Folks..... Please Help Me Out.... Im Entry Level Filmmaker, I have sigma 17-50mm f2.8 n 50mm f1.8 lens.. Now im planning to buy one more zoom lens, Im confused in choosing Tamron 28-105 f2.8 n nikkor 80-200mm f2.8...Tamron is $150 cheaper than Nikkor in Ebay.. plz help me out...
Why would this lens (any lens for that matter) perform worse on an APS-C camera? The lens doesn't know what camera it's attached to. Even if it did, it wouldn't change it's optical behavior. One could argue that because APS-C sensors crop and retain only the center of the image (the sweet spot of any lens), it should produce better results. Artifacts like vignetting and CA should be much reduced. The image produced by a lens and cast onto a full frame or APS-C sensor is exactly the same. If the end result is actually worse, it's because the APS-C sensor isn't able to reproduce the image as well as a full frame sensor. It's not the lens' fault. Does that line of reasoning make sense? If it does, then there's no point in testing the same lens twice. One should always test the lens with the best possible camera, to reduce the effects of the sensor as the bottleneck.
You're not taking into account the smaller pixels in an APS-C camera - that's what makes harder demands on lenses, and shows up more chromatic aberration. A lot of older lenses are sharp enough for the larger pixels on the sensor of a full frame camera, but not sharp enough for the tiny pixels on the sensor of an APS-C camera. You can see the proof in this very video. With this particular Tamron lens, the center of the image is sharper on a full frame camera than it was on APS-C. Every lens is different, so they all need to be tested on full frame and APS-C: the different sensor has more of an impact than you think.
Christopher Frost Photography Good point about the different pixel sizes. It definitely has an impact. However, I submit that it's not a given fact that APS-C sensors always have smaller pixels. The Nikon D800, packing 36M pixels into a full frame sensor, has smaller individual pixels than the Nikon D300, which packs only 12M pixels into an APS-C sensor. Unless you're in a laboratory with very complex instrumentation, you can't test a lens in isolation. Practical test result is always the combination of lens and sensor. So, the results you show in this review are the results for one lens mounted on two specific Canon cameras. One can't take the APS-C result, for example, and assume any APS-C camera will yield similar results with this lens. DxO Labs recognized that fact and that's precisely why they repeat the test for one lens with many cameras. However, my original point is that if one wanted to know what a particular lens is able to produce, it's enough to look at the results of that lens attached to the best camera body. Admittedly, that's a theoretical scenario. Most users would be asking the question: what can this lens do on my camera? My point is that the lens doesn't know (or care) what camera is being used. It will project the same analog image every time. The questions is: how good is that image? In the old film era, that answer was simpler: fix one parameter by using the same film stock, leaving only the lens as the variable. Camera used was irrelevant. In the digital era, the camera takes the place of the film. Not only the sensor comes into play, but the camera also provides the algorithm for converting an analog image into digital. So the entire camera needs to be the fixed parameter, not just the sensor size.
J Yu Well that's all fine, but I don't see the point you're trying to make to me. Are you saying I should test lenses on a whole load of different cameras for people? My videos would be way too long and boring. I'd rather test lenses on the best available APS-C and full frame Canon sensors, and let people who have lower resolution cameras figure out that their pictures will seem sharper (but lower resolution). That's why I've now upgraded to a 20mp Canon 70D for my APS-C tests.
Christopher Frost Photography First of all, I apologize if I came across as demanding any change from your testing methodology. I had no such intent. Most likely it was my misunderstanding, but I thought you tried to say that there are two possible sets of results for this lens: full frame and APS-C. I think that my original intent was just a note to your viewers that one shouldn't take the APS-C results, for example, and extrapolate to all APS-C cameras. Now that we've had a discussion, I think we can agree that there are at least as many possible sets of results as there are camera bodies that support this lens. In that sense, I agree, presenting two tests is better than one. Again, it's not my intent to suggest that you should test all. That wouldn't be reasonable nor feasible. That's a task best left for the professional testing organizations, such as DxO Labs. I think my original comment was pointing in a similar direction as you mentioned above: suggest that you present only one test, using the best camera that you have (in my view that would be a full frame) because that would remove the sensor (as much as possible) as being a limiting factor. Folks with APS-C sensors would extrapolate for themselves... for example, ignore the corner performance (vignetting, CA, softness, etc) as that would be cropped out in their cameras. But, granted, you make a good point that an APS-C result wouldn't be just a crop of the full frame. Pixel sizes would affect the center performance as well.
