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 28A SP 28-135mm f/4-4.5
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:12 pm    Post subject: Tamron 28A SP 28-135mm f/4-4.5 Reply with quote

I picked up this lens last week for a pittance: $29 including shipping. It came with a Nikon adaptall-2 mount, which often sells for close to that price. So it was almost like buying the mount and getting the lens for free.

I was intrigued about it because of its zoom range. 28-135mm is a very useful range, encompassing the most popular wide angle settings and all of the most poppular portrait focal lengths. We're talking full frame or 35mm here, obviously.


This isn't a small lens, nor is it light. It's probably about a kilo in weight, with a 67mm front element. The 28A is a push-pull model. Mine shows some zoom collar slip, but to me this is no big deal. I'm used to it. It has a macro mode, getting down to only 1:4. So it's really more like a close-focusing mode, more than a true macro. Macro is engaged by depressing a button and then rotating the lens's barrel.



Some sample shots. They've been downsized to 1600 ppi. Followed by 100% crops. I used a NEX 7 for the following imiages. ISO 100.










The out-of-focus areas are blurred nicely at these close settings, giving pleasing bokeh.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You got a bargain there Michael. The SP 28A was a premium lens, RRP a lot more than the similar 35-135mm 40A. I rate it pretty highly. It's a lot better than the 40A (and the earlier 22A) for close focus - both 28A and 40A (but not 22A - extra focus rotation at 135mm only) achieve that by lens extension ie just like using an extension tube - but IMO that's not saying much. It really shows well at its mid ranges focus and zoom and up to 135mm where for me it can give 135mm primes a run for their money. 135mm f8, pentax K-r:



Last edited by marcusBMG on Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:54 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 22A is no slouch, it's a lens I'm using more and more - because it's a damn good lens. But I agree with Marcus, the SP 28A is the better lens.
I'd love to do a back to back comparison, but my 28A broke within hours of me getting it. Sadly it jammed solid when a roller in the zoom mechanism came off and the lens locked solid. The lens would not come apart unless I could move the focus / zoom slide, and no amount of force would do it.

I took maybe 6 or 7 pictures with it, and I was very impressed. I shall get another one.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:16 am    Post subject: Re: Tamron 28A SP 28-135mm f/4-4.5 Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
... They've been downsized to 1600 ppi. ...


Please explain? (I'm not familiar with the method.) What was the original size, please? TIA...


PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The original size is 6000 x 4000 pixels. Way too big of an image for display here. 1600 pixels on the wide axis will fill the screen nicely with most modern hi-rez screens. To "downsize" I use my processing software, which reduces the image size to a specified level.

Marcus, thanks for including the seagull photo. The definition in the feathers is excellent.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks...it was the "ppi" that threw me off..that should be "px".


PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yep. My bad.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2023 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Recently I got a second sample of the Tamron SP 4-4.5/28-135mm (28A) lens. The first sample was pretty heavily used, and I somehow wasn't sure whether the complicated zooming mechanism was worn out (or not). The second sample looks & feels like new, and therefore I'm more confident now to publish some test results (all at infinity / 24MP FF).

I have run these tests with a specifically manufactured M42=>Sony E adapter with tolerances of <10 um (adapter length, adapter "tilting").

First at f=28mm - below 100% crops from the corners of the 24 MP Sony A7II:



These crops (600x400px) represent the outermost 10% (linear) of the image. It's obvious that 90% of the image area are pretty sharp even wide open. At f11, more or less the entire image is well resolved, but some lateral CAs remain. If we convert the RAW data via PS, removing the CAs and sharpening the image at "50" and "1 px radius", the image looks really clean and crisp (100% crop from corner & midfield):



Distortion at f=28mm (!) is surprisingly well corrected (at 135mm things look different). Keeping distortion low at the wide end probably is a wise decision since at f=135mm usually portraits and reportage photos will be more important (and distortion less cumbersome).



Finally vignetting at f=28mm - pretty well corrected too (left at f4, right at f11):


S


PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2023 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

At f=50mm and wide open the lens has a somwhat lower contrast, but a rather good resolution over most of the image. Stopping down to f11 gives nearly impeccable results: lots of detail even in extreme corners, good contrast, no CAs at all. Pretty impressive and comparable to e. g. the Minolta AF 4-4.5/28-135mm or the Zeiss ZA 2.8/24-70mm:



Converting the RAWs with PS doesn't give much additional detail, but it shows how good the lens really is at around 50-80mm:



Distortion now becomes more visible (pincushion), but isn't yet as disturbing as at f=120 ... 135mm. Vignetting still isn't really a problem (f4 on the left, f11 on the right):



The SP 28-135mm really is shining here at f=50mm ...!


Last edited by stevemark on Thu Dec 14, 2023 6:26 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2023 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

At f=80mm things look nearly as good as at f=50mm, at least when the lens is stopped down to f11:



Wide open, the resolution is somewhat reduced (a tendency that will become quite obvious at f=120 ... 135mm), but stopped down we still haven an excellent image with no visible CAs at all. Pincushion distortion increases again, now being visible in critical (architecture) shots. Nevertheless the overall image quality still is very good.

