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 SP 35-105mm f2.8 aspherical AD2, model 65A tryout
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 4:54 pm    Post subject: Tamron SP 35-105mm f2.8 aspherical AD2, model 65A tryout Reply with quote
So this is a bit of an oddity, later turned into an AF lens, and superseded by a 28-105mm. I don't think they made a lot of them as it was probably one of the last AD2 designs before they ditched the concept. But it seems to function perfectly well on a new Nikon D600 body, and I have a lot fewer lenses that fit the Nikon than fit my NEX.
Having finally noticed a skylight filter spoiling the quality of this optic, I have now given it a bit of a tryout without the filter, and it is looking a lot better. Probably best used a nudge under 105, as the OOF edges seem to get a bit glowy. So far I have only been shooting at f2.8 - after all there are plenty of good f4 manual lenses out there that are light and cheap - the only point of a heavier f2.8 lens is that it has to be good at f2.8. So far I would say that it is a pretty solid performer, and sharpness is good enough, with only a bit of extra help in post. Bokeh rendering was pretty good for a zoom lens too, I thought.

All pictures at f2.8 - mostly head shots at long end and whole body shots at wide end - sorry I did not keep more precise details!








PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with your assessment here, I have this lens for use on my Contax bodies and I really like it as a walk around, paired with a wide prime.

Last edited by barryreid on Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:23 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
good sharpness and contrast for wide open lens. nice shots.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice shots. I had this lens for a little while. I think the image quality was ok but as a walkaround lens the minimum focus distance was too long for my liking. No I kind of regret selling it...


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice shots. I had this lens for a little while. I think the image quality was ok but as a walkaround lens the minimum focus distance was too long for my liking. No I kind of regret selling it...


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
barryreid wrote:
I agree with your assessment here, I have this lens for use on my Contax bodies and I really like iras a walk around, paired with a early wide prime.

Thanks Barry. It is a handy walk around length, especially on FF. A wide prime sounds like a good companion.
Please post some examples if you have any

Last edited by Basilisk on Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:10 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ovim wrote:
Nice shots. I had this lens for a little while. I think the image quality was ok but as a walkaround lens the minimum focus distance was too long for my liking. No I kind of regret selling it...


It is a pity about the MFD, 1m is OK at 105mm but a bit poor at 35mm. I guess the wide aperture, 3x zoom range and compact size might have imposed design limitations on this.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Basilisk wrote:
barryreid wrote:
I agree with your assessment here, I have this lens for use on my Contax bodies and I really like iras a walk around, paired with a early wide prime.

Thanks Barry. It is a handy walk around length, especially on FF. A wide prime sounds like a good companion.
Please post some examples if you have any


Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of a protracted house move so it 's unlikely to happen soon I'm afraid!


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The only lens I've got left for EOS is the 73DE Tamron Aspherical 24-70 f3.4 - 5.6, the same series as this 35-105, and mine is a good lens as well. I bought it new a long time ago to use on my EOS600 film camera after I'd parked a Range Rover on my camera bag and destroyed all my Canon gear. I had the camera repaired, but replaced the lenses with this 24-70 and a 80-210 ( I think ) which is in the bottom of a Welsh river!
But both these lenses were streets ahead of the Canon lenses, they were very good. But although I still have the EOS600 I haven't used it for years.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the Canon AF version of this lens (65DE). It is heavy as hell but build like a tank. Fully open at 2.8 there is a lot of glowing with very minimal micro contrast. The resolutions tightens up very nicely by F/4. I imagine it is not that bad for portraits at 2.8 but I always have to boost the contrast and color on images shot at that setting (gratefully this is not a huge deal on RAW). The minimal focal distance is like 1.1 meters so it is not ideal for anything close. I remember reading a review somewhere that the corner resolution never gets very good on a full frame. On a 1.6 crop, it is a nice all around portrait lens covering most of the working distances from full body to very tight head shots. I won mine on Fleabay for $50 so there is nothing to complain. Not L image quality but most lenses are not.

