Views: 17191
Reviews: 2
|
This review has two parts.
The first is my experience with the copy of this lens I have just obtained, whose rubber focusing rings have perished, but which otherwise looks to be in pretty good nick.
The second is the full text of a MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY review from decades ago, that I originally mined for the lens specification data shown above.
Marcus's Tamron 200mm comparison, http://forum.mflenses.com/adaptall-200mm-s-which-one-if-any-is-the-best-t661...ll+%2B200.html compares this lens with the CT-200 and the Adaptall-2 04B. Wide open, my copy of this lens seems to be a shade better than my CT-200 certainly in terms of contrast, and perhaps resolution as well, at least at distances up to ten metres, though there isn't much in it, which chimes with Marcus's observation. But the CT-200 is faster, and much lighter. Whilst this lens's weight may help when trying to hold the lens steady at exposures of 1/40 of a second, it was novel to pick up the Pentax F 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 and experience a sensation of weightlessness.
In comparison with the Pentax F 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 at 200mm and f4.5 and the same distances, the Pentax zoom looks just as good in the centre of the frame, and shows less fringing, particularly in the plane of focus, but the Tamron primes are obviously sharper in the corners.
Colours (a bit subdued) and bokeh are very similar to those from my CT-200, to the extent that it is hard for me to tell which of these two lenses has taken the picture just by looking at it.
Build quality is first class, apart from the strange textured rubber common to all early Adaptalls, that has perished on many of these lenses over the last forty years. Missing rubber not withstanding, focusing my copy is an absolute pleasure, silky-smooth.
And of course, you have Aperture Priority, courtesy of the A/M switch.
The lens is heavy, but the tripod ring is excellent.
So recommended.
_________________________________________________________________________________
This is the full text of the article that I mined for the information above.
The article reviews three lenses.
The 28mm f2.8 Auto Tamron isn't in the database as of today.
The 135mm f2.8 Auto Tamron described below can be found at https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-auto-135mm-f28.html
The 200mm f3.5 Auto Tamron review comes after the others.
piledon's review of the CT-200 actually refers to this lens.
"MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY's unbiased test reports are based on actual field work and measurements carried out in our own laboratories. Only production equipment and materials similar to those available to the reader are tested. Readers are warned, however, that our tests, particularly of lenses and cameras, are often far more critical and specific than those published elsewhere and cannot therefore be compared with them. In all lens tests, unless specifically noted, some of the sharpness fall-off at the edges can be traced to curvature of field, most noticeable at close focusing distances; at distant settings, this effect would be minimized. Note too that the standards for center sharpness are higher than for edge sharpness, so that no comparison should be made between center and edge ratings.
WARNING: Since optics and precision mechanisms may vary from unit to unit we strongly suggest that our readers carry out their own tests on equipment they buy.
NO MODERN TEST MAY BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY PURPOSE IN ANY FORM WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Should you have difficulty locating sources for any product write to the Reader's Service Dept. of Modern Photography."
Since 'Modern Photography' is long gone, good luck with that!
THREE AUTO TAMRONS IN CHANGEABLE MOUNTS
MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS:
28mm f/2.8 Auto Tamron
lens in interchangeable Adaptall Custom Mounts for Pentax, Pentax ES, Nikon, Minolta, Konica, Canon, Olympus, Miranda, Rollei SL35 and Leicaflex.
FEATURES: Apertures to f/16,
focusing to 10 in. (0.25 m), accepts 55mm accessories.
PRICE: $149.95, plus $25.95 for any adapter.
135mm f/2.8 Auto Tamron
lens in mounts as above.
FEATURES: Apertures to f/22, focusing to 5 ft. (1.5 m), collapsible lens hood, accepts 55mm accessories.
PRICE: $129.95, plus $25.95 for any adapter.
200mm f/3.5 Auto Tamron lens
in mounts as above.
FEATURES:
Apertures to f/22, focusing to 6.6 ft. (2 m), collapsible lens hood, rotating tripod-socket collar, accepts 62mm accessories.
PRICE: $199.95, plus $25.95 for any adapter.
We were quite pleased to get back to testing Tamrons. While many an independent lens maker today offers interchangeable lens adapters for their optics, Tamron, having done it first, has the most experience with the feature.
Rather recently they came out with their new, improved, single-piece, stainless-steel Adaptall Custom mounts, which also take care of the new automatic SLR's, which the old Tamron Adaptamatic mounts didn't. Needless to say, the old Adaptamatics don't fit the new lenses and the new Adaptalls won't fit the old lenses either.
