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 SP 35-105mm f2.8 aspherical AD2, model 65A tryout
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Took a shot with my 28-105 at 2.8 so maybe compare similar subjects here http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1369881.html#1369881


PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
J Smith - this looks pretty acceptable for centre sharpness. I agree if a zoom like this is not usable wide open at the longer end, you might as well use a lighter slower cheaper alternative. But this looks OK. Show us some more!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
J Smith - this looks pretty acceptable for centre sharpness. I agree if a zoom like this is not usable wide open at the longer end, you might as well use a lighter slower cheaper alternative. But this looks OK.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I scored a tamron 35-105/2.8 at a good price but I didn't keep it long because I didn't like either the optical
performance of the lens or the ergonomics...


PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Basilisk wrote:
drjs wrote:
I have the Canon AF version of this lens (65DE). It is heavy as hell but build like a tank. Fully open at 2.8 there is a lot of glowing with very minimal micro contrast. The resolutions tightens up very nicely by F/4. I imagine it is not that bad for portraits at 2.8 but I always have to boost the contrast and color on images shot at that setting (gratefully this is not a huge deal on RAW). The minimal focal distance is like 1.1 meters so it is not ideal for anything close. I remember reading a review somewhere that the corner resolution never gets very good on a full frame. On a 1.6 crop, it is a nice all around portrait lens covering most of the working distances from full body to very tight head shots. I won mine on Fleabay for $50 so there is nothing to complain. Not L image quality but most lenses are not.


I find that critical focus is particularly important with mine - maybe the AF on your lens was not calibrated to modern tolerances?
Mine was £55; definitely worth it for that, there are not a lot out there but they sometimes seem to go for double that. I would say it is sharp enough for portraits, I use a LCD loupe in live view as I find that best with manual focus lenses (picture style set to max sharpness which does not affect the raw files). I haven't tested corner resolution, but I am more interested in this as a fast lens than a landscape lens.


Pretty sure it is not a focusing issue. I tried the lens on manual focus using focus assist + zoom (magic lantern) and got the same results. I think it is not horrible, just not as contrasty as I like it to be. My remedy is to use a boost of +15 on contrast to raw files in light room when I use this lens fully open at 105 mm. I will post some examples when I get a chance to play with it.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
J. Smith wrote:
Took a shot with my 28-105 at 2.8 so maybe compare similar subjects here http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1369881.html#1369881


These looks really decent. What type of camera is the lens on?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
drjs wrote:
J. Smith wrote:
Took a shot with my 28-105 at 2.8 so maybe compare similar subjects here http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1369881.html#1369881


These looks really decent. What type of camera is the lens on?


I used my old battered Sony A100 for that pic and the crop of it.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I found a couple of 35-105/2.8 sample shots, from a walk round Margate last summer - a couple of days after I got hold of mine…







PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've just tried this lens on my new Sony A7r and, while it's not always the easiest of lenses to focus, it's shaping up pretty darn well for a £40 fast Zoom. In fact, it now has to go in the seriously under-rated category.

Here's a sample at around 105mm f/4. OK it's in lovely bright, contrasty light but the brickwork really is tack sharp all the way in on the original file.



PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Played with mine on A7. Mine is an 65DE which is the EF AF version. I guess it qualifies as a MF lens on the A7 since my EF-NEX adapter doesn't AF with it. Laughing Laughing Laughing

Same results as on my 1.6X Canon, wide open (2.Cool at 105 lacks micro contrast and is glowy, but it tightens down very well by F/5.6 and is wonderful at F/8. Not bad at all for portraits though, the softness definitely works. Here are some comparisons between 2.8 and smaller aperture.


1) 102mm F/2.8


2) 102mm F/5.6


3) 102mm F/8


4) 102mm F/3.5


5) 102mm F/8


6) 102mm F/8, color is kind muted but charming


7) 102 F/8, brokeh is creamy


Last edited by drjs on Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:25 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
drjs wrote:
Played with mine on A7. Mine is an 65DE which is the EF AF version. I guess it qualifies as a MF lens on the A7 since my EF-NEX adapter doesn't AF with it. Laughing Laughing Laughing

Same results as on my 1.6X Canon, wide open (2.Cool at 105 lacks micro contrast and is glowy, but it tightens down very well by F/5.6 and is wonderful at F/8. Not bad at all for portraits though, the softness definitely works. Here are some comparisons between 2.8 and smaller aperture.


Nice examples. Did you try f2.8 at a shorter length ~90mm? I found the glowiness much less of a problem.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Basilisk wrote:
drjs wrote:
Played with mine on A7. Mine is an 65DE which is the EF AF version. I guess it qualifies as a MF lens on the A7 since my EF-NEX adapter doesn't AF with it. Laughing Laughing Laughing

Same results as on my 1.6X Canon, wide open (2.Cool at 105 lacks micro contrast and is glowy, but it tightens down very well by F/5.6 and is wonderful at F/8. Not bad at all for portraits though, the softness definitely works. Here are some comparisons between 2.8 and smaller aperture.


Nice examples. Did you try f2.8 at a shorter length ~90mm? I found the glowiness much less of a problem.


I will try tonight and post some examples back. Thanks for the pointer.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
drjs wrote:
Played with mine on A7. Mine is an 65DE which is the EF AF version. I guess it qualifies as a MF lens on the A7 since my EF-NEX adapter doesn't AF with it. Laughing Laughing Laughing

Same results as on my 1.6X Canon, wide open (2.Cool at 105 lacks micro contrast and is glowy, but it tightens down very well by F/5.6 and is wonderful at F/8. Not bad at all for portraits though, the softness definitely works. Here are some comparisons between 2.8 and smaller aperture.


