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 22A 35-135mm f3.5-4.2 first outing
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:09 pm    Post subject: Tamron 22A 35-135mm f3.5-4.2 first outing Reply with quote
Got this lens just recently and took it for an outing yesterday - the adaptall fitting wasnt registering correctly on the camera body - so that one will get replaced. BUT the lens was superb with great definition in the pictures

A White Tailed Sea Eagle





A Snowy Owl


PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've had my copy about 6 months, and I'm using it more and more - it's such a good lens on my Sony A6000. I like Tamron's, and this is probably my favourite zoom.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Marks..... Fabulous shots and I agree, great lens. Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Those eagle shots have come out great... This is my review on Pentax forums, and like you I found this lens to be a fine performer, specifically at the longer focal lengths. Notably warm rendering is a USP. I need to update that review actually - better test pics and I now have a 40A, the later 35-135mm to compare.

This is the seagull 1:1 pixel peep crop. Pentax Kr, jpg OoC.



I wasn't impressed with its close focus performance, and I found it a bit susceptible to flare.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Congratulations on those eagle images - very well done.
I once had this lens and it was like the little girl who had the little curl right in the middle of her forehead.
When it was good it was very very good, but it it was bad it was horrid.
Mine also had a tendency towards central flare that I could never predict or control.
Sometimes it took wonderful shots and then the very next image would show blown out flare in the middle of the frame.
I tried everything that I knew before admitting that the problem for me was unsolvable.
I sold it and the buyer was happy, so it might have been my lens camera combination.
Yours looks to be very good.
I would very much like to see some more images from it when you take it out again.
Cheers
T


PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A couple of pics on Flickr, I'll download them tomorrow.

https://flic.kr/p/NBFr7S

https://flic.kr/p/NBFngA


PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2023 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
While I have a few Tamron zooms and primes, they usually are hidden somewhere in the attic. Yesterday I decided to play a bit with some of those lenses - including the 22A 3.5-4.3/35-135mm lens. While I have not tested it for flares, ghosting and distortion, I am pretty impressed with its detail resolution on 24 MP FF.

Wide open there's a certain softness, especially in the outer parts of the image, but from f5.6 on the entire image looks clear and crisp, even in the corners (most 35-105 vintage zooms do worse). At the extremes there are some lateral CAs (f=35mm and f=135mm), but they are as well controlled as with a good prime. In the 50-100mm range there are virtually no lateral CAs, and the entire image looks really good.

S


PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2023 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
How would you guys rate the 40A version same FL of Tamron?
In fact, this focal length has so many models filter 58mm, 67mm, CF macro 67mm etc., Is there any winner between all of them?


PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2023 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very handy focal range also.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2023 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
How would you guys rate the 40A version same FL of Tamron?
In fact, this focal length has so many models filter 58mm, 67mm, CF macro 67mm etc., Is there any winner between all of them?


I only own the earlier (and bigger) 22A 3.5-4.5/35-135mm. At first I thought the Minolta MD-III 3.5-4.5/35-135mm might share the same optical construction with the Tamron 40A (due to the similar size and look), but that isn't true. The Tamron is lightly better at f=35mm (mainly less CAs in the extreme corners); the Minolta has an edge at f=135mm (less lateral CAs). Both lenses have a comparable detail resolution over the entire focal range.

Maybe someone else can write about differences and similarities between the 22A and 40A versions of the Tamron 35-135mm lenses?

S

EDIT: Interestingly, the Tamron 28A 4-4.5/28-135mm, although being a SP lens, at all focal lengths is slightly inferior to the aforementioned 22A 35-135mm.

EDIT 2: The Tamron 26A 3.5-4.2/35-210mm lens, also an SP lens, also can't compete with the 22A 35-135mm lens. Not only ist it much bigger and heavier, but at comparable focal lengths and aperture settings, at least in the outer areas of the image it also has somehow less resolution. Tested with 24 MP Sony A7RII, as usual.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2023 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are test results on adaptall-2.com for the 22a 40a and 26a (not for the 28a) I'd imagine copy variation to be a thing with these complez zooms.

22a


40a



26a


The 40a would be the best performer out of these three


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2023 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
There are test results on adaptall-2.com for the 22a 40a and 26a (not for the 28a) I'd imagine copy variation to be a thing with these complez zooms.


Those test results are of limited value.

Example: Tamron 3.5-4.2/35-210mm @ 35mm and f3.5. According to the test

Center: 49LP/mm resolution and 44% contrast at 30LP/MM
Center: 44LP/mm resolution and 40% contrast at 30LP/MM

100% crops from corner / center (43 MP FF) in reality look like that:


S


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2023 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I doubt they were peeping so deep into the corners on film Wink


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2023 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
I doubt they were peeping so deep into the corners on film Wink


This has nothing to do with "peeping so deep into the corners".

Same lens as above, again 35mm focal length and f3.5 aperture. This time 100% crops from the center and from the image border (i. e. about 17mm away from the center, while corner is about 21mm away from the center).



