[Andep]

Pentax K3-II, iso100, 1/800, 70-200/f2.8, f/4.0

[Dewman]

I've been a Tamron fan ever since I bought my first one.... a 28-200mm Close Focus lens I found at a yard sale. It went on to become one of my most used lenses ever! It will forever have it's spot reserved in my lens case. I now own TWO Tamron lenses. The second is a new-in-the-box Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 SP AF Di II.


My question is: Can anyone give me a personal testimonial on this lens? I'm going to take it on an outing this coming Sunday. The closest thing I've ever used that remotely compares to this is a Pentax-DA 15-45mm.


Thanks for any comments.
Dewman

[marcusBMG]

I had a little hit with an old tamron 200mm see post 2644.
Now I have acquired that lens non-identical twin - the 200mm f5.9. Since it's also tulip bloom time of year, I was able to see how that lens does.
Very similarly as you can see. Some test pics suggest that the f5.9 is a tad softer than the f6.3.

[marcusBMG]

And another tulip with the f5.9 200mm ' f8, extension tube.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[zhang_peak]

I have been viewing this thread and a few other threads since I joined Pentax Forums in 2013. All that I have seen is very good and a lot of it is fantastic. Having had the pleasure of seeing your posts over the past years I have decided to offer one of my shots using a Tamron lens.

I will search my archive for other stuff that I think is worthy of posting here and or in the Adaptall mount thread, or create some new shots using lenses from my Tamron collection. I have 12 Adaptall2 lenses (27A, 01A, 40A, 22A, 23A, 46A [x2], 19AH, 52B [x2], 03B, 55B plus two 01F teleconvertors. The 27A and one of the 46As I have had from new in the mid 1980s. All the lenses are good and produce some nice shots when I get it right and one of the 01Fsis OK but the other produces hazy results. Also I have recently acquired a Tamron 272E (90 mm SP Di AF) which is a joy to use and pin sharp.

Information for the shot below:

Pentax K-30, Tamron 500 mm mirror (55B), ISO 400, 1/125 s, f/8 (obviously) [ EXIF reports f/4, don't know why ??], zero exposure bias, no crop and no post processing other than reduction in file size for upload.

Comments (and criticism) gracefully accepted.

Mike PEAK

[Skodadriver]

I have been viewing this thread and a few other threads since I joined Pentax Forums in 2013. All that I have seen is very good and a lot of it is fantastic. Having had the pleasure of seeing your posts over the past years I have decided to offer one of my shots using a Tamron lens.

I will search my archive for other stuff that I think is worthy of posting here and or in the Adaptall mount thread, or create some new shots using lenses from my Tamron collection. I have 12 Adaptall2 lenses (27A, 01A, 40A, 22A, 23A, 46A [x2], 19AH, 52B [x2], 03B, 55B plus two 01F teleconvertors. The 27A and one of the 46As I have had from new in the mid 1980s. All the lenses are good and produce some nice shots when I get it right and one of the 01Fsis OK but the other produces hazy results. Also I have recently acquired a Tamron 272E (90 mm SP Di AF) which is a joy to use and pin sharp.

Information for the shot below:

Pentax K-30, Tamron 500 mm mirror (55B), ISO 400, 1/125 s, f/8 (obviously) [ EXIF reports f/4, don't know why ??], zero exposure bias, no crop and no post processing other than reduction in file size for upload.

Comments (and criticism) gracefully accepted.


Mike PEAK

Nice capture, from what I have read up on mirror lenses it is not easy to focus!
I don't know much but the shutter speed looks a little low and I wonder if there is a little shake evident in the image? Maybe not, it may be the lens is not as sharp as I would have been hoping for.

[marcusBMG]

Good effort Mike, hope to see more pics with your adaptalls either here or in the adaptall thread. I tend to agree with Skodadriver that the 500mm can do better. Your 16MPx image when resized should sharpen up nicely, your squirrel is a bit soft (but still a nice capture). As a rule of thumb, the trad 1/focal length to get a shutter speed fast enough to counter shake needs to be amended to allow for the sensor size ie 1/750 (1.5 x 500) or faster. My experience on my K5 is that the balance between noise and shake is to err for more noise ie up the ASA to eg 1600 which would bounce your shutter speed to 1/500. But even then I would still try to use a tripod/bean bag on a post/monopod/anything to help stabilise - at 750mm equivalent it is difficult to hand hold and get good results at anything other than ideal conditions ie bright sunshine giving 1/x000 shutter speed.
The other difficulty is focus. I have these days settled on a 1.36x VF magnifier with the stock screen, the magnifier does help significantly but I still find visual focus with a lens like the tammy 500mm rather hit and miss - f8 is just too slow, too dull in the VF, and although I get a good focus cue from the camera it's just not quite accurate enough. I would suggest a loupe on the lcd, and magnified live view. In practice I normally use my mirrorless camera instead - instant 5x/7x magnification in the EVF.