Interesting... I'd never noticed this level of glow in the shots I've made with my 65A.

As it happens there is a reason for that; I rarely shoot at anything close to the minimum focus distance on my lenses, and this excessive glow is definitely a factor of working close-up. It is greatly reduced by the time you reach 5m and only manifests as a slight softness at infinity.

It's great to learn about a weakness like that before it affects an important image and see how it improves quickly as you stop down from to f/4 & f/8.

100% crop 105mm @ f/2.8 - focused @2.5m (complete with 35mm FE for comparison Wink )


PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
barryreid wrote:
drjs wrote:
Played with mine on A7. Mine is an 65DE which is the EF AF version. I guess it qualifies as a MF lens on the A7 since my EF-NEX adapter doesn't AF with it. Laughing Laughing Laughing

Same results as on my 1.6X Canon, wide open (2.Cool at 105 lacks micro contrast and is glowy, but it tightens down very well by F/5.6 and is wonderful at F/8. Not bad at all for portraits though, the softness definitely works. Here are some comparisons between 2.8 and smaller aperture.


Interesting... I'd never noticed this level of glow in the shots I've made with my 65A.

As it happens there is a reason for that; I rarely shoot at anything close to the minimum focus distance on my lenses, and this excessive glow is definitely a factor of working close-up. It is greatly reduced by the time you reach 5m and only manifests as a slight softness at infinity.

It's great to learn about a weakness like that before it affects an important image and see how it improves quickly as you stop down from to f/4 & f/8.

100% crop 105mm @ f/2.8 - focused @2.5m (complete with 35mm FE for comparison Wink )


Very interesting comments! Great observation. I almost always shoot at MFD because my love of macro. I never really thought a lens could behave differently depending on the focal distance. I guess that only makes sense. I will go back and check at longer focal distance.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
drjs wrote:
Very interesting comments! Great observation. I almost always shoot at MFD because my love of macro. I never really thought a lens could behave differently depending on the focal distance. I guess that only makes sense. I will go back and check at longer focal distance.


Yup, I've never really thought about it either because I never shoot Macro and rarely get closer to any subject than a couple of metres!


PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Those last two pics of the lens sitting on the microphone box look terrible. Either they are out of focus
or the lens sucks..


PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2022 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just snagged one of these last month for $55, which I consider a very reasonable price for the lens. Still haven't shot a lot with it, but I was just using it and figured I'd upload some samples.

#1


#2


#3


I would say contrast and resolution wide open are more than acceptable for this lens. I don't think it's especially surprising considering it was made in 1991 and has some advanced lens coatings. These photos are all straight out of camera jpegs, from a Canon M6 MkII. Keep in mind that this is a 32.5 megapixel crop sensor. I'm actually quite impressed with resolution of details actually, shooting on this sensor is not an easy test for a lens.

Bokeh is pretty good. There's a fair amount of yello CA, and bokeh balls show obvious onion patter, which I expect from a zoom lens, but overall I can absolutely live with it.


#4


#5


The lens definitely needs a hood, I had to move for this final shot because the sun was catching the large front element and creating very strong flare Even now you can still see a loss of contrast.

More to come once I use it in a more controlled environment.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2022 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some sharpening will do a lot for it:


PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
Some sharpening will do a lot for it:


I was actually pretty happy with the sharpness already, but I admit, that's a nice improvement. How did you apply the sharpening?


PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just some Lightroom. Amount 120 and radius 2.5


PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2022 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's quite good after sharpening.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2022 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Strangely the vibrance/saturation also was affected. I didn't do anything to that. In fact the imported unedited file in lightroom is already more saturated than the pic posted by Paragon19.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2022 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
Strangely the vibrance/saturation also was affected. I didn't do anything to that. In fact the imported unedited file in lightroom is already more saturated than the pic posted by Paragon19.


On my screen the vibrance/saturation is NOT affected. Both images look the same (apart from sharpening of course).

Occasionally I did notice similar problems (caused probably by the forum software ??) when posting my own images. That's why I usually recommend "double clicking" on the images to get the original colors and resolution as intended by the poster.

S


PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2022 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not noticing any changes in saturation either on my screen.

As it is straight out of camera I quite like the colors already anyway. I did some more shooting with it last night (product images for some lenses I'm going to list on Ebay) and was very pleased with the results from it in those conditions as well on my Fujifilm X-T1, using a helicoid to aid in some close focusing. I started shooting the images with my Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5 but found the contrast from those shots much lower by comparison with the Tamron 35-105 f2.8. I know they aren't two lenses you would normally compare, but it made me appreciate the Tamron's coatings even more.

I do have one note on the matter of zoom creep. My copy of the lens does not zoom creep so much as it zoom drops, as almost all the weight of the lens is in the front. There's almost no resistance holding the push-pull zoom in place, and pointing the camera down more than 45 degrees, or up more than 45 degrees will usually result in the lens zooming all the way in or all the way out with quite a bit of force, and an audible 'thunk'.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2022 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well now that I'm at work I am seeing the differences between the two, it looks more like a white balance change to me, possibly with a little more vibrance or saturation. The edited photo appears warmer than my original.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3