View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16497 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:01 pm Post subject: Comparing TAMRON 500mm with RUBINAR 500mm |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
Comparing Tamron SP 8/500mm (55B) [left] with Rubinar 8/500mm [right]
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
For me the Tamron has the big plus of better handling (the mounting foot is a great plus), much easier focusing (peaking easily works) and overall the clearer images, especially also at closeup (surprising for the 55B version I guess). _________________ Klaus - Admin
"S'il vient a point, me souviendra" [Thomas Bohier (1460-1523)]
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums my albums using various lenses
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV BLOG
http://www.travelmeetsfood.com/blog Food + Travel BLOG
https://galeriafotografia.com Architecture + Drone photography
Currently most FAV lens(es):
X80QF f3.2/80mm
Hypergon f11/26mm
ELCAN UV f5.6/52mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f4/60mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f2/62mm
Lomo Уфар-12 f2.5/41mm
Lomo Зуфар-2 f4.0/350mm
Lomo ZIKAR-1A f1.2/100mm
Nikon UV Nikkor f4.5/105mm
Zeiss UV-Sonnar f4.3/105mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f1.8/45mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f4.1/94mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f2.8/100mm
Steinheil Quarzobjektiv f1.8/50mm
Pentax Quartz Takumar f3.5/85mm
Carl Zeiss Jena UV-Objektiv f4/60mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha II f1.1/90mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha I f2.8/200mm
COASTAL OPTICS f4/60mm UV-VIS-IR Apo
COASTAL OPTICS f4.5/105mm UV-Micro-Apo
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10462 Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Which Camera please?
Probably GH4. How useful is comparison of cropped image circles? _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony A7Rii, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200
Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300
Macro-Takumar 1:4/50
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm
Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element),
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100
Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100
SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
Other lenses:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16497 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
Which Camera please?
Probably GH4. How useful is comparison of cropped image circles? |
Yes, GH4, the camera(s) I mainly use. I do those comparisons for me;
that I share those here, is a side effect; if you don't like it, ignore it... _________________ Klaus - Admin
"S'il vient a point, me souviendra" [Thomas Bohier (1460-1523)]
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums my albums using various lenses
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV BLOG
http://www.travelmeetsfood.com/blog Food + Travel BLOG
https://galeriafotografia.com Architecture + Drone photography
Currently most FAV lens(es):
X80QF f3.2/80mm
Hypergon f11/26mm
ELCAN UV f5.6/52mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f4/60mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f2/62mm
Lomo Уфар-12 f2.5/41mm
Lomo Зуфар-2 f4.0/350mm
Lomo ZIKAR-1A f1.2/100mm
Nikon UV Nikkor f4.5/105mm
Zeiss UV-Sonnar f4.3/105mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f1.8/45mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f4.1/94mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f2.8/100mm
Steinheil Quarzobjektiv f1.8/50mm
Pentax Quartz Takumar f3.5/85mm
Carl Zeiss Jena UV-Objektiv f4/60mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha II f1.1/90mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha I f2.8/200mm
COASTAL OPTICS f4/60mm UV-VIS-IR Apo
COASTAL OPTICS f4.5/105mm UV-Micro-Apo
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10462 Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
kds315* wrote: |
visualopsins wrote: |
Which Camera please?
Probably GH4. How useful is comparison of cropped image circles? |
Yes, GH4, the camera(s) I mainly use. I do those comparisons for me;
that I share those here, is a side effect; if you don't like it, ignore it... |
Not a like-dislike issue. Let me rephrase please. How do you find useful comparisons of cropped image circles? Seems to me much (actually most) lens output is not compared. The crop comparisons are useful for image-circle-center resolution, yes. Is there more? I appreciate your knowledge and experience. Please share. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony A7Rii, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200
Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300
Macro-Takumar 1:4/50
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm
Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element),
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100
Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100
SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
Other lenses:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7775 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
Quote: |
For me the Tamron has the big plus of better handling (the mounting foot is a great plus), much easier focusing (peaking easily works) and overall the clearer images, especially also at closeup (surprising for the 55B version I guess).
_________________ |
My experience exactly, which is why I sold my Rubinar. The Tamron is a keeper. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
benadamx
Joined: 25 Feb 2019 Posts: 329
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
benadamx wrote:
as there are many rubinar owners in this thread, a question:
i've recently acquired a rubinar 500/8 (and generally agree with the tamron comparison - tamron wins overall, but the rubinar rendering is lovely in some situations) - i find the focus action to be a little looser than i'd prefer (especially compared to the tamron or my canon reflex 500/8, both of which i can nail razor-sharp focus pretty easily), does anyone know if it's possible to stiffen up the focusing action?
i find that the problem isn't so much finding the focus, but holding it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
Well, I dont't own either the Rubinar nor the Tamron but as a general observation I can confirm that the focusing action is the biggest problem with mirror lenses.
I've recently compared my 2 mirror lenses from Minolta to see if they are optically different. Luckily both in AF-mode; i.e. the Minolta/Sony AF Reflex 500/8 on LA-EA4 adapter and the Minolta RF Rokkor 500/8 on Techart Pro AF adapter both on my Sony A7R II. That's really a major improvement and makes the usage quite easy.
Optically these lenses perform very good, sharp and contrasty and I couldn't really find differences as the number one error (wrong focus) is eliminated.
However, tried yesterday to shoot the "super-moon" and added tele converters, the AF didn't work for this special task and I finally gave up. Therefore I took a "normal" 300/4 lens with 1.4X plus 2X converter to get 840 mm and this was good enough and successful. It's simply more easy to get the focus right with normal lenses, at least that's my impression.
