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 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.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2022 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Since it is already more saturated on import it must be how lightroom handles the color space. It says it is using the embedded profile. The images uses adobergb, that can give different results across platforms. That's why I always set my camera to sRGB.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2022 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Paragon19 wrote:
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'.


I bought this lens new back in the 90's. That's totally normal. It also far from the smoothest of zooms. Still have it today.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2022 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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'.[/quote]

Exactly the Same with mine. Zooming dry and very unpleasant to use, but I don't dare to send it in for a lube. Who knows how it will come back.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2022 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I suspect lenses that `zoom creep' will eventually wear and give `zoom drop'.

The best way to avoid this is to not use a zoom lens. Wink Wink Wink


PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2022 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
I suspect lenses that `zoom creep' will eventually wear and give `zoom drop'.

The best way to avoid this is to not use a zoom lens. Wink Wink Wink


It's not an unreasonable expectation, but I have several that would surprise me. My Tamron SP 60-300mm f3.8-5.4 23A remains very firm, despite also being a push-pull zoom like the 35-105mm. It may happen, but not for a few years at least, and considering the age of the lens, the state it's in now is pretty impressive.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3