Those 40-50 year old tests simply weren't made for todays sensors.

S


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2023 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
But they didn't use film, they used optics bench...


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2023 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


Those 40-50 year old tests simply weren't made for todays sensors.

S


There's another possible variable at work that they didn't even dream of back in the film era- adapters to mount these old lenses for those sensors... those old lenses certainly were not designed for that use.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2023 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
I doubt they were peeping so deep into the corners on film Wink


This has nothing to do with "peeping so deep into the corners".

Same lens as above, again 35mm focal length and f3.5 aperture. This time 100% crops from the center and from the image border (i. e. about 17mm away from the center, while corner is about 21mm away from the center).



Those 40-50 year old tests simply weren't made for todays sensors.

S


Hmmmm. Granted, you tested against other lenses, so that experience amongst competitors is there to call on. And it could just suck at high res. I'd say there could be about 10-20% better performance with a better copy, but this experience is still representative. Mainly because of all your experiences with competitor lenses.

And to be fair to old lenses, even the ones you've ranked as good in the past don't look so happy against this target! That's me coming to terms with modern sensors. I should look at more old film negatives, really... not that the lenses were bottle glass - you can't hide an MTF chart.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2023 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
But they didn't use film, they used optics bench...


An "optical bench" is simply a platform used to keep things stable (no vibration) and perfectly aligned. It is by no means is an MTF measuring device. MTF measuring devices back then were extremely expensive and scarce. Not even all lens-producing companies had them.

I know that the extremely well made tests by Walter E. Schön (for German magazines, around 1980) were made on film (https://www.weschoen.de/vita.html). Walter E. Schön (a mathemathician and physicist) frankly admits that his tests did stir up the community since they were truthful and did not downplay the shortcomings of lenses tested. "On several occasions, the companies concerned threatened me with legal action and claims for damages following negative test results, but always retracted them meekly as soon as I presented my test photos and test protocols" he adds.

Doc Sharptail wrote:
stevemark wrote:


Those 40-50 year old tests simply weren't made for todays sensors.

S


There's another possible variable at work that they didn't even dream of back in the film era- adapters to mount these old lenses for those sensors... those old lenses certainly were not designed for that use.

-D.S.

Absolutely. When testing vintage primes I'm quite confident in the results, especially when taken with "low res" 24 MP cameras. Quite often I have tested two or three lenses of the same type (and occasionally up to ten). Results nearly always are very constistant.

Vintage zooms are a bit different. Two sets of Minolta zooms (seven samples of the extremely complicated AF 28-135 and ten samples of the different versions of the MD 35-70) were indistiguishable on 24 MP FF. Other samples - e. g. from Konica (3.5/80-200) or Tokina (3.5-4.3/35-105) had visible sample variation. Sinmilar problems were found when testing ten Mamiya E 3.5/135mm (an ultra-cheap tele lens from 1980). Quality control matters ...

Now the Tamron zooms, due to their Adaptall-2 system, are (in theory at least) even more prone to problems when testing. There's the zoom mechanism, then there's the Adaptall-2 adapter, then there's the additional "normal" adapter, and there's the camera (we remember the crazy flexbody of the Sony Aplha 7 ...). Lot's of possible deviations and errors, for sure.

What worries me most when testing zoom lenses is a possible deviation from the ideal "lens to sensor" distance, e. g. by mis-calibrated lenses (wear & tear!) or by shorther-than-needed adapters. On some occasions I was able to check the influence of the variation of the distance between zoom lens and sensor. The Tamron SP 28-135mm, for example, has a simple "macro mechanism" which changes the distance between the entire optical system and the sensor (same as in a ordinary prime lens). Using it I was able simulate a "bad adapter" and check the influence of a wrong distance between lens and sensor. Surprisingly, there was just a slight change in corner performance when increasing the distance "lens to sensor" for up to 1 mm! Center performance was still the same (at least on 24 MP FF; of course an MTF measurement would have shown a difference).

S


PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2023 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sample variation perhaps due more complicated build then primes. But even more critical issue, if tested today, after 40 years any zoom i pick from my collection there will surely be dust layers or haze. Evaporated grease is much more prone to reach glass elements which mostly are not sufficiently separated from multiple helicoids. And problems are not easy to spot, since 9+ elements.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2023 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
Sample variation perhaps due more complicated build then primes. But even more critical issue, if tested today, after 40 years any zoom i pick from my collection there will surely be dust layers or haze. Evaporated grease is much more prone to reach glass elements which mostly are not sufficiently separated from multiple helicoids. And problems are not easy to spot, since 9+ elements.


Sure. That will reduce the contrast (often to a visible amount). But it doesn't account for the dramatic loss of resolution observed (here shown: center vs border):


The test methods of Modern Photography around 1980 were based on Panatomic-X test images and (after 1980) measuring MTF values at 30 lp/mm which corresponds to about 3 MP on full frame cameras.

Re-sizing the original 43 MP image to 3 mp results in nearly equal image quality in the center and at the border (100% crops from a 3 MP FF image):



S
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1