Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-11-2011, 01:22 AM   #46
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,421
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Was that the adaptall version? Someone had posted old reviews (from Modern Photography maybe?) comparing macro lenses and the 52B came out much better than the VS1 and pretty much anything else. Can't find that post now though.
It's probably from Modern Photography test of SP 90/2.8 72B, 1:1 Macro, because adaptall-2.org has the test results posted for the SP 90/2.5 52B, 52BB 1:2 Macro lens, and it peaks at 69 @ f8~11. I've read that all Tamron 90/2.8 macro made to present day shares the same optical formula with the 72B.

11-11-2011, 01:32 AM   #47
Pentaxian
hoanpham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Strand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,360
I dont have the 72B version, but the 52B.

The front glass of the Tamron is very different from the adaptall version and the new one.
The 52B version will have problem with flare, due to front element placement and larger glass.
The new AF version has deep retracted glass and a supplied hood.
However, manual focus on the new AF is not as stable/good and manual focus counter parts - very short focus throw.
As I can see and compared, the new AF color may be a bit different, but are all razor sharp.
11-11-2011, 02:08 AM   #48
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,421
QuoteOriginally posted by hoanpham Quote
I dont have the 72B version, but the 52B.

The front glass of the Tamron is very different from the adaptall version and the new one.
The 52B version will have problem with flare, due to front element placement and larger glass.
The new AF version has deep retracted glass and a supplied hood.
However, manual focus on the new AF is not as stable/good and manual focus counter parts - very short focus throw.
As I can see and compared, the new AF color may be a bit different, but are all razor sharp.
The front element of 72B is as deeply recessed as the AF variants, the lens hood is common to all x72B 90/2.8 macro lenses, I haven't been able to locate an original lens hood for my 52BB but it isn't non-existent. There was a picture showing 52BB with dedicated extension tube and lens hood attached to the lens mounted on a Pentax DSLR in one of the threads - quite the striking looking set up.
11-11-2011, 10:09 AM   #49
Veteran Member
joe.penn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,902
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
In what ways is the Tamron not as good as the Kiron optically? Any examples showing the difference would be much appreciated.
I am going by personal experience (and overall user reviews across pentax and other makes), my problem with the Tammy was corner sharpness and color rendering which in turn created more post work. I trolled google for a bit and couldn't find the test I was looking for (pentax 100's vs kiron 100's which was pretty old), could be cycled out due to age? I guess this would be a good test to come up with though - there are plenty of macro questions on the forums here, why not do a test between some new and old macro lenses and do some comparison charts?

QuoteOriginally posted by hoanpham Quote
I though modern optics with AF on the Tamron90/2.8 and the Sigma 105/2.8 should be at least equal the Kiron if not better due to newer coating and such?
No - there are other factors as glass purity and group construction and both of those play some of the biggest roles in lens designs. Coatings is the big thing these days because of digital sensors, the coatings help control aberrations (and contrast, color renditions) as aberrations are multiplied 10 fold by digital sensors (aberrations start at the lens, digital sensors make it worse).







--

11-11-2011, 10:34 AM   #50
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,965
QuoteOriginally posted by Azzy Quote
Yeah its the 90mm macro DI 1:1...so If I understood newarts correctly, to get 2:1 mag on the tamron I would need a 90mm thick ext tube / deglassed TC ? (90+90+90)/90-1 ?
Things get a little confusing with modern lenses that have an Internal Focus component. Tamron says the minimum focus distance for the 1:1 lens is 290mm Tamron -90mm F/2.8(Model 272E)

The relationship between focal distance, magnification, and focal length is:

focal.distance = focal.length(1+m)^2/m the distance between subject and sensor.

At 1:1 magnification, this solves to focal.length = focal.distance/4

Or for the Tamron lens;

focal.length.1:1 = 290/4 = 72.5mm

so the extra extension needed to get the Tamron lens to 2:1 mag is 72.5mm

This may be off a bit because of some unaccounted for distance between the lenses' principal planes - don't worry about it.
11-11-2011, 10:42 AM   #51
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,965
RioRico and others have pointed out that nice "A" type extenders can be made by removing glass from a PK/A Teleconverter.

In general, a nice, adjustable, A type extender can be made by removing the glass from any PK/A lens. There are lots of $25 PK/A lenses out there that would be candidates for such surgery!

The longer the sacrificial lens the longer the initial and adjustable offsets.

Last edited by newarts; 11-11-2011 at 10:56 AM.
11-11-2011, 12:36 PM   #52
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,292
The key word was a cheap macro but if you do field work I assume that would be a dedicated macro lens. I would suggest the Komine 90 MM F2.5/2.8. These were branded under Vivitar, Panagor, Panagor-Admiral, Elicar, and Soligor. They were in M42 mount as well as K mount with or without the A function, manual focus of course They are rated very good (older lens coating technology) but not the "ultimate" and provide great value and field convenience without accessories and extra stuff to fool with. They can be found around from $90 to $175ish though the fleabay rereresellers have them pumped up to bigger numbers. On the Vivitar brand look for the Serial numbers starting with 28x,xxxx. This identifies a Komine mfg.

