Tamron vs Canon Lens comparison test

[Brenny130]

I recently purchased the Tamron 28-75 as an upgrade to my Canon kit lens 18-135. I was looking for a lens with a wider aperture for low light conditions. I do mostly portraits/photo-journalistic style pics.
I don't know if I had higher expectations for the lens than I should have but when I started practicing I wasn't initially 'wowed'. I took some comparison shots with each lens to see what the differences really were. The ones from the Tamron lens were actually darker at the same settings than the Canon ones and I don't see any increase in sharpness-zoomed in at a 100% they either looked the same to me and sometimes I think the kit lens actually looked a tad sharper. I guess I was thinking that in addition to getting a wider aperture I would also see an improvement in image quality. (I love sharp images so I seem to equate that the most with image quality)
I wasn't using a tri-pod because well, I don't have one and therefore don't use one so I was trying to do the comparison in the way I would be shooting. I did it at 3 different aperture/shutter speeds with the ISO & focal length being the same for the set. I did 2 close-ups & 1 far away. ( I know I said that I shoot mostly portraits and therefore maybe should have done my comparisons w/ people but I didn't have any subjects )
Based on my lack of impressiveness with the lens I am thinking I'm going to return it but thought I would see what some more experienced eyes thought first. Do I have reason to be disappointed or did I just have too high of expectations?
Lens Comparison - a set on Flickr
All pictures are SOOC

Thanks and sorry for the novel of a post!!!

[inkista]

Try shooting with the 18-200 wide open, not stopped down. And then compare with the Tamron at the same apertures.

Faster lenses tend not to look as sharp as slower lenses if they're both shot wide open, though. Partially from DoF, but also just because it's harder to make fast glass that's good, bigger elements with more precise geometry are often required. I other words, don't expect an f/2.8 lens at f/2.8 to be as sharp as an f/5.6 lens at f/5.6. f/8 is a great equalizer among lenses.

[Brenny130]

Thanks Inkista. One of the settings I used in the test was at f/8 and I really don't see an improvement of sharpness in the Tamron. Is/should the Tamron lens be sharper than the Canon kit lens?

[justin_ing]

I have both these lenses as well and I would say that I like the Tamron better. Its much less subject to lens flares, but I've noticed as well, it is a much darker lens.

Did you have IS on the 18-135? The Tamron doesn't have that tech in it.

I've used both in portraits too and I've noticed that the Tamron can be a little softer on the edges than a Canon lens. But, I've found the "sweet spot", optimal focal range, for the 18-135 is around 90mm, and on the Tamron is 32-45mm. For my style of shooting, I'd rather be closer to my portrait subjects.

I wouldn't say your expectations are too high. They should always be high since you're spending your money.

[Brenny130]

I did have the IS on 18-135 but I used relatively fast shutter speeds so if I got motion blur from the Tamron w/ them then I definitely have problems because I like to photograph kids which = lots running after them trying to get a shot!
justin_ing-I see you have the Canon 50 1.8 too, what do you think about that one? I've been going back and forth on it and had initially got the Tamron instead but now I'm wondering if I should return the Tamron & get the 50 (then I have the debate of the 1.4 or 1.8!) instead? Or return the Tamron and save up for an L lens? My impatience for something new sometimes trumps my logical, practical side

[justin_ing]

I've used the 50mm 1.8 (both mkI and mkII), the 1.4 and the 1.2. Do I think they are great lenses? They absolutely are. Which is why I still keep a "50" in my bag. Its a great prime range to have and the quality of the glass is spot on.

But, caveat to all this, is it really depends on what you're doing with it and how you shoot. To get a 50mm just cause its can get fairly open, probably isn't one of the best reasons to get one. If you're photographing kids, sports or something that you're interacting with, you get opportunities to get close to them. Then you also get opportunities to take wider shots. With a prime lens, you definitely need to be moving back and forth to get your image. DOn't get me wrong, I was prime shooting like that for over a year and there isn't anything wrong with it. But I've found for my style of shooting, I like to have a range that I can work with.

Rent or borrow a Canon 24-70L f2.8. Its known as the "tank" but give it a try. Its about 2-3 times the retail cost of the tamron, but maybe you'll have better luck with it.

If I was in your shoes, and gear wise I am, I would keep the Tamron, and the go out a purchase a 50mm 1.8. Both are great to have in the bag.

[Brenny130]

Well, I pretty much mostly photograph kids and love catching the non posed moments. I don't have a studio so I want to be able to take pics indoors w/ natural light hence my desire for a wide aperture. And I'm in love with tack sharp pics. Would the 50 be a good fit for that? Thanks for all the help-I drive my husband crazy w/ my indecisiveness!

[inkista]

If you need fast autofocus, a lens with USM might be a better choice.