10 out of 10 points and recommendedSmall, Light, Sharper then Canon 14mm I, No distortion on a 1.3 bodyExpensive, front lens pron to damage, but the nature of the design
I had to get this lens twice to get a sharp copy, 1st one was off on the right center edge.reviewed February 29th, 2008 (purchased for $2,000)
This one I have now is perfect and handles distortion and CA very well and sharp right to the edge.
Color, contrast, sharpness are all excellent, the new lens cap design beats the old with a more secure hold to the lens hood.
I sold a Canon 16-35mm because this lens dose a better job at the wide end and the 16-35 also help fund the 14 consider its 2K street price, but well worth the admission price.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedSmall, Light, Sharper then Canon, Less expensiveNot really. but just a bit more mm on both ends would be nice
I've had Tamron in the past when I did film and trust there lenses.reviewed February 29th, 2008 (purchased for $329)
After switching to Canon I had both the Canon 24-70 and 24-105 and the Tamron 28-75 beats them both with first hand real world test I performed on them all.
Color is equal, contrast from the tammy was better, sharpness, the Tamron won by just a bit.
AF from the Tamron is just a hair under the speed of the Canon's and is accurate in low light.
The Tamron was a bit soft wide open @ 2.8 but any smaller it was killer sharp.
If you need weather sealing and IS then you know your choices.
But if your after IQ the Tamron 28-75mm is King and well built too.
The newer generation of lenses in the world of 3rd party are now equal or surpass Canon.
I'm very much a Canon red ring, L nut but this Tamron 28-75 stands out as a winner for Tamron similar to the Cinderella story.