+J Yu yes I had the same doubt, the apsc uses the best part of the lens, so the result should be better then full frame as far as vignetting, corner sharpness and ca, your comment was very spot on and not offensive at all :)
![[發燒友的迷失]兩聲道迷思和基礎價值如何平衡？如何選擇二聲道高級音響才好？](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wE1Msn7Mbgo/mqdefault.jpg)
"softer than my childhood teddy-bear", "let's end the torture", "where you can just about make out what's going on, if you use your imagination"
Looking into a pool filled with pillows and marshmallows
I really like your weird lens reviews. They add spice to your channel and a little historical perspective on lens technology which I find very interesting. Keep up the good work.
tamron should make this lens again
i hope so
They've Heard you
@@VideofyU oh?
This has been my go-to lens since I bought it in 1999. I shoot full frame 35mm with a Canon Rebel G. Of all the lenses I own, the wide aperture and long zoom range make it worth the few minor deficiencies.
After the RF 24-105 2.8, it’s incredible to see, Tamron already did this way back crazy
I got this lens for about €150 not too long ago, which is a steal. Initially intended to (possibly) use it on a Canon C200 for television items. But it's pretty much unusable for that. Way too soft, no full time manual focussing, loud auto-focus, weird ergonomics.
So after not being used for years, I now almost constantly have it on a Canon EOS 620 film camera from the 80's. When used on film this lens is amazing. The range, bright aperture, flares, vignette, all work well when you're going for that nostalgic film look.
Also, Chris, you forgot to mention the best feature of this lens: pull back on the zoom ring and it'll snap into "Anti Slip Mode". Probably initially meant to stop the lens from extending under gravity. But currently it does absolutely nothing whatsoever. The click with which it snaps into place is satisfying though. So at least it has that going for it.
the retro 90s like quality in the photo look nostalgic. That's the advantage to these lens to brink back a sense of nostalgia and character to the picture as it ages.
This describes my Canon EF 28-105mm too. Released in the 90s, cheap, virtually unknown to Google or TH-cam, too soft wide open, distorted, but a lot of fun.
I really wish we had a 24-105mm f2.8 for full Frame; that would be amazing ❤️
canon made one now
@@victorlolo2008Only took them 30 years!
I actually love the flares and the image quality (the latter to an extent only), and I think it would be a lovely lens for video.
But I'm skeptical about the focus throw on this lens - too short of a throw is not very useful.
Update to my last post. I bought the Canon 24-105mm f/4L lens finally on Ebay for $550 used in mint condition. I will tell you this lens is awsome. Shots were super crisp focus and at f/4 bokeh is very nice. I shot more pics of the child in my last post and got many portraits. This lens may be a kit lens for FF cameras but it is worth having. I'm still having a hard time deciding on selling the Tamron, but it did very well in concert photography.
I actually like how soft this lens is
Tamron should do a SP G2 version of this lens
The comedic writing on this is so British. Subscribed!
there are 3 versions of this lens, 176D, 176A (adaptall) and 276D, the lens in this video is the 176D, I just bought the 276D for just a little over $100 on ebay and had similar results, however after fine tuning the focus I've found it to be quite sharp even wide open, not sure about the corners yet as I've only photographed people, but I'm quite impressed with it on my D750, looking forward to using it for some landscapes when the weather improves some
Hi there, can you share your experience using this?
