Any Interest in a Comparison of WA to Short Tele Zooms?

[cooltouch]

I'd like to find out if there's any interest here in seeing the results of a test I've conducted which include a variety of WA to short tele zooms. I shot the test with an APS-C crop body camera, though -- a Sony NEX 7 -- so I won't be able to show the edges, which I'll admit is kind of important with the WA setting of these lenses. But it's either the NEX or I conduct this test with film cameras.

I have a rather large collection of WA to short tele zooms, especially Tamron SP and Vivitar Series 1. I have a few AF zooms as well, but this being mflenses and all, I won't include those.

These are the zooms I have:

Tamron SP:
28-80mm f/3.5-4.2
28-135mm f/4-4.5
35-80mm f/2.8-3.8

Vivitar Series 1:
28-90mm f/2.8-3.5
28-105mm f/2.8-3.8
35-85mm f/2.8

I also have a Canon nFD 35-105mm f/3.5 that i plan to include, and I have a Soligor somethingoranotherr (I'll have to go look) that I plan to sell but I can include it also.

So, this will be a 7 zoom test, maybe 8 if I include the Soligor. Kind of a large test, really. Usually, I like to present my results with easy to read comparisons, but it's a lot of work making the easy comparisons, and I honestly don't feel like messing with it. Which means that, for this comparison, I'll be uploaded a large amount of photos.

I've already taken photos with all 7 of the lenses I plan to include in the test (3 Tamrons, 3 Vivitars, and 1 Canon). I shot photos with each lens at its minimum and maximum focal length, at wide open, f/8 and f/16 apertures. I've made some preliminary evaluations. I guess one thing I found a bit surprising about ALL the lenses, is that, once stopped down to f/8, they all do a good job and there isn't much difference between any of them.

The subject of all photos is the same. It's a small palm tree in my back yard. It is an excellent subject for showing flare, CA, and sharpness (or lack thereof). Here are two examples shot with the Tamron Sp 28-80mm f/3.5-4.2:

@ 28mm and f/3.5:


@ 80mm and f/8:


Kinda hard to tell detail, though. Here are 100% crops of the palm in each photo:

@ 28mm f/3.5:


@ 80mm f/8:


Some flare and softness is evident at 28mm f/3.5, while at 80mm and f/8, good sharpness and minimal flare or CA is exhibited.

So, let me know if you're interested in more.

[Lightshow]

I'm definitely interested in a one lens walkabout solution in the (20-28 ) - (85-135) range.
Kind of surprised you haven't bought an A7 series yet... as much as I love my NEX-7, I find it hard to go back to using it from my A7r, especially for low light shooting.
I still use my NEX-7 for macro, where I can take the shot while zoomed in.

[cooltouch]

Oh, make no mistake, I'd love to own an A-7 series, but I simply can't afford one -- even a used A7 would be totally out of my price range.

I'm thinking about buying a Lens Turbo II instead, but even at the price they sell for, I'd have to save up. I don't like admitting it, but I'm quite cash poor at the moment. I have lots of physical assets, but none that I'm really willing to part with right now.

[Eddie46]

Coincidence you posted this.Just acquired a pair of Centon 28-70 f3.5 mini zooms along with some other (disposable) gear for £6.50. The one is PK mount and not too clever,but M42 version puts up a reasonable performance.So much so,the bug got me.So Yep,looking forward to this. Whilst on the subject,any recommendations in this area are welcomed,but nothing Exotic!!

[Oldhand]

That would be a useful test Michael, but as you anticipate - it will be lengthy.
I would be keen to see your results as I have owned all of those lenses at one time or other - except for the Soligor.
When I had them, I usually had two or three at any one time, and naturally did some comparisons for myself.
Nothing scientific, just as I took my images.
I do not want to pre-empt the tests, but just to say that the three that I have now were the best of my lot.
Why three? ..... well I was shooting Canon FD with film and I had a Pentax K-10D and Nikon D300 - so three lenses of different mounts.
I think that from my shooting, these three might also perform well for you, but we shall see.
Thank you for this
Tom

[Lloydy]

the short zooms are definitely interesting, they are the 'walkabout lens' when we don't want to carry a bagful of lenses, when its throwing it down with rain I don't want to be changing lenses so a short zoom is the weapon of choice.

At the moment I choose, in no particular order, from - Tamron 17A 35-70, 22A 35-135 ( I like both of these a lot ) Sigma 24-70 ( actually I don't choose this at all as it's horrible ) Yashica DSB 38-90 ( not bad at all ) Vivitar S1 28-90 ( probably first choice ) Minolta 35-70 ( maybe this is first choice ? ) Vivitar S1 24-48 ( Superb lens ) and a pair of Soligor CD - 24-45 and 35-70 ( one is good, the other very good, I can't remember which though )

So, I would certainly like to see the Soligor included in your test of this popular range of zooms. It was probably the first extra lens people bought after buying a SLR with the 50mm kit lens, so it was a hugely competitive market for the third party manufacturers.