Just my 2 cents. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marcusBMG
Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1301 Location: Conwy N Wales
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
marcusBMG wrote:
Very nice comparison Klaus. Your rubinar looks better than the one I had, which I found more noticeably inferior to tamron 55BB.
The comparison I would like to see is with the f5.6 rubinar.
benadamx: my rubinar was a bit "rattly" too. IMO the solution is a relube of the helicoid. _________________ pentax ME super (retired)
Pentax K3-ii; pentax K-S2; Samsung NX 20; Lumix G1 + adapters;
Adaptall collection (proliferating!) inc 200-500mm 31A, 300mm f2.8, 400mm f4.
Primes: takumar 55mm; smc 28mm, 50mm; kino/komine 28mm f2's, helios 58mm, Tamron Nestar 400mm, novoflex 400mm, Vivitar 135mm close focus, 105mm macro; Jupiter 11A; CZJ 135mm.
A classic zoom or two: VS1 (komine), Kiron Zoomlock... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
benadamx
Joined: 25 Feb 2019 Posts: 329
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
benadamx wrote:
tb_a wrote: |
Well, I dont't own either the Rubinar nor the Tamron but as a general observation I can confirm that the focusing action is the biggest problem with mirror lenses. |
that is broadly true for most mirror lenses, but the ones held to be "better" such as the tamron (and, i thought, the rubinar) are thought so at least in part due to the greater ease or control of focus... my copy of the rubinar feels like it has the potential to be better, with adjustment. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
benadamx wrote: |
that is broadly true for most mirror lenses, but the ones held to be "better" such as the tamron (and, i thought, the rubinar) are thought so at least in part due to the greater ease or control of focus... my copy of the rubinar feels like it has the potential to be better, with adjustment. |
Yes I know. My Minolta ones are worst cases. However, an AF adapter is definitely the solution to the problem. Unfortunately this is available only for specific cameras up to now and not very cheap as well.
But for me that was the best invention in the past years, not only for mirror lenses. It turns almost any existing MF lens into an AF one. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
tb_a wrote: |
benadamx wrote: |
that is broadly true for most mirror lenses, but the ones held to be "better" such as the tamron (and, i thought, the rubinar) are thought so at least in part due to the greater ease or control of focus... my copy of the rubinar feels like it has the potential to be better, with adjustment. |
Yes I know. My Minolta ones are worst cases. However, an AF adapter is definitely the solution to the problem. Unfortunately this is available only for specific cameras up to now and not very cheap as well.
But for me that was the best invention in the past years, not only for mirror lenses. It turns almost any existing MF lens into an AF one. |
I have the AF adapter also but had to micro adjust to -2 on my A7II. Still, I'm not confident that all shots are in perfect focus. I've been using the AF reflex more in manual focusing mode.
I rate my Rubinar 5.6/500 as the best of my mirrors. After using the others and coming back to the big Rubinar, I can immediately see the difference in ease of focusing. The Minolta AF is a close second with the Tamron running third. I sold my 3M-6A, which was nearly equal to the big Rubinar in IQ, but a tad slower and not as easy to use.
This is a recent image from the 5.6/500 Rubinar...
_________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2020 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Impressive. Very heavy I guess I I bet you use a tripod. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2020 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
woodrim wrote: |
I have the AF adapter also but had to micro adjust to -2 on my A7II. Still, I'm not confident that all shots are in perfect focus. I've been using the AF reflex more in manual focusing mode.
I rate my Rubinar 5.6/500 as the best of my mirrors. After using the others and coming back to the big Rubinar, I can immediately see the difference in ease of focusing. The Minolta AF is a close second with the Tamron running third. I sold my 3M-6A, which was nearly equal to the big Rubinar in IQ, but a tad slower and not as easy to use. |
Well, I don't have the Rubinar. But the Minoltas are really great if used with AF assistance as if MF-mode they are really tricky and very difficult to handle. I think the Techart PRO handles the RF Rokkor even better as the newer AF system is used whereas the AF Reflex on the LA-EA4 adapter uses the older system and has to be somehow micro adjusted. The only downside with Techart is that you have to do some average prefocusing manually as the adapter doesn't support the full range.
Unfortunately my Minolta AF to Techart (Leica M) adapter doesn't fit on the Techart adapter as it would be interesting to see whether it performs better likewise to the RF Rokkor. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2020 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
I do use a monopod, which I like using better than a tripod.
Thomas: I have heard from others that manually focusing the Minolta AF Reflex is difficult, but I haven't had trouble. I do like using it in MF mode and trust myself more than the AF with LA-EA4. However, that is only in situations with none or just minimal motion. In cases where focusing must be quick, I'll switch to AF and hope for the best. The Minolta AF can provide very good images and at times I think to rival the Rubinar, but I still give the edge to the big Rubinar. The differences between the better mirrors aren't that great. I think one would be challenged to pick the lens used in any given photograph. Sometimes the differences are more in the handling of the lens. I find the Rubinar, Minolta, Tamron, and Sigma 400 to all handle well. Some are better at close than others and some better at mid or far distance. I had Yashica ML and didn't like how it handled. I prefer the Rubinar for anything beyond close distances. I prefer the Sigma 400 and Tamron 500 for close-up. The 3M-6a was the biggest and heaviest and most solidly built, but not as good close-up and harder to handle, although images were extremely good. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|