@@Marshallchandra the 276D is one of my favorite lenses, the focal range is very useful, I use it on my D750 and my N4004, I use it for Landscape, Portrait and Macro, the bokeh almost has a painting look to it, CA can be a pain though. Tamrons quality control was hit and miss back in the day and I had to adjust it for the D750, no issues with the N4004 though
Good afternoon. How did you adjust the sharpness?
@@colorist-idealist not so much adjusting the sharpness as much as adjusting the point of focus, older lenses will sometimes need to be adjusted in camera due to issues with back or front focusing, you would need to have the ability to fine tune or micro adjust the lens in camera and not all cameras can do that
@@DarqueSoul Thanks for the answer. I thought that the adjustment is inside with screws. I use it on Sigma fp in video mode and it has a pretty strong soft effect.
If they made a new version of it I would buy it right away!
+Peter Bucek SIgma has something similar: a 24-105 Art. It's only f4, but with IS
+Saman Miran Yeah, but I want that f2.8
resolution doesnt matter for video much, but that range tho
Canon now has a 28-70 f/2.0 for the EOS R. It's supposedly one of the sharpest lenses on the market, too.
@@Knowbody42 And one if the expensive too
I bought this for my Nikon when amateur photographer was positive about it in a review, then another magazine, cant remember which, said it was pretty dreadful. I was so upset I wrote a letter of complaint to AP, never did get a reply. Still, water under the bridge. I did enjoy shooting with it.
I have this lens for my Sony camera (used to have Minolta) and its really a great lens. Use it for default and has lots of zoom range. Great quality.
great review mate. cheers !
As a couple other people said similarly, looks like it could still be sharp enough for most types of film and so fun on an older body for the right price (under 200$).
I knew a guy who was an insurance investigator and he used this lens with a Fujifilm S2 and he loved it. I borrowed it once a few years later and used it with my Nikon D80 (10mp) and hated it, nothing was sharp wide open and it's heavy. It seems the more megapixels the softer it gets.
What a great review! thanks for your time and effort. Peter (Melbourne, Australia)
The 50mm f/2.8 shot shows softness in the window frames, but the bottom and right side are much softer than the top and left side. This could indicate a centering problem with this copy of the lens. So another copy may be better.
Also, if you use the same image for judging both center and corner sharpness, if the lens has curvature of the focus plane, this will make the corners look softer than the lens is capable of, especially when using a big aperture. A separate shot, refocused for the corners, would be better (this may be an issue in your other videos too).
Hi, I recently purchased this lens with a nikon mount. Please do you have any idea the type of adapter i can use to make lens work on a canon body. Did you think i would have problems with Aperture ans focus control ? thanks
+Ema Edosio I imagine just a Nikon to Canon adaptor will work. No idea about the aperture of AF issues though
Thank you Christopher!
thnx for review of this rare and interesting lens!
xiodcrlx i
Thank you very much for the review. I've heard there is a newer version of this lens, 276D (yours is 176D, I think). Do you know if that one performs a bit better in terms of softness and AF?
I heard that too, but no idea what the differences are
@@christopherfrost Great review! Since this video have you had the chance to test out the 276D version? I have the opportunity to choose from both versions in mint condition for about 30 bucks difference. If they perform identically I prefer to go for the older model for the nostalgia! There's still nothing out there quite like it today.
I think people forget this lens was optimized for use with film not digital
Thank you very much for your reviews!
Before I did any research on this lens I got this lens on Ebay for under $300 thinking wow an f/2.8 for crazy cheap. Well depending on what your using it for I'm a little disappointed in it. I have the model without the Tamron logo on the barrel. I used it with the Canon 6D for landscapes, portraits, concerts, pics look great. This lens could not keep up with a 1 yr old child at a jungle gym in a park. I chased this kid in circles trying to predict all her movements so I could get great angles, but she moved so fast the lens was slow as a turtle on focus speed. Could not lock focus, even changed setting to AL SERVO for movement. I shot at least 50 to get 2 or 3 descent pics from it and yes the pics look soft and has vignetting. I don't think I will use this lens in the future for a job for a family. I'm going to save penny's for a Canon 24-105mm f/4L.