Watching with interest.

[Oldhand]

That is also quite a selection Lloyd.
Is the Vivitar S1 24-48 ( Superb lens ) made by Kiron Kino?
I have been chasing a Tamron SP 24-48 for ages but they are very expensive now.
Perhaps the Vivitar would be a better value choice.
Tom

[Lloydy]

[Oldhand]

[cooltouch]

No problem, OH. I have both the Vivitar and Tamron 24-48. I've had the Vivitar for several years but I've made scant use of it for two reasons -- it's in Canon FD mount and its iris blades keep freezing open. I've cleaned them twice now, and they need to be cleaned again.

I've used the Tamron quite a bit recently, but only with film cameras, mostly my Pentax MX. So it will be interesting to see how it performs on an APS-C camera.

I would like to do a comparison between these two lenses, but it's gonna have to wait until I feel like opening up the Vivitar again. I should do that. It isn't particularly hard cleaning them. It's just tedious.

Because of these lenses' focal range I wasn't interested in including them in this test. They're too wide and too short.

By the way, the Soligor I have is a 28-70, a little short as well, but I can include it if folks want.

About this zoom test, as I mentioned in my previous post, I've already taken all the pics. I just need to post them in some sort of organized manner. Here's the thing about this comparison, though. There's not going to be anything scientific about it. I think what I'm gonna have to do is make 100% crops of that palm plant, because that's where all the interesting optical stuff is going on, whether it's flare or CA or simply sharpness that can be amply seen because of the palm's features. So that's the long and short of it. I'll be including all the photos in a separate thread from this one, though.

[Oldhand]

Looking forward to it Michael
Cheers
Tom

[Lightshow]

[cooltouch]

I can actually get by with one Speedbooster that will address better than 90% of my needs. If I get one in Canon FD, I can use a Nikon - FD adpter (that I already own) that retains infinity focus. My two largest collections, besides Tamron, are Canon and Nikon. I also have several M42 lenses, but I have an M42 - Canon FD adapter that also retains infinity focus.

[kievuser]

[cooltouch]

Hi Zhang,

I don't have any experience dismantling Zuiko lenses. However, it's worth noting that just about every lens is different from every other, especially zooms, so not having experience with a particular marque is not that big of a deal. Instead, there are certain basic design and construction principles that it seems that most lens makers follow. And I try to follow these.

Here's my advice, such that it is, with no warranty expressed nor implied. That is, you do it at your own risk.

First of all, you need some good tools. These will include a good lens spanner -- and I mean a good one. A cheap one with any wobble or dull tips won't do. And you'll need one or more small cross-point screwdrivers. Not Phillips! Phillips are too pointy. Cross-points are more blunt. Miniature screwdriver sets are usually cross-point I've found. Sometimes you'll need small flat-bladed screwdrivers as well.

Often, to access a rear group of lenses, one much remove the rear mount and aperture actuating levers. Then you'll usually be looking for spanner slots on the rear group of lenses. If they're there, use them. This will unscrew either a single element or a group of elements. Most likely the latter. If only one elements is freed, look to see if there are spanner slots beneath that one. There most likely are. I've had a couple of zooms that had to be dismantled one element at a time. Not fun. Be sure to keep exact track of the order of disassembly, so you'll know how it goes back together.

For the front end, sometimes after removing the front name plate/bezel you'll find spanner slots to undo a front element or group. But also you can usually open up a zoom by peeling back the rubber ring on the focusing/zoom collar and undoing the screws you find underneath. This can vary a lot -- even within the same zoom maker it can vary. So just give it a try and see what happens. What should happen is, after you've removed certain key screws, the zoom collar should slip off, exposing more guts. What you'll often see at this point is screws with nylon collars that move in various channels. Often, these will have to be removed so you can get to the internal element groups that these screws with nylon collars are actually moving as the collar is push-pulled or rotated.

From that point, things vary a lot, and you'll just have to use your best judgment. Hopefully cleaning your lenses' groups won't be so challenging and won't require all that much dismantling.

[visualopsins]

The focus helical threads are easier to re-thread correct if thread begin position is marked prior to disassembly. This step can save the time required to try each starting position to find the correct one...

Photos or a video record of disassembly can be helpful during re-assembly.

These, especially for lens with many elements and zoom...

[kievuser]

Hi Michael,

Many thanks for your detailed explanation! Servicing a zoom lens is not an easy job, and I am not sure if I can do it successfully. I think I'd better wait until I find a reliable service person, or just leave it as it is.
I tried it yesterday together with an OM 35-70/4 zoom lens and an OM Zuiko 50/1.4 normal lens that are in much better conditions. The results of this lens is surprisingly good. But the real surprise is the OM 35-70/4 zoom. I bought it much cheaper than the F3.6 version, but it performed almost the same WO as the 50/1.4 at F4 for those magazine pages and for some long range shots. It seems those dust and fog is more a psychologic effect than a real performance problem.

Thanks again for taking time to explain the details. It is really helpful.

Best Regards,

Zhang