Last edited by drjs on Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:44 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that most reviews says this lens is optically superior to its decedent 28-105 F/2.8. Never had one to compare so couldn't say it one way or the other.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
drjs wrote:
I have the Canon AF version of this lens (65DE). It is heavy as hell but build like a tank. Fully open at 2.8 there is a lot of glowing with very minimal micro contrast. The resolutions tightens up very nicely by F/4. I imagine it is not that bad for portraits at 2.8 but I always have to boost the contrast and color on images shot at that setting (gratefully this is not a huge deal on RAW). The minimal focal distance is like 1.1 meters so it is not ideal for anything close. I remember reading a review somewhere that the corner resolution never gets very good on a full frame. On a 1.6 crop, it is a nice all around portrait lens covering most of the working distances from full body to very tight head shots. I won mine on Fleabay for $50 so there is nothing to complain. Not L image quality but most lenses are not.


I find that critical focus is particularly important with mine - maybe the AF on your lens was not calibrated to modern tolerances?
Mine was £55; definitely worth it for that, there are not a lot out there but they sometimes seem to go for double that. I would say it is sharp enough for portraits, I use a LCD loupe in live view as I find that best with manual focus lenses (picture style set to max sharpness which does not affect the raw files). I haven't tested corner resolution, but I am more interested in this as a fast lens than a landscape lens.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
drjs wrote:
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that most reviews says this lens is optically superior to its decedent 28-105 F/2.8. Never had one to compare so couldn't say it one way or the other.


It is interesting that all the full frame f2.8 zooms these days are just under 3x magnification ratio - maybe the 3.75x ratio of the 28-105 led to too many IQ compromises that might have been acceptable on film, but not on modern digital sensors.

Another thing to point out about the AD2 lens is that at 660g and 100x70mm it is much lighter and more compact than most the current f2.8 zoom lenses (apart from the current Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 )


PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
drjs wrote:
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that most reviews says this lens is optically superior to its decedent 28-105 F/2.8. Never had one to compare so couldn't say it one way or the other.


I find the photo examples posted here to be quite good. I also recall reading several reviews on the 28-105/2.8 that were less than kind. It's a very expensive lens when purchased new, so its rather poor performance I found to be puzzling -- not typical for the Tamron I've always known.

Interestingly enough, B&H and Amazon still list this lens as available new. B&H also used to have reviews on this lens, and it was these reviews that were not so kind. Now, though, there are none shown. Amazon has no reviews either. Here's the B&H listing:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/142491-REG/Tamron_A76100_28_105mm_f_2_8_LD_Aspherical.html

Another interesting point: B&H's price is some $250 less than Amazon's.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow amazing shots! I agree whole heartly about the nudge back from 105 (glowly) but I'm pleasantly surprised by your photos! You've definitely inspired me to dust the old can out for another go when the weather becomes more tolerable!


PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The shots here look great ! I don't have the lens mentioned here but I do have the adaptall II 28-105 / 2.8 . Can't do a side by side so not sure who beats who at 2.8 but I did post a few shots in a thread I started http://forum.mflenses.com/tamron-sp-adaptall-ii-28-105-2-8-176a-t59582.html if you wanted to search. My lens does do macro so at 105 you can get close .


PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:

I find the photo examples posted here to be quite good. I also recall reading several reviews on the 28-105/2.8 that were less than kind. It's a very expensive lens when purchased new, so its rather poor performance I found to be puzzling -- not typical for the Tamron I've always known.
Interestingly enough, B&H and Amazon still list this lens as available new. B&H also used to have reviews on this lens, and it was these reviews that were not so kind. Now, though, there are none shown. Amazon has no reviews either. Here's the B&H listing:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/142491-REG/Tamron_A76100_28_105mm_f_2_8_LD_Aspherical.html
Another interesting point: B&H's price is some $250 less than Amazon's.


Pretty amazing that any AD2 lens is still available. They must have manufactured a load and then discovered some in a store room somewhere 20 years later! I wouldn't pay that much for it; my 35-105 is a nice lens for £55, but I don't think I would pay more than £100 for it.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
FotoPete wrote:
Wow amazing shots! I agree whole heartly about the nudge back from 105 (glowly) but I'm pleasantly surprised by your photos! You've definitely inspired me to dust the old can out for another go when the weather becomes more tolerable!


