[Erictator]

OK, this is NOT a scientific test by any means, just me having fun and goofing around.


So, to be clear, this is the Tamron SP 80-200 F2.8 LD Adaptall lens VS/ The non VC but latest Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD [IF] Macro


Setup: Tripod, and Pixel Shift is On without MC. These are long exposures, so I could get to ISO100. I figured what the heck, I'm on a tripod and had the time. Oh yeah, and a 2Second self timer, focus peak in LV. Full Res download avail.


Shot 1 - Old Tamron @ 200mm F8.0 1.5 sec ISO140 :





Full Res Link: https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7489/27101273644_2a519e3614_o.jpg


New Tamron@ 200mm F8.0 2 sec ISO100 :




Full Res Link: https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7419/27103170813_0e5fdce145_o.jpg


And for laughs while I am at it, Here is the New Tamron 70-200 vs/ the good old Pentax SMC-P F 35-105:


New Tamron @ 200mm F8.0 2 sec ISO100 :





Full Res : https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7354/27103231473_eec7030616_o.jpg


Old Pentax F 35-105 @ 105mm F8.0 2sec ISO140 :





Full Res : https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7473/27103251633_9f08ee2ebe_o.jpg




If I had to draw any conclusions, they would be that the old Tamron is no slouch, maybe slightly less contrasty than the new Tamron. There was no lens profile for the old Tamron so I had to wing it, and just used the profile from the new Tamron on both.


The old F 35-105 isn't too bad, but needed a bit more post to get what you see, where as the 2 Tamron's are pretty much just exposure and highlight corrected. All done as DNG, Photoshop, latest ACR that was just released.


The K-1 has at least got me reinvigorated about photography and experimenting.


I hope someone gets something useful out of this,
Eric

---

Last edited by Erictator; 06-16-2016 at 01:57 PM.

[pcrichmond]

Thanks for showing. Found the K1 has led me back to many of my film lenses from the K1000 & ME days.
Was very happy with the IQ from my Tamron SP90 and extremely surprised with the clarity from my Tokina SDII 70-210.
I can live well with manual focus, so will be going back to that one as it is sharper than my Sigma 70-200 APO EX DG HSM.
(Will keep the Sigma for when I need auto focus though.)
Look forward to seeing more experiment results. The K1 has done the same for me.

[jackassp]

Yep, thanks, and I couldn't agree more.

I dug out an old Pentax FA 28-105 (the rebranded Tamron made one), and the IQ is just super.
Ditto for Pentax F35-70, and Tokina AT-X Pro 20-35mm f2.8.
FA 28-105

Lemon tree by John Pride, on Flickr
No PP needed, none performed.

This K-1 is quite a camera!

[aurele]

At f8 almost all lenses produce good images. Do the same test @ f4 to see if there is a real difference ! People don't buy heavy f2.8 lenses to use them at f8 IMHO.

[Erictator]

Thanks, yep, just doing our part to save the planet from old lenses in land fills. Heh.
Eric

Yep, thanks, and I couldn't agree more.

I dug out an old Pentax FA 28-105 (the rebranded Tamron made one), and the IQ is just super.
Ditto for Pentax F35-70, and Tokina AT-X Pro 20-35mm f2.8.
FA 28-105

Lemon tree by John Pride, on Flickr
No PP needed, none performed.

This K-1 is quite a camera!

[starbase218]

Actually I'd consider the 70-200 Di LD IF Macro old already. The newer USD-driven 70-200 is not available in K-mount however.

But the 80-200, is that the Tamron Adaptall lens?

[Erictator]

At f8 almost all lenses produce good images. Do the same test @ f4 to see if there is a real difference ! People don't buy heavy f2.8 lenses to use them at f8 IMHO.

Hi Aurele - While I tend to agree with your first part of that statement in theory, it's not always practical. I was shooting indoors, fairly close at a little over 3ft. The DOF even at F8 was pretty thin, at F2.8, or even F4 as suggested, wouldn't have been my personal choice, especially since I wasn't trying to portray the lenses weak points, but their strongpoints and potential.