Another weird lens you should check out is the Tokina AT-X 35-70mm f2.8, It seems to sleep in the shadow of the 28-70 f2.8 version lol.
Agree, have used one for years, nice lens 👍
i did research this lens a long time ago i find the same results as you have..however Tamron did do an earlier version that was 35mm to 105 and much sharper but its less common than this lens ...
i have this lens, except the zoom ring has ridges on it instead of Tamron logos for grip. There's two different models of this one. And it is discontinued because at 2.8, it's too soft, whereas the recent 28-75mm 2.8 is very sharp at the same aperture.
Also, is mine even rarer that it's in Sony A-Mount?
Can you please tell me if this is a review of model 176 or 276?
Even though you knocked it a lot, I think I'll probably buy one if I can get a good deal on it, it would be a bit of a fix to my 24-105 for when I need a bit more speed.
Was a great run and gun lens! Stayed on my Sony a850. A modern version would be excellent given contemporary Tamron excellence.
Use one on my A900👍
I have this lens. I got it with a Nikon 90s decades ago. Can it be adapted to use with my Canon DSLR 2000D?
It weighs over a pound, like a pound and a quarter.
All i want is a 24-105mm with constant 2.8 but if they make it now no other lens would sell
That would be a big, expensive lens
Maybe Tamron should improve this lens
Question. Will this lens work on Micro Four Thirds cameras of course I would have to get adaptall mount
+Angel Padilla With an adaptor, yes. You'll get horrendous image quality though
What a savage review I had fun watching it
*How good is this lens for strictly video? resolution, i just wanted to see if it can hold up to 4k*
Bernardus Bagus I want a remake too. even if they change nothing else other than autofocus motor and build quality.
Urgh, I don't think it will resolve enough for good 4k
OK. Thanks soo much!
I have this lens, and was looking for a Canon for it to fit. This review shows a 6D and 60D setup and wanted to know if it would fit a 7D Canon body.
Any Canon mount lens made since 1987 will work on your APS-C camera
Hey christopher, loved the video. Will it work on my Nikon D5200 ? or any substitute?
+As1m If you can find a Nikon version, yes
Often photographers consider old lenses as poor lenses but I have a few old lenses that are fantastic, the best I have is the Canon 100-300 5.6L, no stabilisation, relatively slow and also quite ugly and very old design but it'd compete without shame with today's "L" Canon lenses, its only drawback is the lack of IS, I'm not an IS fanatic but on a 300mm 5.6, it's a huge improvement.
I still use this lens for 2 reasons, 1st it's optical quality and 2 it's weight , especially compared to the 300mm f4L.
Hello Chris, I think we're all waiting for you to review the Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM so we can use your grid to create a lens profile for Adobe Camera Raw.
''The image quality may be bad...'' This is a joke right?! This lens literally rivals Leica and Zeiss in image quality. Sharpness and distortion aside, this lens produces about the same images (even color) as Leicas 1.4/50 Summilux. If you don't zoom in 9 billion percent into the image and know how to press the correct distortion and CA button in Lightroom/Photoshop, then this lens is basically a cheaper version of the 1.4/50 Summilux PLUS the versatility of having 24-105mm focal range.
is this a parfocal lens? could it be fit on blackmagic 4k ef ?
I would buy a 24-105 f2.8 so quickly. No matter how big it is.
So would everyone else :-)
the fact that U cant see much of 90s sigma or tamron lenses means alot.
Great review thanks.
Cheers !
Please make some weird reviews about camera lenses ❤️👌
Just came across this lens earlier today. Is this lens worth £33.7 mint? (I am using the currency on 3/15/2017) I am looking for a lens that is capable of heavy flaring.
£33 - are you sure? That's a very low price. Well, yes, I suppose so, if you don't mind its image quality limitations
I am planning to take out of focus silhouettes of people with lots of lens flare, I hope I can get these effects with this lens.