Basically, no matter which Adaptall you're fitting to a lens, the installation is the same. You line up a green dot on the Adaptall with a matching dot on the back of the lens, insert mount into lens and twist the well-knurled black Adaptall ring clockwise about 20°. They are now bayoneted together until death do them part (or you push the small metal release lever and twist the knurled ring counterclockwise 20°). You needn't worry about any inadvertent lens-mount uncoupling, since the amount of effort to attach the adapter and the positiveness of the locking indent make this possibility highly improbable.
With the present rather high prices for the much improved mounts, owners may well examine the advantages of buying one mount, keeping it on the camera and simply interchanging Tamron lenses. This is certainly feasible, since the lenses are easier to separate from the Adaptalls when on the camera. Indeed, with screw-thread-mount cameras, the use of this permanently (or semi-permanently) mounted adapter will give you the advantages of a bayonet lens mount on your camera.
Of course, it limits you to Tamron lenses, but the advantage of bayonet changing may very well make you lean in that direction.
The Tamrons, although still appearing in the instruction book as black-and-chrome illustrations, are now all black in this country. They've benefit from the bright satin-black finish with rubberized control rings, being handsomer and looking even more compact than before. Each lens has a large Manual-Automatic aperture lever, which can also be used for previewing at shooting aperture, and a clear- plastic focusing ring upon which are emblazoned what must be the largest footage and meter scales of any lenses now made. They are extremely visible even in poor light. The plastic ring itself is quite scratch-resistant. In our attempts to deliberately scratch it, we found it took far more pressure and a sharper instrument than that normally needed to put a scratch on an all-metal ring.
The focusing and aperture-setting rings, both rubberized, are setflush with the lens itself, which improves the looks of the lens. In the case of focusing, we found the rings easy to operate. However, the aperture ring, far to the rear and 5mm wide, would be helped by being raised or made wider (or both) for easier gripping and turning.
A word of explanation for Tamron owners concerning the red EE setting on the aperture scale to the left of the f/16 marking. This is the proper setting only for Konica Autoreflex cameras on fully-automatic-exposure operation. Setting the lens to EE will not make your non-auto-exposure SLR into one, nor should you set the EE mark if you own an automatic SLR on which you normally set the aperture and the camera sets the shutter speed (Pentax ES, ES II, Nikkormat EL, Minolta XK). There is no Adaptall mount at present for automatic operation of the Miranda Auto Sensorex EE, Canon EF, Petri FT EE or Topcon IC, although the first three named can accept the manual Adaptall mounts for regular match-needle or stop-down meter operation.
The 28mm f/2.8 Tamron has seven elements, an overall length of 2 in. (55mm), a maximum diameter of 2 1/2 in. (65mm), and a weight of nearly 8 oz. (240 gr). It's thus slightly largish, but certainly not objectionably so. In our tests we found the following:
Central color fringing (causes image unsharpness with color fringing):
On the optical bench, the best focus at f/2.8 had moderately-sized reddish to greenish fringing, which was reduced at f/4 and almost gone by f/5.6. In examining our test pictures, we estimated the aberration to be well-controlled.
Central spherical aberration (causes focus shift and flare):
Slight flare seen in the lab at f/2.8 was gone by f/4, and this high level of correction was borne out in our pictures.
Edge lateral color fringing (causes persistent image unsharpness, possible multiple colored images):
Slight lateral color 1/3 out towards the picture corners became moderate at 2/3 out, but remained controlled to the edges. We could see a large red outside fringe and inside blue fringe in our pictures, but sharpness was not affected.
Resolution Power
28mm f/2.8 Tamron No. 210746 At 1:49 Magnification
f/no. Center Lines/mm Corner Lines/mm
2.8 Good 49 Good 31
4 Exc. 62 Good 31
5.6 Exc. 78 Accept. 31
8 Exc. 78 Good 35
11 Exc. 69 Good 35
16 Exc. 62 V/Good 39
Actual Focal Length: 27.9mm
Image Contrast
28mm f/2.8 Tamron No. 210746 At 30 Lines/mm
f/no. Center Percentage Corner Percentage
2.8 Low 30 Medium 30
4 Low 46 High 36
5.6 Low 59 Medium 44
8 Low 60 Medium 44
11 Medium 58 Medium 40
16 Medium 56 Medium 38
Edge astigmatism (causes image streaking):
Both in the lab and on our test slides, moderate astigmatism from 1/2 of the picture area to the corners at f/4 was observed. Astigmatism was all but gone by f/5.6.
