| Author: | | New Member Registered: November, 2013 Posts: 14 | | Review Date: November 30, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $15.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | big zoom range, very sharp | | Cons: | some very few CA's (171A) | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-5 k-s1 k-x,k200,fuji x-e1,fuji S2,samsung nx1000,panasonic G1
| |
++ nice colors and
++ high contrast,
+ very smooth bokeh.
+ sharpness is good at 28mm to 35mm
++ excellent sharpness between 70 and 135mm - with macro ring sharp close ups -
+ and good at 210mm
O few CA's of the last version must be eliminated only wide open, especially at the high ends of zoom range. f 8-11 they are scarcely visible. (the early versions have much more visible CA's)
as teacher of digital photography I've bought 8 items of this lens. there are 2 types non AF adaptall II and at least three types AF (one with the additional name SUPER). The adaptall version 171A seems to be the best non AF version, my best AF version is the 371D. It is a MACRO version. I think that Tamron has improved this lens step by step during the years.. This may be the reason for so different ratings.  | | | | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2012 Posts: 17
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 17, 2013 | Not Recommended | Price: $25.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Well made, smooth focus, compact at 28mm | | Cons: | Weak at long end, long minimum focus | | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 4
Handling: 9
Value: 8
| |
Mine is the Model 71A. It appears to be in perfect condition.
I bought this because it was one of the Adaptalls that I hadn't yet acquired. The earlier reviews seem on the money.
Compared with my Cosina 28-210mm f3.5-5.6 MC Macro:
- The Tamron is mechanically superior, and at 28mm it is more compact
- The Tamron is slower
- The Tamron isn't quite as sharp as the Cosina wide open from 28-50mm
- The Tamron focuses a little closer, but minimum focus is still 2.1 metres except in Close Focus mode
- The Tamron gets relatively worse as the focal length gets longer. By 200mm wide open the Tamron pictures are unusable wide open
- The Tamron bokeh is truly awful
- The Cosina colours are much nicer
Not recommended unless you are collecting Tamron Adaptalls ...
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: February, 2009 Location: Ireland Posts: 31
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 14, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Good at middling lengths | | Cons: | Unacceptable CA/PF at long setting | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 8
| |
I have the 171A manual focus version.
I got this a few years ago, used it a few times and left it in the drawer thereafter.
To say I was not impressed is an under-statement. And yet, the person I bought it from (not an ebay anonymous purchase) was quite happy with it and produced some reasonable quality shots from it. All I can think of is; it just didn't gell with my K10D.
In this thread, you can see what I mean - the user has it on a NEX-5 and is quite happy with it overall
http://forum.mflenses.com/tamron-adaptall-2-28-200mm-latest-version-t38519.html
However, in this pic, you can see what bugged me about it - observe the CA in the bottom corners; it was worse than that on my copy.
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20114/5_tamron28200asphericalf3_8_f_5_6adaptall212_1.jpg
And this is not full-frame. If this were a film lens I'd be tossing it out or selling it on, because the quality outside of the APS-C area must be awful.
Apart from the 180-200 focal lengths it acquitted itself well enough in the rest of the range, but nothing spectacular or remarkably good about it. As a walk-around snapshot lens it would be ok, I suppose, with a reasonable range of usability.
However, I'm minded to try this on a film camera and will give it a whirl on my K20D, just to see if it matches that better.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: November, 2012 Location: North Wales Posts: 2,869 | | Review Date: April 9, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | range, 2 ring zoom, compact length, can be acquired super bargain cheap | | Cons: | Aperture ring small for manual operation. AF versions readily available for same/less than 71A+PKA | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-r
| |
This is one of the late adaptalls. Although plastic construction it's a chunky, fairly weighty at just over a pound, and reassuringly solid feeling lens - particularly in comparison to a flimsy kit lens. Two ring zoom design. Its aperture ring is small and doesn't stand proud of the lens body, it's usable manually (probably not with gloves) but it's clear that the lens is primarily intended to be used in automatic modes. On a pentax with a PK-A adapter then is fairly ideal, but the adapter then needs to be factored in to the value equation.
I have only a preliminary assessment at this point from a mornings snapping...
Handles well, looks and feels good on the camera. Focus a bit "muddy" (the focus throw is only ~ a quarter rotation), I was leaning on focus confirm cues.
Pics look decent, weaker at the long end IMO, softish wide open, decent sharpness at f8. Contrast quite good. I was exposure compensating by 1 2/3 stops (Av) this looked OK on the histogram but a bit overexposed on screen. Negligible CA - bit of purpling evident at ~200mm wide open on some backlit branches. An overall impression of a pretty capable superzoom.
Some better pics than my snaps are posted here
I find myself echoing comments by others online: good practical choice as a wide range travel/walkabout lens but your'e likely to be reaching for more modern upmarket zooms or primes if IQ is the priority.
The 28-200mm seems to have been one of tamrons sales successes in AF versions. Ther are plenty on the s/h market and a lot of reviews of Tamron 28-200mm on eg photographyreview.com. The sprinkling of very poor reviews suggests inconsistent quality. My example is certainly decent: 8/10'ish?
| | |
;)
;)
;)