Komine also made a 55MM sister macro 1.1 lens to the 90mm as well as the rare close focus 135MM 1.2.

Good hunting.

Last edited by Phil1; 11-11-2011 at 07:46 PM.
11-11-2011, 01:45 PM   #53
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,421
Some may dismiss Photozone.de's MTF test results some of the time but it is an identical, set method of testing lenses that is applied to all lenses. If you dismiss one you are dismissing all, however positive or negative the results may be for a lens in yours and my possession. Here are the MTF results for Pentax D FA 100/2.8, FA 100/2.8 and Tamron 90/2.8 DI.

As you can see the concern over drop in corner sharpness for a Tamron macro is unfounded. It is what makes a true macro lens unique; very miniscule difference between centre and corner resolution - truly a flat field lens - this is certainly true for all 3 lenses.

Attached Images
     
11-11-2011, 03:09 PM   #54
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by excanonfd Quote
It's probably from Modern Photography test of SP 90/2.8 72B, 1:1 Macro, because adaptall-2.org has the test results posted for the SP 90/2.5 52B, 52BB 1:2 Macro lens, and it peaks at 69 @ f8~11. I've read that all Tamron 90/2.8 macro made to present day shares the same optical formula with the 72B.
No, I remember it was the adaptall version - maybe it was some other journal. Someone had taken photos of the review pages, but I can't find that post and I don't even remember if I've seen it here or on mflenses. Web or image search didn't bring anything either. But i remember that result was showing it as better than the VS1 105.

Still, adaptall-2.org has this to say about the 52B: "Performance is fairly similar to Kiron's 105mm F/2.8 macro lens."

I'd just be surprised if the modern Tamron is worse, because I haven't heard any unhappy user.

QuoteOriginally posted by hoanpham Quote
I dont have the 72B version, but the 52B.

The front glass of the Tamron is very different from the adaptall version and the new one.
The 52B version will have problem with flare, due to front element placement and larger glass.
You should use it with a hood - you can find metalic ones that fit its style perfectly on ebay. You must be using it for something other than macro to get flare issues. I never had a problem with flare, but I used it with a hood and I didn't shoot against strong light sources.

QuoteOriginally posted by joe.penn Quote
I am going by personal experience (and overall user reviews across pentax and other makes), my problem with the Tammy was corner sharpness and color rendering which in turn created more post work. I trolled google for a bit and couldn't find the test I was looking for (pentax 100's vs kiron 100's which was pretty old), could be cycled out due to age? I guess this would be a good test to come up with though - there are plenty of macro questions on the forums here, why not do a test between some new and old macro lenses and do some comparison charts?
User reviews are generally unreliable if they are not supported by test shots. I don't remember corner sharpness being an issue with any of the macro lenses I own (Vivitar Series 1 105, Sigma 105, Tamron 52B 90, and Volna 9 50).

Here is some interesting information about the Vivitar Series 1 105 from another source:

Making Not Taking: 105mm Kiron Iterations

According to that post, the VS1 is inferior to the Kiron version. Also, the older VS1 90 macro (Bokina) appears to be even sharper than the 105 versions.
11-11-2011, 03:12 PM   #55
Veteran Member
joe.penn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,902
QuoteOriginally posted by excanonfd Quote
Some may dismiss Photozone.de's MTF test results some of the time but it is an identical, set method of testing lenses that is applied to all lenses.
They are dismissed because they are only true if the lens is shot within the same exact settings and environment as tested - resolution changes depending on current focal/magnification settings as shown in this older tammy res test (see attached and see the huge changes between different magnifications).
Attached Images
 
11-11-2011, 03:17 PM   #56
Veteran Member
joe.penn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,902
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Also, the older VS1 90 macro (Bokina) appears to be even sharper than the 105 versions.
I hear that often, and hear more that it's bokeh is as good as it gets (the bokina coined name). Between the Kiron and VS1 version being/rendering slightly different I think that could be a per copy issue (I have heard that one too).

Someone mentioned in an earlier recent reply the Panagor 90, I have that one and it is super sharp through all the stops, bokeh is glorious with it too...






..
11-11-2011, 03:31 PM   #57
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
An estimate of bad performance can be caused by a bad copy when it's the case of old lenses.

There is actually a review of the 52B here on PF that sounds like the lens was damaged.

The VS1 may be slightly better than the 52B I have - better colors if not better resolution. But I'd be surprised if the modern 90 is not significantly improved over the old one.