Edge coma (causes flare):
This was very visible on the bench at f/2.8 and controlled by f/5.6, but appeared very well-controlled in our photos.
Optical decentering (causes problems in all areas):
None was seen in our lab test, but a turned down edge of one or possibly more elements may have limited lens performance at maximum aperture.
Residual ghosts and flare:
Well controlled.
Linear distortion:
Pincushion-type distortion of about 2 percent was observed-not excessive for a lens of this wide an angle.
Turning now to the 135mm f/2.8 Tamron, we have an old friend whose optical construction has changed little over the years-except for the barrel de-sign and mount. Unlike the 28mm f/2.8 lens, the 135mm f/2.8 uses an old tried-and-tested means of achieving lightness, compactness and close focusing. The four elements turn in a single helicoid focusing mount instead of using a double helical system (in which the lens elements do not revolve during focusing). This should have no effect whatsoever on picture taking. However, when single-position filters are used (such as polarizing or graduated-sky), the lens must be focused first and the filter added or repositioned afterwards.
The 135mm lens has an overall length of but 3 1/2 in. (88mm), a maximum diameter of 2 5/8 in. (65mm), and a weight of 16 1/2oz. (470 gr), making it reasonably light and very compact. Here's how it made out in our tests:
Central color fringing:
Reddish to greenish fringing seen on our optical bench at f/2.8 was under control by f/5.6, but slight fringing persisted to f/8. The fringe intensity, however, was very low. In our pictures, only a faint greenish secondary color, which did not affect sharpness, was seen.
Central spherical aberration:
Moderate flare seen at f/2.8 was reduced by f/4 and almost gone by
f/5.6. A focus shift of 0.07mm was judged acceptable. Flare was also judged very low in our test slides.
Resolution Power
135mm f/2.8 Tamron No. 322933
At 1:50 Magnification
f/no. Center Lines/mm Corner Lines/mm
2.8 Exc. 50 Exc. 35
4 Exc. 50 Exc. 35
5.6 Exc. 63 Exc. 40
8 Exc. 63 Exc. 40
11 Exc. 63 V/Good 35
16 Exc. 56 V/Good 35
22 Exc. 50 V/Good 35
Actual Focal Length: 133.2mm
Image Contrast
135mm f/2.8 Tamron No. 322933 At 30 Lines/mm
f/no. Center Percentage Corner Percentage
2.8 Low 29 Low 29
4 Low 44 Low 31
5.6 Medium 55 Low 36
8 Medium 56 Low 33
11 Medium 55 Low 31
16 Medium 49 V/Low 29
22 Low 40 V/Low 25
Edge lateral color fringing:
Moderate color fringing from 1/2 of the picture area to the corners was seen on the bench. On the slides some fringing was observed in the corners, but the correction was judged to be good.
Edge astigmatism:
On the optical bench a substantial amount seen across the field at f/4 was reduced by f/5.6 and gone by f/8. This was borne out in our test slides, where a very minimal but recognizable tangential streaking in far objects and radial streaking in near ones could be detected at full aperture.
Edge coma:
Well-controlled on the bench tests. Little flare was seen in our slides.
Optical decentering:
Moderate mechanical decentering was detected in our lab, which we felt caused the astigmatism already mentioned.
Residual ghosts and flare:
Normal.
Linear distortion:
About 1 percent barrel distortion-well within acceptable limits.
Turning to the 200mm f/3.5 four-element Tamron, we have
Resolution Power
200mm f/3.5 Tamron No. 331404 At 1:50 Magnification
f/no. Center Lines/mm Corner Lines/mm
3.5 V/Good 45 Accept. 26
4 V/Good 45 Accept. 26
5.6 Good 45 Good 32
8 Good 40 Good 35
11 Good 40 Exc. 40
16 Good 40 V/Good 35
22 Good 40 V/Good 35
Actual Focal Length: 200.3mm
Image Contrast
200mm f/3.5 Tamron No. 331404 At 30 Lines/mm
f/no. Center Percentage Corner Percentage
3.5 Low 41 High 38
4 Low 46 Medium 40
5.6 Medium 54 Medium 41
8 Medium 54 Low 38
11 Medium 57 Low 32
16 Medium 58 V/Low 30
22 Medium 55 V/Low 27
Another single helicoid focusing lens just like the 135mm f/2.8, and so the same cautionary remarks concerning the use of filters applies here too.
The 200mm lens has a very solid and well-placed rotating tripod-socket ring with a big platform and a very positive locking screw. The platform is raised slightly so the lens can rotate and be set properly no matter what type of tripod
is used.