For under $200 is it worth it? I want something wide for me 5DII. Any of the good primes are way more money. I think if I can get this Tamron for $150 I'd be willing to give it a try.
Chris my friend, please meet me with your friends who hand you all these lenses :) you seem to have all lenses in the world.. we love your reviews.
GAHHH why can't canon release a 24-105 f/2.8 IS? We need to marry stabilisation with that sweet, sweet focal range and SWEET, SWEET 1-stop-more-light 2.8!!!
I'll buy it for whatever amount of money they ask!
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI your words basically mean "will you marry me" with what you're saying
Hey chris. Could you make a review for Canon EF 28mm f/2.8, from the first EF series that canon maked?
Thank you for your great reviews!
how i get this?
can i use this lens any nikon crop sensor dsalr ?
I don't know about Nikon compatibility issues but I presume the Nikon version would work
I used it on my D3200 and my d90 with very soft results not workable at all. I couldn't get much sharpness in any of my photos. Is there anything I could do to change this?
Yes. Sell the lens on eBay and buy a sharper one
The Nikon version was screw drive and requires a focus motor in the camera. This lens was discontinued in 2003 before Nikon really started making AF bodies that require an AF-S lens.
thoughts on the canon 28-80mm f2.8 L lens?
That's a rare one! I've never handled it. It's actually f/2.8-f/4, so it's not a constant aperture lens. I'm sure it's okay though, if you can find one, give it a try.
Got it! well its being posted tomorrow I think. I may just sell it on though i'm not sure as I want a lighter more modern lens really (sigma 17-50!)
tankpigSTS
Hehe cool. I think I saw you bidding for it when I gave it a quick check on eBay. If you lend it to me for a few days I'll do a review if you like, hehe...it sounds interesting :-)
Yeah I will actually do that mate...Let me have a knock about with it for a week. You'll have to cover postage though would that be okay?
tankpigSTS No problem man! Sounds great, let me know how it turns out. You're in the UK, right? I'm in Cardiff.
I think Tamron can make this for the RF mount.
Good for 1d mark 2?
how to get that lens
will it work on a sony a7iii
This lens can't be all that bad - just looked on ebay and you can only get them for around 200 pounds. Not cheap. Maybe they've aquired collector status or something.
Thanks for this very great test ! I like your tests all the time.
I have two of this copy on both nikon and canon, and the canon version work much worse than the nikon one.
On nikon bodies it focus much faster than on canon, and focus accuracy also much better. After using hundreds of lens accross brands, it is a common sens that the canon system has the least compatibility to third party lenses especially for the old film days ones according to the focus shift situation are often seen.
In short, I really love this lens for it give you artistic bokeh and very good sharpness in center area after step down to f4, and can close up to 50 cm. When wide open it is not sharp but can create dreamy art effect like soft focus lens. The elements of the glass is superb, and body well assembled. What can you ask more for it for $300 usd used. The test result from you may be caused by focus accuracy which it performs much better on nikon mount. By the way, I also found some field curvature effect which explains your test about the edge performance.
Considering it is made by much older technology, we should value it with another aspect of view. It's one with much fun with great CP value just as you said. The only thing I don't like is the distortion, but it can do soft focus, close up, portrait, and also landscape. What can you ask more??
*Can you do a comparison to the apparently much better Tamron 35-105mm f/2.8?*
Hmm, I hadn't heard of that one. I might see if I can find one on eBay
I've just found one on eBay and bought it!
Christopher Frost Photography That was fast!!! 6 minutes!!
Too bad the optical quality and AF is so poor with this lens. IMO, a 28-105mm is a perfect focal length (especially on a crop camera) for shooting people. I like my Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 ATX Pro (copy of the Angenieux) and replaced by the inferior SV version.
I really enjoy your videos Pal!!! thanks
You know, I learned the term "A witch's brew of [something]" from you.