As to the second half of your statement, I strongly disagree! When I shoot indoor sports, or a wedding from the back of a church, then yes, I am going to hit F2.8 occasionally, but it's not the main or only reason I buy F2.8 lenses.I buy F2.8 lenses and have several, and I do NOT buy them mainly to shoot wide open. I buy them typically for the brighter viewfinder, faster and more accurate A/F, especially in low light, (to take advantage of things like those F2.8 cross type A/F points in the K-1 ) ...and in general, F2.8 lenses tend to be built to a higher spec and also produce better IQ (but not always, lenses like the DA300mm F4 are some of several very nice exceptions to the rule).


Like I said in the original post, this was far from a scientific experiment, just me goofing around. If it helps someone, great , if you find it annoying on some level, apologies offered.


Eric

[Dlanor Sekao]

Great Thread ! I Love Vintage glass and found out quickly that the K-1's sensor renders Vintage Lenses much better than was ever expected........In Fact Fantastic !

[Erictator]

Actually I'd consider the 70-200 Di LD IF Macro old already. The newer USD-driven 70-200 is not available in K-mount however.

But the 80-200, is that the Tamron Adaptall lens?

Well, you are right of course, it is already been aging, but as you say, it's also the latest model of any use to us, and still in stock in places.


Yes, the 80-200 is this one in the link:

Tamron SP Adaptall-2 80-200mm F/2.8 LD Model 30A


Don't laugh, but I've been waiting SO LOOOONG for a Pentax Full Frame, that I was hanging on to some of my old Adaptall lenses in case I gave up and decided to switch brands, so I'd at least not be out of pocket for a bunch of glass immediately. Ahahahahahah! Kinda silly in hindsight, since I gave up before the K-1 was announced and bought into the newer A/F lenses anyway. Hey, gotta laugh at yourself, that way you beat everyone else to it!


Eric

[starbase218]

As to the second half of your statement, I strongly disagree! When I shoot indoor sports, or a wedding from the back of a church, then yes, I am going to hit F2.8 occasionally, but it's not the main or only reason I buy F2.8 lenses.I buy F2.8 lenses and have several, and I do NOT buy them mainly to shoot wide open.

I don't think that's what he's saying. Most lenses will be at their sharpest at around f/8. You don't have to buy an f/2.8 lens to shoot at f/2.8, but maybe you do want to shoot at f/4 and get sharp and contrasty results.

However, I personally upgraded from the 55-300 to the 60-250 not because it had a faster aperture at the long end, but because the 55-300 never really gets sharp at 300mm, and because the image became noticeably soft in portrait orientation at longer focal lengths in general.

[aurele]

As to the second half of your statement, I strongly disagree! When I shoot indoor sports, or a wedding from the back of a church, then yes, I am going to hit F2.8 occasionally, but it's not the main or only reason I buy F2.8 lenses.I buy F2.8 lenses and have several, and I do NOT buy them mainly to shoot wide open. I buy them typically for the brighter viewfinder, faster and more accurate A/F, especially in low light, (to take advantage of things like those F2.8 cross type A/F points in the K-1 ) ...and in general, F2.8 lenses tend to be built to a higher spec and also produce better IQ (but not always, lenses like the DA300mm F4 are some of several very nice exceptions to the rule).

Starbase summed it up well

I don't think that's what he's saying. Most lenses will be at their sharpest at around f/8. You don't have to buy an f/2.8 lens to shoot at f/2.8, but maybe you do want to shoot at f/4 and get sharp and contrasty results.

If you buy a F2.8 lens it's to use it not always wide open, but a stop down, or two. Why bother buying a f2.8 lens, if you can get say a f4, especially if you always shoot at f8 ?

Hi Aurele - While I tend to agree with your first part of that statement in theory, it's not always practical. I was shooting indoors, fairly close at a little over 3ft. The DOF even at F8 was pretty thin, at F2.8, or even F4 as suggested,

AH ! Ok, now, i can understand why you did choose such a stopped down aperture. Make sens