70-210mm supertest; Tamron SP, Vivitar Series 1

[devinw]

[cooltouch]

I'm sure the Minolta 70-210 is a fine lens, but Marcus originally set up this test to include those aftermarket lenses that were considered "best of the breed" back when they were being sold new. If he opens this comparison up to include the Minolta, then in fairness, he should also include the Nikkor 80-200/4.5 and f/4 lenses, both highly regarded, and Canon's FD 80-200/4 and 70-210/4. And then there are the Pentax, Oly and even Contax and Leica zooms. And Angenieux. Shouldn't we include them as well? I mean, to be fair and all.

[marcusBMG]

1. I don't have those lenses (and in spite of my endemic LBA, no intention of acquiring them - gotta draw the line somewhere... :~ )
2. those lenses don't go on my pentax, and in fact I only have PK and M42 adapters for the NX20 (tho' I do have all except OM adapters for my m43 G1, there was a dodgy ebay seller for a while who was listing them as auctions and I picked them up for <5 bucks each).

But if one of you minolta/rokkor enthusiasts did a similar test I would be appreciative and interested in the results.

[miran]

[chudy128314]

Thank you for your effort. Some time ago I did similar comparison (I hope to share results some time) and all 70-210/3.5 (and similar) Tamrons, Vivitars, Soligors and Tokinas seemed to be beaten up by Panagor 75-205/3.5. I did not perform exact analysis, but at first glance it was obvious. I hope to find some spare time to compare them more carefully.

[marcusBMG]

[devinw]

[devinw]

[luisalegria]

I belueve that "Panagor" was another Kino (Kiron) house brand.

[miran]

[calvin83]

[chudy128314]

[marcusBMG]

Just acquired a Tokina RMC 70-210mm f3.5, M42 mount. Optically pretty good, just a couple of slight spotty bits/haze on the second element. Mechanically just a bit "rattly". It's slightly remodelled compared to the VS1 but the similarities are obvious. Internally it looks identical.



Just taken a quick couple of test pics at 210mm of the neigbours chimney, IQ looks similar to my VS1. I'll include some test pics on teh main review pages as and when I take them. Crops at f3.5, Tok RMC top, samsung NX20, jpg's.

[fwcetus]

[marcusBMG]

[Lloydy]

When I go on vacation and take my Sony A6000. or the NEX5, one of the manual lenses I always take is my Vivitar S1. 70-210 f2.8-4 Komine, it's a wonderful lens that has been across the American SW and Canada's Maritime Provinces. It really is a lens that I trust and automatically put in the bag.
But there is a contender for the place in the bag.......the Tamron 19AH is a lens I've had for a little while and loved since the day I got it, but at home I throw prime lenses in the bag when I go for a walk and the Tamron has had little use until yesterday when it was the only lens I took with me, and I was impressed. What I want is a lens I can trust, a point and shoot lens that I can take pictures with that I haven't got to chimp and check ( unless they are important pictures ) The Tamron is a serious contender to the Vivitar, it might just be better. There's always going to be the argument about constant f3.5 versus the 2.4 / 4 ? But I think that's where the argument ends, both of these lenses do what I want them to do and they do it very well. I shall have to do a back to back test.
I took the Tamron out and just shot pictures quickly, as I would when I use this range of zoom while on vacation. Here's three samples, no PP at all. The building picture isn't as sharp as it could be, but that's camera shake. The Moorhen chick picture might look a bit soft, but they are a bugger to get decent pictures of, the down always looks as though the image is poorly focused. This one isn't bad at all.

[marcusBMG]

Yes both show very well in the test pics. Neither bests the other overall, the 19AH is better eg at 70mm landscape, the VS1 is better at macro and perhaps edges it slightly at 210mm.
But you know perhaps the most consistent performer in the test is the kiron zoomlock. Certainly my results/conclusions comments will include the point that the KZ deserves just as much regard and accolades as the komine VS1, and for pentax users it can be found in PKA mount too.

[marcusBMG]

I have now got some images from a close focus test up. Test subject was a banknote.

Results are interesting. Komine VS1 shows well. Kiron VS1 also sharp but only centre frame, IQ drops off rapidly off centre, even on APSC. !9AH not as good as I expected it to be, especially at 1:4, images which were taken at ~ 135mm so towards the strong end of the lens zoom range. in fact trying to focus with the 19AH was really ticklish, it was as if I was trying to focus on a 3d object with no really precise focus point (this was using 7x magnification in the samsungs EVF). I intend to have another go with another example of the lens using my K5 to see if it looks different with an optical VF.... But in principle I would attribute the uncertainty to inherent spherical aberrations.
Note that the tokina VS1 results were a bit compromised by the lens being at ~ 1.5m rather than the spec 1.2m due to my misaligning the infinity focus.

[fwcetus]

[marcusBMG]

I have now added some results for the well regarded 60-300mm Adaptall SP 23A, and the Tokina RMC 70-210mm I recently acquired. For the turret shots the 23A was set at 200mm and is distinctly slightly wider FoV. For the castle shots I tried more consciously to match FoV with the tokina at a point between 60mm and 100mm.

[cooltouch]

Thanks for including the Tamron 23A in your tests. I have used this lens for many years, mostly because of its versatility and sharpness, even wide open at 300mm. So I'm a bit surprised by your 23A's softness in your test shots. I would have to say that your copy is not typical with my experiences with this zoom. I have many images I've shot with that lens over the years, and what I've liked most about them was the sharpness it demonstrated. I've even done comparison tests using this lens. One comparison test was up against two other zooms that extended out to 300mm, the Tokina AT-X 100-300mm f/4, and the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6. The results showed that the Tamron was pretty much equal to the other two in terms of resolution.

Here are some images from that test. The subject was a water kiosk that was about 400mm down the street from where I used to live. The object was to resolve the words "We care about the water you drink". These are all 100% crops. The camera used was a Canon XS 10.1mp DSLR.






I own two copies of the 23A presently. Your results make me want to test mine again,, with my 24.3mp NEX 7 this time, and see if they agree with your results.

The first 23A I owned, an inner group of elements actually unscrewed itself and fell into the inside of the lens. I was able to open it up and screw the element group back into place. So if your 23A rattles at all, yours might be doing the same thing.

[marcusBMG]

23A # 2 is definitely sharper - see turret images. Need a sunnier day to get some castle pics.

[cooltouch]

Yes, #2 is gratifyingly sharper. Time of day was different, it seems, so sometimes it is difficult to evaluate. Scrolling the images around helped.

[marcusBMG]

And 23A #3 (my "personal collection 23A" - a mint example) ups the ante a bit more - though not particularly on the castle shot.

With hindsight I suspect that the first set of shots might have been affected by wind vibration, it was a breezy day. I'll do a few quick comparison test shots between the 23A's....

[marcusBMG]

A quick comparison test between 23A's #1 and #3 at 200mm, NX20, showed that #1 is indeed a poor performer.

#1 top two crops, f3.8 and f5.6. #3 bottom two crops, f3.8 and f5.6. A quick exposure test showed that the aperture changed enough to drop the shutter speed at zoom 100mm, 135mm, and ~ 200mm, so the indicated f is probably a stop below actual.