Focusing to 6.6 ft., the lens is excellent for tightly-cropped portraits. Here's how it fared in our tests:
Central color fringing:
Moderate reddish fringing could be seen at f/3.5, but it wasn't bright. Fringing was well-controlled by f/8, but persisted to f/16. A purple fringing could be seen in our photos but disappeared by f/5.6.
Central spherical aberration:
A moderate-sized flare pattern, low in intensity, was gone by f/5.6. Flare at maximum aperture was also visible in our slides.
Edge lateral color fringing:
Small to moderate red to green fringing was always under control. Weak fringes (purple inwards and green outwards) were visible on our test slides.
Edge astigmatism:
Moderate on the bench. We felt the slides showed very good correction.
Edge coma:
Excellent correction was seen on the bench but comatic flare was seen in the photos, being rather strong at full aperture but disappearing by f/5.6.
Optical decentering:
No decentering was observable.
Residual ghosts and flare:
Normal.
Linear distortion:
We measured about 0.5 percent barrel distortion-quite low for a lens of this focal length.
| |
This is chart for the DG.
And this is the MTF chart for the APO.
The white zones are APS-C, the grey areas are Full-frame.
It can be seen that there is very little difference between them in the APS-C zone.
And this is my experience. Using APS-C DSLR cameras I can see by eye virtually no difference between pictures taken with the two Sigma lenses, but the APO JPEG's always come out slightly larger, suggesting that there is more detail in there somewhere.
The newer DG non-APO handles better. The macro is more flexible (deployable between 200-300 rather than merely at 300) and subtle improvements to the bayonet of the plastic hood stop it being fiddly.
Whilst I cannot claim that my comparisons are very scientific, they always have the same outcome.
At 300mm, my Pentax FA f4.7-5.8 100-300mm is the best, followed closely by the Sigma APO, and the Sigma DG.
At 100mm, the Sigmas are better.
The cross-over is somewhere between 150 and 200mm.
The differences are slight.
My Pentax F 100-300mm gives inferior results at all focal lengths. The fact that it works the best with teleconverters suggests that it ought to be able to do better, but it seems to be let down by its autofocus inaccuracy. Since it doesn't consistently forward or back focus there isn't anything I can do about it short of focusing manually.
I've tried the APO with MC4 and MC7 2x autofocus teleconverters. The results were the same as with the DG; it won't autofocus with a 2x teleconverter beyond 200mm
So, to conclude, I think this APO is an excellent bargain basement tele-zoom, which I have given 9 to, but I wouldn't pay a premium to have it instead of a non-APO Sigma tele-zoom.
(Administrators, please feel free to move the photo to the lens description).
I bought this from a shop website for £5. It was described as being in poor condition, but it came with a 6 month guarantee, and in truth it is in better condition than many of my e-Bay 'bargains'; focus and one-touch zoom are a bit stiff, but the glass is clear, the aperture is snappy and there is zero zoom creep.
Although it is light, it still feels well made. It has almost all metal construction.
In order to use it, I had to remove a shroud on the mount that protects the aperture lever and which snags on a DSLR, but the lens has an A setting that works.
Wide open it is sharp at all focal lengths. The sharpness is very similar to that of the Tamron SP 60-300mm f4-5.6. At the shorter focal lengths the Tamron may have a slight edge, but at 300mm the advantage may be with the Tokina, though they are close. The Tamron may be more contrasty, but the Tokina shows less fringing. Compared with the Tamron, images with the Tokina have a greenish cast. I like the colours from my Sigma 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 APO and the Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG AF better than either the Tamron or the Tokina.
I find the Tamron a little easier to focus, I think because the focus has a longer throw, but the Tokina isn't difficult.
The Tokina is shorter, lighter and fatter than the Tamron, lighter than the slower Sigma 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 APO, and about the same weight as the Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG AF. And much, much cheaper. Highly recommended if you don't want or need autofocus.
At f2.8, it makes a nice portrait lens. Stopped down in macro mode, it is razor sharp.
I use it with a plain PK Adaptall Mount. I have two PK/A mounts, and they are both useless on this lens. On one, one of the insulator plugs embedding a switchable contact has sunk in to the surface of the mount and no longer makes contact with the camera body, so any attached lens can only be read as an f3.5 or an f4, whilst the other, though externally sound, has an electrical problem (a loose connection?) within the body of the mount which means it can only be read as an f4.
The sample picture (if I can work out how to upload it) is a full size crop of a JPEG straight from a Samsung GX20; no sharpening or post-processing of any kind. Shot at f5.6.