[zhang_peak]

Thanks skodadriver and an marcusBMG for your comments. On close inspection of the original, I agree. Slightly out of focus and probably a bit of camera shake, even though the camera was set for 500 mm and shake reduction was on.
In mitigation this was the first half way bright day after I had acquired the lens and this was a get to know the lens session. I kept the ISO down to 400 to keep the noise down so that I could see what the lens was capable of. Also whilst I did have a tripod with me the shots of the squirrel in the tree were hand held, using catch in focus and 3 shots exposure bracketed (-0.7, 0, +0.7 stop) to ascertain accuracy of the f/8 specification (photo above is the zero bias). I have just been through all the shots from that session that I did not delete and shake at the slower shutter speeds is definitely a factor. The shot below (cropped and file resized) was taken at -0.7 stop and 1/640 s (all other parameters the same) = definitely better.
My conclusion of the 500 mm mirror after 2 1/2 years of intermittent use: can be hand held in only the brightest conditions, but better to bolt it down and shoot slow/stationary objects not skittish squirrels . However, relatively small and light for a 500 mm lens. (my Sigma 50 - 500 mm needs a wheelbarrow to carry it about).

I will continue to persevere.
Thanks again

Mike

[marcusBMG]

Another trick I use is focus bracketing - fire off a wee burst while simultaneously moving the focus a mm or so through optimum position. That's also a trick often cited in U-tube videos on hand holding - middle pics in the burst tend to be the best re shake.

[pacerr]

Can anyone give me a personal testimonial on this lens?

This would be a good place to start:

Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 SP AF Di II Lens Reviews - Tamron Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

[clackers]

K-1, Tamron 70-200mm f2.8:

[Dewman]

This would be a good place to start:

Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 SP AF Di II Lens Reviews - Tamron Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

That's ALWAYS the first place I start. That's why I asked for a "personal testimonial," hopefully from a regular contributor rather than someone I never heard of that has only ONE post.... and it's a review. Know what I mean?

[tonezime]

Tamron 28-105, which shows up in EXIF as SMC FA 28-105

[MrMotivations]

Pentax K3-II, iso100, 1/800, 70-200/f2.8, f/4.0

Andep, This shot was quite dramatic and impactful in Flikr.

[Scorpio71GR]

I've been a Tamron fan ever since I bought my first one.... a 28-200mm Close Focus lens I found at a yard sale. It went on to become one of my most used lenses ever! It will forever have it's spot reserved in my lens case. I now own TWO Tamron lenses. The second is a new-in-the-box Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 SP AF Di II.


My question is: Can anyone give me a personal testimonial on this lens? I'm going to take it on an outing this coming Sunday. The closest thing I've ever used that remotely compares to this is a Pentax-DA 15-45mm.


Thanks for any comments.
Dewman

I've owned or used quite a few ultra wide angle lenses. Over time I have used the Tamron 10-24, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 8-16, Sigma 12-24, and Pentax DA 10-17. I've never had a chance to use a DA12-24. The Tamron has a few drawbacks. Screwdrive autofocus, the build quality is not the best but it is not terrible either, it needs to be stopped down to around f8 for best results or at least the one I used did.

However of all the lens mentioned above if I were to rate a winner based on performance versus value, the Tamron 10-24 would be the clear winner. You just can not beat the value of this lens. The Sigma's had a better build quality to them but cost more as well.

10mm is pretty wide on ASP-C, 15mm Full Frame equivalent. Success will rely on good composition and correct exposure. That is a lot for the senor to take in. I always recommend a tripod when possible with these ultra wide angles. If I remember correctly the Tamron had a very close minimum focus distance which can be alot of fun. I ended up with a Sigma 8-16 since I shoot indoors alot. Places like museums and events really tend to frown on a screwdrive lens whirling around. All ultra wide angle lenses are highly susceptible to decentering. It is extremely important to test for any decentering right away. Tamron lenses are none for quality issues. However when you get a good one you get a great lens at an exceptional value. It took 3 copies of my Tamron 70-200 for a good copy. The most issues I have know people to have with the 10-24 is with the autofocus. Even the copy I had would take a few tries to get the autofocus to catch every so often. It was like the clutch would slip a times, not all the time just every once and awhile. For landscapes I would just use manual focus.

The 10-24 really is a great value. Yes, like alot of lenses it has a few quirks, but nothing that is a deal breaker. As long as your copy is not decentered you should have alot of fun with it.