An aside note: Lester A Dine is currently using Sigma 105 setups
11-11-2011, 03:32 PM   #58
Pentaxian
hoanpham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Strand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,360
Thanks folks,
I do have the tamron 52B 90/2.5 + belonging TCx2 and the hood. I cant recall any issue with macro lenses than they might be too sharp most of the time for portraits.

How can I get 1:1 with pentax M50/4 ?

To the OP regarding cheap macro: Fujinon 55/3.5 + belonging tube + hood, in M42. Currently the cheapest macro lens I have. Performs perfectly.

The lens can be used as-is, but best with some minor mod.
It should not take longer than 5 min (2-3 min to convert from M42 auto to M42 manual, reversible,
and 30 secs with the dremel if you want to use as normal lens with infinity focus by grinding the metal sticking out <1mm).

I guess the mod work scared the buyers.

Last edited by hoanpham; 11-11-2011 at 03:38 PM.
11-11-2011, 04:28 PM   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,421
QuoteOriginally posted by joe.penn Quote
They are dismissed because they are only true if the lens is shot within the same exact settings and environment as tested - resolution changes depending on current focal/magnification settings as shown in this older tammy res test (see attached and see the huge changes between different magnifications).
All lenses are tested under same conditions, if the test procedure is not identical the data would be worthless. The test results I've cut and pasted from photozone.de was made under the identical testing procedure, thus if you discard one, you discard all. I have presented a set of test results that can be quantified, if you have a different set of numbers please do let us see, instead of some anecdotal evidence that's heavily biased towards subjective interpretation. In real life shooting, no one would shoot in the manner like the Modern Photography or photozone.de would test the lenses but at the least the resolution test results are a simplified benchmark to compare one lens with another in an objective manner.

The test results that you've posted from adaptall-2.org is for Tamron Adaptall-2, SP 52B (52BB) 90 f2.5 1:2 Macro lens, which I have made clear wasn't the one Peter Shapiro mentioned in his statement. I believe the test result that Mr. Shapiro is referring to is for the Tamron Adaptall-2, SP 72B 90 f2.8 1:1 Macro lens, but I have not seen the complete test results to definitely say yay or nay.

QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
No, I remember it was the adaptall version - maybe it was some other journal. Someone had taken photos of the review pages, but I can't find that post and I don't even remember if I've seen it here or on mflenses. Web or image search didn't bring anything either. But i remember that result was showing it as better than the VS1 105.
As per above, 72B is an Adaptall-2 lens. I have both 52BB and the 72B, I prefer the build quality and the handling of 52BB over the 72B but I mostly shoot with 72B because it is 1:1 macro. I also doubt the test results are from an AF version of the 72B because I haven't seen many AF lens test results from Modern Photography and I believe Tamron was one of the last lensmaker to fully enter the AF lens market, perhaps they couldn't believe their highly successful Adaptall-2 lens line could come to such an abrupt end, Tamron certainly tried to keep the Adaptall-2 line alive well into the AF SLR era.
11-11-2011, 09:21 PM   #60
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by excanonfd Quote
As per above, 72B is an Adaptall-2 lens.
Ah, I never saw the 72B, must be one of the newer, plastic bodied adaptalls maybe? I've seen some adaptalls for sale at B&H that are not listed on the adaptall site - not sure if Tamron is still making them or they're old stock. Anyway, I just meant the review I remember was for the original 52B, not even the 52BB. Here's the picture I have in head - someone posted in a forum shots of article pages detailing the results of tests of multiple lenses. There was a column for the 52B, one for the VS1, and 2 or 3 more lenses were also reviewed - some first party lens was there too - Nikon maybe. I just remember the whole point of his post was that the 52B was at the top of that comparison.

Searched again, failed again, but at least came with some macro comparison link I haven't seen before:

Objektiv-Testbersicht

It compares 8 lenses, but most of the test images are unfortunately missing: Tamron 2.8/90 SP AF - Sigma 2.8/105 EX AF - Canon 2.8/100 USM - Tamron 3.5/180 AF DI - Sigma 3.5/180 HSM AF - Canon 3.5/180L USM - Sigma 2.8/50 AF EX - Canon 2.8 MP-E65.

Still, it concludes:

QuoteQuote:
My conclusions: Optically the Tamron SP90 is clear the best objective of the 100mm row.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, lens, macro, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need cheap macro lens for K10D K20D Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 01-11-2011 08:44 PM
Cheap, Old Macro soppy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 09-21-2010 04:36 PM
Sigma 28-80 Macro lens found CHEAP! azcavalier Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 11-13-2009 02:37 PM
What's a good, cheap macro lens? joeyc Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 38 08-24-2009 07:48 PM
Cheap DIY macro lens! ftpaddict Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 11-25-2008 01:00 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:18 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top