Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Tamron Adaptall-2 28-200mm latest version
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:24 pm    Post subject: Tamron Adaptall-2 28-200mm latest version Reply with quote
I will pick up this lens tomorrow, any experience ?


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Poor performer, acceptable in the mid range when heavily stopped. Better to use a pinhole.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Tamron Adaptall-2 28-200mm latest version Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I will pick up this lens tomorrow, any experience ?


Adaptall-2.org doesn't list it?


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No. It is made right before AF lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I bought a copy with a pka adapter and returned it but kept the adapter. I couldn't get a sharp negative from it. It was as bad as other 28-200 (sigma I think) I tried before and much worse than other adaptalls I have tried.

Javier


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sound seems not good, quiet unbelievable Tamron made this crap, usually I never try lens with camera before purchase , this will be different Wink Many thanks for all of you!


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
good luck. imho, i do not think 28-200 is a range that can yield a good lens...hope i,m wrong!


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anktonio/4106741408/


PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well for a crappy lens that sure looks good to me Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
+1 Smile

Got any more shots?


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Today I did pick up lens and thanks for your warnings I did try it out before I pay it. My copy is works fine, not worst than any super-zooms what I did try out Kiron 28-210 for example and short, light weight.

Here some sample shoots. Taken with Sony Nex-3

All pictures did apply my usual process what I do with less good lenses than Contax lenses. Auto color, contrast , minimum sharpening and noise removal.

Click on each images to get higher resolution 1600px wide images!

#1 Focal length is 'unknown' I don't remember for that. F8



#2 I did change color cast accidentally, 28mm F8



#3 200mm f8 from same place than 28mm



#4 28mm F8



#5 70mm F8



#6 200mm F8


#7 200mm F8


#8 28mm wide open



#9 200mm wide open



PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
More images are here.

http://forum.mflenses.com/tamron-aspherical-28-200mm-f3-5-f5-6-adaptall-2-71a-t38549.html


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A very good lens to my eye. Thanks for sharing.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martyn_bannister wrote:
A very good lens to my eye. Thanks for sharing.


I think same and Sony NEX is a serious factor in this success, those lenses what did perform badly on my Olympus E-1 5mpx 4/3 and on Panasonic G1 m4/3 12mpx ? perform very well on Sony Nex-3.

I think bad opinion did come from a tampered lens or/and these lenses are not superb , need better camera than for excellent lenses.
I found Canon 5D2 for example makes almost any lens to superb, 4/3 cameras require sharpest optics too get good results especially at infinity distance.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
martyn_bannister wrote:
A very good lens to my eye. Thanks for sharing.


I think same and Sony NEX is a serious factor in this success, those lenses what did perform badly on my Olympus E-1 5mpx 4/3 and on Panasonic G1 m4/3 12mpx ? perform very well on Sony Nex-3.

I think bad opinion did come from a tampered lens or/and these lenses are not superb , need better camera than for excellent lenses.
I found Canon 5D2 for example makes almost any lens to superb, 4/3 cameras require sharpest optics too get good results especially at infinity distance.


You may well be right. Take your picture #9 for example. A very testing shot for any lens and it acquits itself extremely well. Colour is excellent, as is detail and contrast. Certainly a very good lens (especially when you consider that this was wide open) and, also, a very good camera.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Jumping in late...

I managed to get one of these with a PKA adapter for 7 bucks at Goodwill..

As I had its Pentax twin (the non Adaptall version) I didn't really rate it, I just wanted the PKA adapter! I had recently purchased the SP Adaptall-2 Macro at an attractive price and needed another PKA adapter..

I also read that both Nikon and Pentax used this lens with their badges.. and that it got 1.4 the lowest score ever issued by Photozine so..

I was very surprised at how well it does on my K5 and, using a PKA - NX adapter, on my little dinky NX100.

It is none too shabby for a $7 dollar lens? I have not read any reviews of the Adaptall version but it looks the same as the original Pentax fit one I have way back in 2007... Very odd!

Anyone else had this experience? Is it just better suited to the camera or??

Doug


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I tried this lens (71A) in a M4/3, remember it was nice to use in a range of 50-135mm. Now we'll see how it works in FF.

Common, cheap, of low interest to most, it is not appropriate for counting pixels or scan the border. Suffers significant chromatic aberration, especially in the focal ends. Distortion is present. Its slowness is painful. The sharpness is more or less acceptable at center and nothing more... really this lens only serves to take pictures! I love and hate this focal range Confused Confused

Direct JPG from camera, no PP, only resized.

28mm


35mm


50mm


100mm


200mm


28mm


28mm


200mm


200mm


28mm


135mm


Happy shots!


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 4:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It looks like it really does serve to take pictures!
For any ordinary purposes this is much more than good enough.
We are spoiled I think.


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
It looks like it really does serve to take pictures!
For any ordinary purposes this is much more than good enough.
We are spoiled I think.


Very much so.
I quite agree - very spoiled
OH


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2016 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
It looks like it really does serve to take pictures!
For any ordinary purposes this is much more than good enough.
We are spoiled I think.


Absolutely right. If we're not printing advertising posters, just family pictures, then these lenses have their place.


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2016 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
For similar range I have Tamron SP 26A 35-210/3.5-4.2 which is great lens. It's completely usable through the whole range wide open on both APS-C and APS-C with Lens Turbo II. The only downside is its' weight - 875g.
I must test it more thoroughly, but after playing around a bit with it I'm astonished with the quality. I remember having Vivitar 28-210 by Komine and it was usable almost only at f/8, but this one is working very nice.


PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2016 3:49 pm    Post subject: great photos Reply with quote
excellent photos the colours and contrast wow . great photos very well done.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1