This focal range and maximum aperture is just IDEAL. Making a modern sharp equivalent would be the lens to break the bank. Sigma Tamron Canon are you listening? Ditch the stupid 24-70/2.8 and make the standard zoom lens that is as wide on one end as tele on the other.
Hi Chris. As usual, nice review. According to your review, it seems like a very bad lens. Is it possible that you have a bad copy? Judging from photos taken with this lens by various people on the internet and reviews done my others, it's a sharp lens. It has a good rating. Btw, I've just bought a used one as well and can't wait to play with it.
I know this is a long shot for an old video but - maybe the lens/body needs some urgent Focus Adjustment ?
I don't think calibration was the issue, here.
Anyone wanting an equally cheap but actually GOOD similar lens, check out the Tokina 28-70 f/2.8 AT-X Pro autofocus
I might sell mine. Mine is in great condition because I never used it much. It cost me a lot back in 1999. No scratches, no fungus, smooth movement, E+++++ condition. It is just not my thing. I might even trade for something I want.
I am more of a prime lens guy.
However, if you want to look like a man's man walking around out there, then this is the baby that will do it.
These days I am more into vintage prime lenses. Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar etc.
Happy I saw this video, I was going to purchase one for my canon RP and sell my rf 24-105 f4 😅 dodged a bullet
I have the nikon version of the lens. I've had 2 copies and I've combined parts of them to create 1 not too terrible lens. The build quality is absolutely TERRIBLE. The inside zoom sleeves are made from plastic and wear out quickly, causing the lens to sag down. This in turn causes massive coma which ruins the image enormously. The assymetric coma (the halo at contrasting edges) is a telltale sign of the problem. The newer Tamron 28-75 F2.8 uses metal sleeves but with metal pins, again wearing out quickly causing serious coma. I'd recommend to stick with Sigma, nearly all my lenses are from Sigma and they are far better in build quality.
It's strange you've found the build quality to be bad, because I've owned this lens for 20 years, and never experienced these problems using it with my Canon SLR.
No tamron 28-75 - f2.8
Hi Folks..... Please Help Me Out.... Im Entry Level Filmmaker, I have sigma 17-50mm f2.8 n 50mm f1.8 lens.. Now im planning to buy one more zoom lens, Im confused in choosing Tamron 28-105 f2.8 n nikkor 80-200mm f2.8...Tamron is $150 cheaper than Nikkor in Ebay.. plz help me out...
raja sekhar You do not want the Tamron - go for the 80-200
Christopher Frost Photography but I might miss 50-80mm focal length...Thats ver im confused.
raja sekhar Yes, but with the Tamron lens you'll miss 105-200mm, and also, you'll own a terrible lens.
Christopher Frost Photography Tnq U So much Chris.. One More doubt.. Is it really necessary to zoom from 100 to 200mm while making video??
raja sekhar It depends what you're shooting. Normally I use the 17-55 focal range for my video work
Tamron should remake this for Sony, Canon, and Nikon
Wow nice😮😮
Smooth opening lol
Using a focal-reducer on an APS-C camera, you will get a 28-105mm F2 constant aperture lens !!!
We already know that this lens doesn't have image stabilisation
Not everyone watching this video will know that
In short, I would decribe this lens by: Good taste and awful execution
使ってみたいなー
Why would this lens (any lens for that matter) perform worse on an APS-C camera? The lens doesn't know what camera it's attached to. Even if it did, it wouldn't change it's optical behavior.
One could argue that because APS-C sensors crop and retain only the center of the image (the sweet spot of any lens), it should produce better results. Artifacts like vignetting and CA should be much reduced.
The image produced by a lens and cast onto a full frame or APS-C sensor is exactly the same. If the end result is actually worse, it's because the APS-C sensor isn't able to reproduce the image as well as a full frame sensor. It's not the lens' fault.
Does that line of reasoning make sense? If it does, then there's no point in testing the same lens twice. One should always test the lens with the best possible camera, to reduce the effects of the sensor as the bottleneck.