I can't quite work out why the glow happens more at f2.8 105mm but only sometimes. If focus is spot on the glow seems to vanish. The effect may not be unpleasant for portraiture.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
J. Smith wrote:
The shots here look great ! I don't have the lens mentioned here but I do have the adaptall II 28-105 / 2.8 . Can't do a side by side so not sure who beats who at 2.8 but I did post a few shots in a thread I started http://forum.mflenses.com/tamron-sp-adaptall-ii-28-105-2-8-176a-t59582.html if you wanted to search. My lens does do macro so at 105 you can get close .


Thanks J.Smith. Your pictures on that thread look pretty OK - good centre sharpness and nice bokeh. The close focus would be nice too. It is probably a case of finding the strengths of these lenses. I need to shoot some pictures in other situations to see how it handles.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi! I do have the 35-105 and I'm very happy with it except that the zooming is "dry" No smoothness at all but this dry feeling and if I forget to hold it, the moment it hangs down the zoom creeps quick to a hard stop at 105mm :cry: . Does any body else have the same problem or, much better, an easy fix for it? The other thing is the rotating front. I prefer petal-shaped shades and like to use a polarizer now and then.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Phalbert wrote:
Hi! I do have the 35-105 and I'm very happy with it except that the zooming is "dry" No smoothness at all but this dry feeling and if I forget to hold it, the moment it hangs down the zoom creeps quick to a hard stop at 105mm Crying or Very sad . Does any body else have the same problem or, much better, an easy fix for it? The other thing is the rotating front. I prefer petal-shaped shades and like to use a polarizer now and then.


Yes, these one touch zooms seem to have gone out of fashion for the reasons you mention - though for manual focus it makes for faster operation. Mine sounds like it is pumping air when I push/pull. It is getting better with use, as if the lubricant is spreading around more. The twist/focus action is pretty smooth and usable. It is a heavy lens on a mirrorless and will hang down causing creep, but on a FF DSLR it is well balanced enough not to hang down. I don't have a shade, and you are right, a polarizer would be a nightmare.
Post some pictures if you have any!


PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I do have the original shade. It makes using a polarizer even worse and is effective for 35mm only (and then less and less, you know)
Well I'm a bit useless at uploading pics. I've just tried and lost the previous message I had written ,so this one is much shorter. It says "upload" in 3 different places, "Drag and drop" Yes, but drag what and drop where? and I had this "Java" thing coming up with a strong warning from my computer that this could potentially be unsafe, etc, etc... and of course I did the wrong clicks and everything just disappeared. So if you have the patience to explain the right procedure to me I'll try to upload. I have 4 pics ready, they are less than 1000x 600 sized. Thanks for reading.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Phalbert wrote:
I do have the original shade. It makes using a polarizer even worse and is effective for 35mm only (and then less and less, you know)
Well I'm a bit useless at uploading pics. I've just tried and lost the previous message I had written ,so this one is much shorter. It says "upload" in 3 different places, "Drag and drop" Yes, but drag what and drop where? and I had this "Java" thing coming up with a strong warning from my computer that this could potentially be unsafe, etc, etc... and of course I did the wrong clicks and everything just disappeared. So if you have the patience to explain the right procedure to me I'll try to upload. I have 4 pics ready, they are less than 1000x 600 sized. Thanks for reading.


The admins may be better advising you on the best way of uploading. If your connection is slow, maybe post them on a different site (Flickr?) and post a link.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I found using a site called tinypic helped- you select your size from the drop down menu, browse and select the picture, upload (you may have to fill out an anti spam measure here) then select and copy the img code for forums and message boards then paste here.
Like this :


PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ok so a bit of weak sun this morning allowed ISO speeds of less than 6400, so I got a few more shots.
I think this sort of shooting plays to the strengths of the lens - my favourite part of the range from 60-90 - for still life type work. Shame it doesn't go closer than 1m, but at the longer end f2.8 gives reasonable scope for background separation. The short end is fine, but your nifty fifty is going to be a better option in most cases. If I had a nice fast 85mm prime, I probably would be using that instead.
No getting away from the out of focus glow in some shots, but it gives a bit of retro charm to my eye. I have to report that there is some quite serious pincushion distortion - probably fairly correctable - at all lengths.

All wide open between 60 and 100





To show it can do sharp - f8 @ 35mm


Nice and soft, and a bit impressionistic f2.8 @ 100ish
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3