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 Adapt-A-Matic 135 2.8
View previous topic :: View next topic  

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:04 pm    Post subject: Tamron Adapt-A-Matic 135 2.8 Reply with quote


Tamron's Adapt-A-Matic came before Adaptall, which in turn came before the famous Adaptall-II lenses. I am not the first to post Adapt-A-Matic photos here, Luis in particular has been somewhat prolific.

My copy of this lens is a bit dusty on the inside, which may have some effect on the image quality. Both the overall contrast and microcontrast on this lens are typical of their time, which is to say, not so great. And there's a bit of the dreaded purple fringing, too. Yet I like the rendering of flowers, and love the handling; this is a smooth, solid (415g), and beautifully made piece of machinery. I have included below a photo of the lens itself, photos of some raw images out of the camera, and also some images post processing with LR4. All photos taken in bright sunlight with an Olympus OM-D E-M5.

The lens itself.

Flower, f2.8, near minimum focal distance of 1.5m, no pp. Focus on uppermost center flower center.

Slightly different flower, f5.6, near minimum focal distance of 1.5m, after some LR4 pp. Focus on uppermost center flower center.

Palm, f4.0, ~3m distance, after some LR4 pp.

Older hikers, f8, no pp.

Older hikers, f8, cropped, after minimal LR4 pp.

Older hiker, f8, cropped more, after minimal LR4 pp, showing a beautiful example of purple fringing.

Older hiker, f8, cropped more, showing less purple fringing after LR4 adjustment.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting results.

Purple fringing I've seen, the CA problem, not really.
The results at f/8 in particular I would say are quite poor.

Now, I was using a Pentax K100D when I was using this lens, which is a much less dense sensor than yours.
That may have something to do with it. The more dense your sensor, the better the lens you need to get
satisfactory results at 100% crop.

My sensor - 6MP on APS-C, or 16,200 pixels/sq mm
Your sensor - 16MP on 4/3 or 71,100 pixels/sq mm

Your sensor is 4.4 times as dense as mine.

Even my Pentax K-x is nowhere near yours - 33,500 pixels/sq mm