You're not taking into account the smaller pixels in an APS-C camera - that's what makes harder demands on lenses, and shows up more chromatic aberration. A lot of older lenses are sharp enough for the larger pixels on the sensor of a full frame camera, but not sharp enough for the tiny pixels on the sensor of an APS-C camera. You can see the proof in this very video. With this particular Tamron lens, the center of the image is sharper on a full frame camera than it was on APS-C. Every lens is different, so they all need to be tested on full frame and APS-C: the different sensor has more of an impact than you think.
Christopher Frost Photography Good point about the different pixel sizes. It definitely has an impact. However, I submit that it's not a given fact that APS-C sensors always have smaller pixels. The Nikon D800, packing 36M pixels into a full frame sensor, has smaller individual pixels than the Nikon D300, which packs only 12M pixels into an APS-C sensor.
Unless you're in a laboratory with very complex instrumentation, you can't test a lens in isolation. Practical test result is always the combination of lens and sensor.
So, the results you show in this review are the results for one lens mounted on two specific Canon cameras. One can't take the APS-C result, for example, and assume any APS-C camera will yield similar results with this lens.
DxO Labs recognized that fact and that's precisely why they repeat the test for one lens with many cameras.
However, my original point is that if one wanted to know what a particular lens is able to produce, it's enough to look at the results of that lens attached to the best camera body. Admittedly, that's a theoretical scenario. Most users would be asking the question: what can this lens do on my camera?
My point is that the lens doesn't know (or care) what camera is being used. It will project the same analog image every time.
The questions is: how good is that image? In the old film era, that answer was simpler: fix one parameter by using the same film stock, leaving only the lens as the variable. Camera used was irrelevant.
In the digital era, the camera takes the place of the film. Not only the sensor comes into play, but the camera also provides the algorithm for converting an analog image into digital. So the entire camera needs to be the fixed parameter, not just the sensor size.
J Yu Well that's all fine, but I don't see the point you're trying to make to me. Are you saying I should test lenses on a whole load of different cameras for people? My videos would be way too long and boring. I'd rather test lenses on the best available APS-C and full frame Canon sensors, and let people who have lower resolution cameras figure out that their pictures will seem sharper (but lower resolution). That's why I've now upgraded to a 20mp Canon 70D for my APS-C tests.
Christopher Frost Photography First of all, I apologize if I came across as demanding any change from your testing methodology. I had no such intent.
Most likely it was my misunderstanding, but I thought you tried to say that there are two possible sets of results for this lens: full frame and APS-C. I think that my original intent was just a note to your viewers that one shouldn't take the APS-C results, for example, and extrapolate to all APS-C cameras.
Now that we've had a discussion, I think we can agree that there are at least as many possible sets of results as there are camera bodies that support this lens. In that sense, I agree, presenting two tests is better than one. Again, it's not my intent to suggest that you should test all. That wouldn't be reasonable nor feasible. That's a task best left for the professional testing organizations, such as DxO Labs.
I think my original comment was pointing in a similar direction as you mentioned above: suggest that you present only one test, using the best camera that you have (in my view that would be a full frame) because that would remove the sensor (as much as possible) as being a limiting factor. Folks with APS-C sensors would extrapolate for themselves... for example, ignore the corner performance (vignetting, CA, softness, etc) as that would be cropped out in their cameras.
But, granted, you make a good point that an APS-C result wouldn't be just a crop of the full frame. Pixel sizes would affect the center performance as well.
+J Yu yes I had the same doubt, the apsc uses the best part of the lens, so the result should be better then full frame as far as vignetting, corner sharpness and ca, your comment was very spot on and not offensive at all :)
You had a childhood teddy bear?
This "beast" must be "great" an a Canon EOS R7 or R5.
That's one ugly lens
well... you are a bit weird.. u have a weird accent :P
Better than having a weird name ;-)
Christopher Frost Photography whats weird in the english speaking countries is not weird in the rest of the world. 😉
And vice-versa
pls give me indian online baying link
I don't live in India!