105mm f/2.5: Nikkor vs. Tamron

[dof]

Comparing a Nikkor AI 105mm f/2.5 and a Tamron Adaptall 105mm f/2.5
fitted to D70.

I only resized the pictures (which caused some loss in sharpness).
No sharpening or other manipulation was done. Focus was at center
and done per the D70's manual focus indicator. Differences in levels
was due to the fact that I bracketed every setup and just picked the
one that seemed about right.

I shot each lens wide open and again at 5.6

105 Nikkor @ 2.5:


105 Nikkor @ 5.6:


105 Tamron @ 2.5:



105 Tamron @ 5.6


105 Nikkor @ 2.5:


105 Nikkor @ 5.6:


105 Tamron @ 2.5:



105 Tamron @ 5.6

[estudleon]

Both Good for me.

Till I can see, no significative differences among them.

Very good examples and very good lenses too. Congratulations.

Rino.

[dof]

[patrickh]

Interesting comparison. My poor old eyes seem to detect slightly better performance wide open from the nikkor, but the Tammie does really surprisingly well. Thanks


patrickh

[vilva]

It is well nigh impossible to say anything relevant about the differences in resolution based on scaled down images and rather small images at that - you ought to include crops from a sharp section of the photos.

I don't know the Tamron, but a well focused shot with the Nikkor would be reasonably sharp even at full size, see e.g. http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos350d_n105_files/n105_7467.jpg,
which is completely unsharpened (fully manually focused at f/5.6, I always focus at the shooting aperture), and the same shot with slight sharpening before RAW conversion in order to negate the effect of the 350D AA filter: http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos350d_n105_files/n105_7467s.jpg

Having looked at those full-size images, what do you think you'd be able or dare to say on the basis of just the web-size version: http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos350d_n105_files/n105_7467_s.jpg ?
At that size, even a pinhole photo can be deceiving: http://galactinus.net/vilva/pinhole/tallinn_ph_files/tallinn07c_llz.jpg !

Veijo

[ChrisLilley]

In the first test subject, the Tamron seems to have slightly better contrast wide open. Both lenses show a small amount of LoCA, not a problem in these photos. These are small differences.

The second set, the Tamron seems to be more affected by veiling flare while the Nikkor holds up contrast and detail better. This is a larger difference and I certainly prefer the results from the Nikkor there.

[estudleon]

Watching with greater depth, Chrislilley is right. AT second serie pics the sharpness and the contrast top is for nikkor lens. But I maintain the opinion that the Tammie displays a good performance and his pics plows very good ones

[dof]

I agree that the Nikkor is a bit better, especially in the flare/contrast area.

Some physical differences of the lenses:
The Nikkor's diaphragm has 7 blades and the Tamron has 6.
The Nikkor's coating also has a darker appearance and the colors
of the coating on the 2 lenses is different.

[dof]

For no particular reason I did this with the 105 Nikkor and an extension tube:

[Nesster]

Well, all that chrome lens real estate is reason enough for me - who cares what the lens taking it, that's super nifty vintage metal

[dof]

Yes, sadly they don't make 'em like that anymore ...

[estudleon]

[Screamin Scott]

Bear in mind that it is very difficult to focus both lenses on precisely the same spot, no matter how good ones eyesight is. Thus unless optical bench equipment is used, any results are to be taken with a grain of salt. That said, it's still nice to see these comparisons.