My thoughts on the Tamron Adaptall-II 60-300 #23A

[glasslover]

Hi!

I think this lens is really quite nice. Not stellar, but good. There has been a lot of discussion of it recently, here:

http://forum.mflenses.com/tamron-sp-60-300mm-sleeper-or-stinker-t53960.html

This post is intended to be a combination of 3 things:
1. A look at how this lens does in the real world.
2. Photos of pretty things from a pretty place, that being the Mendocino coast of California
3. A bit of a study of purple fringing (pf), pf removal, and pf removal artifacts and clean-up

All pictures taken with a Tamron Adaptall-II model 23A (60-300) Panasonic GH2. Conditions were a combination of overcast daylight and bright sunlight. Most photos were taken at around ISO 200, the sea arch shot was at ISO 800. This lens has a purple fringing problem, but it is generally quite manageable.

The first set of photos is raw from the camera, converted to jpeg with LR4. No other post-processing other than resizing. Pixel-peepers can click on any of the photos below to see a huge original-size version. For the ones where I mention pf, you really should take a look at this 1:1 version, both in the pre-pf-removal (original) section, and in the post-processed section.

The second set of photos is raw from the camera, converted to jpeg with LR4, then cropped in some cases, and with minimal post-processing, typically to remove purple fringing. Pixel-peepers can click on the photo to see the full (or cropped), 1:1 post-processed image.

Original images. No cropping or post-processing.

1. "focus" on rodent eye. some ca, no pf. fun bokeh effect on rock in ocean near center.


2. nothing really in focus, but beautiful colors. creamy texture fall-off.


3. focus on 2 middle flowers. distracting bokeh.


4. focus on hairs in flower center.


5. "focus" on nearest bud cluster.


6. not really focused.


7. focus on some of the nearer shell parts, a little above center. bad pf all over the place, look at full-size photo.


8. focus on eye. pf along top of head, look at full-size photo.


9. focus on eye. some pf along top of head, bottom of throat, bottom of body.


10. unmanageable pf along the edges of many of the white mussels.


11. terrible pf along bird head and body.

Cropped and/or post-processed

12. cropped


13. cropped


14. cropped


15. cropped and slightly sharpened.


16. sharpened, pf removal. a bit problematic.


17. sharpened, with poor automated pf removal, look at the pf removal artifacts around the beak!


18. same photo as #17 above, touched up from pf removal artifacts. very effective.


19. slightly sharpened, with good automated pf removal.


20. heavy automatic pf removal. note color changes in the sea star vs the original (#10). This is a good example of what happens when there is the same color as the pf in the true subject matter of the photo.


21. pf removal only

Cheers!

[hifisapi]

If you used a m43 camera, it wont show the geometric distortion of the lens at the 60mm end that I experienced with
a FF camera.

[glasslover]

Hi!

[rbelyell]

thanks GL, very nice of you to post. as they say a picture is worth a thousand words. for $60 i doubt one can buy a better zoom at this range, so i guess negative experiences should take this into account. these look pretty darn good to me, equal to uch more expensive zooms.
tony