Adaptall mid range zoom close focus comparison

[marcusBMG]

I recently reacquired a 27A 28-80mm. Didn't get on with this adaptall the first time, but second time round, with a split prism VF and a lot more practice with these lenses, I think it's fine.

Since I now have a selection of the adaptall mid range zooms I thought I would do a close focus comparison. My intent is a two part test. Here is part one - trusty 10 euro note, imaged at each lens cfd. I decided to use my Lumix G2, with a notion that the higher pixel density and crop factor might help to discriminate, and the spot metering is much more consistent than my pentax. I set up in the conservatory - a natural light box. The lenses in the test (L to R):


35-80mm 01A f2.8-3.8 CFD = 1:2.5 mag ratio.
28-80mm 27A f3.5-4.2 CFD = 1:3.4
35-70mm 17A f3.5 CFD = 1: 2.8
28-70mm 44A f3.5-4.5 CFD = 1:3.15
28-70mm 59A f3.5-4.5 CFD = ~ 1:3 there is no specific measure of either the macro ratio or the cfd on the lens so this is estimated from the crops and the cfd - very similar to 44A , but actually a tad closer cfd.
addendum:
35-80mm QZ-35M f2.8-3.5 CFD = 1:2 see pics later post

These all have max magnification at the longest focal length. A minor tech point I have just noticed is that the zoom rotation (these are all 2 ring zooms) is opposite on the last two. Focus is the same on all the lenses (with lens on camera and pointing away from you rotate anticlockwise to infinity), in fact early versions of 17A were the only adaptall lenses made differently.



100% crops from the banknote (off centre but I don't think thats an issue with the centering from the crop factor). Left crop - wide open. Right crop: ~f10. For 01A, since its closest focus was a significant notch larger magnification than the other lenses I also took shots at the same distance as the other lenses at approx 1:3 (not 1:4 as on the pics).








Conclusion so far: not a lot between these lenses. All show markedly lower contrast wide open. The 17A crops confirm my good impression of it; I'm wondering if there were perhaps slight tech deficiencies (vibration? I used 2 secs timer) with the 01A cfd crops - I was expecting sharper; the plastic consumer 59A does better than one might expect.

For part two I intend to set up a flower and background test. Just need a decent weather opportunity.

[invisible]

Very cool comparison, thank you!

[drjs]

Interesting.. One would expect 01A to be better but it is not.

[marcusBMG]

[invisible]

[marcusBMG]

Note my other corrections too

[marcusBMG]

Flower test pending, in the meantime decided to try these out with the 01F and 014F tc's. Turned out that only 27A and 44A accept the 014F, and that 59A doesn't take any tc without modding the rear baffle, and then zooming to 28mm will crunch the rear group against the tc. All at f6.3 on the Pentax k-r with PKA mount, developed from RAW in LR3.6 (to equalise exposure), other settings the same across the board.









Tells us more about the tc's TBH. 17A again looks good. I have been trying to use the 014F with my 200-500mm 31A, but have been a bit disappointed, however the sharp results with 27A and 44A are encouraging.

[guardian]

A very interesting and valuable test.

On the 01A, one must not ignore copy to copy variations.

Regarding the "plastic consumer" Tamrons:

I, too, have been surprised by some of these. One must pick and choose with care. But just because an Adaptall 2 lens is plastic does not mean it is a bad lens and, indeed, a few are really quite good!

[marcusBMG]

Well I promised some "live" comparison, but my first effort out in the garden was a failure. A second effort produced worthwhile images, but not much to chew on, the images were most noticeable for their similarity. I think I would like to get a composition with point bokeh in the background, light through a hedge for example. I have a nagging thought that do do this properly I need a studio set up. Let me know what you think,/advise, what you would like to see...

here is a sample image at 800px, f10, from the second effort with 01A.



In the meantime I have obtained the precursor lens to the 01A - the QZ-35M. This is actually a very different animal to the 01A: zoom+focus sleeve vs 2 ring zoom; macro to 1:2 at 35mm by extension of optical assembly away from mount vs macro to 1:2.5 at 80mm by extended focus throw. Handling and optical character are all different. Like many lenses the focal length changes with focus distance. The Macro Mode Button allows a ring to be rotated to the Macro setting, whereupon sliding the zoom moves the whole optical assembly forward, acting therefore like an extension ring. Maximum magnification (1:2) is achieved when the zoom+focus is pushed the full way out to 80mm and rotated to minimum focus distance.



I was intending to work up to a good comparison with the 01A, but the lens turned out t have problems - something (an element or group) is loose inside, making images blurred. However I did take these macro shots at 1:3 and 1:2, f2.8 and f8 (35mm of course) of the 10 euro note on my Lumix G2 for comparison. Working distances were 9cm/3.5" and 5cm/2". They suggest that this could give 01A a run for its money actually.

[kenetik]

I have the 27A and it takes lovely shots. There is a lot of overlap in Tamron's zooms over the years. For a while I picked up any SP lens I saw, but I have several Sp and non Sp lenses that overlap and find that the non SP/Cf lenses often perform just as well.

[invisible]

[marcusBMG]

I would say they are pretty different lenses. 13A's strength IMO is at the wide end. 27A is for me better at 80mm, and in any case I would prefer 01A. 27A is pretty good but I don't think it really measures up to a SP designation. These close focus comparisons here 27A was one of the weakest performers.

[PhantomLord]

Hi, I've made similar test some time ago, but with only three lenses: 01A, 17A and 27A and my conclusion were completely different (although I made more real life testing - not a macro shots of money ). Unfortunately images in the post are gone since the server had crashed.

From what I've found out:
01A - absolutely the best of the three, althoug 17A was pretty close on short end
17A - simply wonderful lens with great colours and build quality, but noticeably worse than 01A on long end
27A - quite allright when stopped to f/5.6 at short end, but absolutely hopeless on the long end in comparison with two above.

I was really hopping that 27A will be better as I really miss 28mm in 01A, but for me 27A was useless and I sold it. 17A I gave to my friend as it was my favourite zoom until I bought 01A.
After year or two I bought Vivitar S1 28-90/2.8-3.5 which is in my opinion on the same - (highest in zooms) level as 01A and I'm sure it absolutely crushes 27A (which is a pitty, because I'm really fond of adaptall series).

Cheers
Mateusz

[marcusBMG]