Vignetting now is apparent at f4.5 (left), but still negligeable at f11 (right):


S


PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2023 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finally at f=135mm:

Wide open (at f4.5) the image center has very good detail resolution and a very good contrast, too. Off-axis however the resolution drops pretty fast (while the contrast remains), and lateral CAs are are rather visible. Stopping down to f11 improves the situation, but the crispness and clarity of images in the 35mm ... 80mm range are missing even at f11.



Using PS fro RAW data conversion improves the f11 image quite a bit, but it never becomes really convincing:



Distortion too now is "too much", as seen here in this architectural snapshot:


It now certainly will be interesting too see how the three (four) famous 28-135mm from the 1980-1985 time frame compare:

Minolta AF 4-4.5/28-135mm
Konica AR 4-4.6/28-135mm
Tokina AT-X 4-4.6/28-135mm
Tamron SP 4-4.5/28-135mm

Such a test will require a bit more time, and more stable lighting conditions.

For time being, I am pretty impressed with the performance of the lens in the 28-80mm range (and probably also around f=100mm). Stopped down to f11 it's perfectly useable especially for landscapes on 24 MP FF, but architecture shots will require some work in post processing (mainly CA removal at the short end and distortion correction from f=50mm upwards). There's another caveat: Due to the complicated zoom mechanism, wear-and-tear might result in lower performance than seen here.

I hope this is useful to some.

S


PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2023 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good for portraits too Wink 135mm wide open
Grimpy by The lens profile, on Flickr

Or city 28mm probably F8 or 11
A situation in the Oude Boteringestraat by The lens profile, on Flickr

Macro @28mm
Daisy in the grass by The lens profile, on Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2023 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you. My findings are quite similar. This is why I have favoured the 27A which limits its range to 28/80 and good results throughout the range. Less weight and a closer minimum focus distance. The results of the 28A above 100 mm are not engaging.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2023 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lumens pixel wrote:
Thank you. My findings are quite similar. This is why I have favoured the 27A which limits its range to 28/80 and good results throughout the range. Less weight and a closer minimum focus distance. The results of the 28A above 100 mm are not engaging.


Interesting. I have that one as well, at some point I intended to use it for some architecture (supposedly <1% distortion throughout the entire range), but then I wasn't really pleased (preferring the Nikkor AiS 3.5/35-70mm and later on the Zeiss ZA 2.8/24-70mm). Maybe I have to re-run that one too ...

S

EDIT I've been comparing the SP 28-80mm and the SP 28-135mm indoors - and surprisingly the SP 28-80mm is much wider at its wide end than the SP 28-135! The difference is pretty stunning. The SP 28-80mm also clearly wider than the Nikkor Ai 28mm ... !

Wide open and at 28mm, the image quality of my sample of the SP 28-80 however is clearly inferior to the SP 28-135mm. At 28mm f11 they are comparable (other focal lengths not tested yet).

In addition the SP 28-80mm, again at f=28mm, has clearly more distortion that the 28-135mm, and clearly more than the "<1%" reported by "Modern Photography" in their test (http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/27A.html). So well, I'm still not convinced by the performance of my SP 28-80mm ...


PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2023 2:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for adding this test. Nice to see a "new" test subject too Wink Stephan!

I normally avoid lenses of extended zoom focal range.
The early ones that I tried were pretty disappointing. Some reviewers of these lens types back in the day were far from impressed.
The Tamron shown by the O/P of this thread looks to be an improvement over what I have seen in the earlier lenses.
I'm still not entirely convinced enough to look for one yet.

I do have a couple of nikkor zooms that don't quite make the focal ranges exhibited here: A/I-s 35-105, and A/I-s 28-85.
I think these were among the last m/f lenses that nikon made, but still have a lot of reading up to do on them. Both are capable of producing usable images, albeit under favourable conditions. I still do not use them much with my propensity for the more stable aperture speeds of primes, but I'm a bit of a dinosaur hold-out when it comes to such matters.

-D.S.


Last edited by Doc Sharptail on Sat Dec 16, 2023 6:15 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2023 4:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doc Sharptail wrote:

I normally avoid lenses of extended zoom focal range.
The early ones that I tried were pretty disappointing. Some reviewers of these lens types back in the day were far from impressed.


I have a few 28-200 / 28-210mm lenses which are crap. The Minolta AF 28-135mm is very good in the 35-100mm range, even at f5.6. Tamron seems to be very good between maybe 35mm and 80mm as well.

I have compared the three (four) well known 28-135mm lenses earlier on artaphot:
http://www.artaphot.ch/konica-ar/objektive/437-konica-hexanon-28-135mm-f4-46

BTW the Pentax-A 28-135mm is one of those "pretty disappointing" superzooms as well.

S


PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2023 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
Thank you. My findings are quite similar. This is why I have favoured the 27A which limits its range to 28/80 and good results throughout the range. Less weight and a closer minimum focus distance. The results of the 28A above 100 mm are not engaging.


Interesting. I have that one as well, at some point I intended to use it for some architecture (supposedly <1% distortion throughout the entire range), but then I wasn't really pleased (preferring the Nikkor AiS 3.5/35-70mm and later on the Zeiss ZA 2.8/24-70mm). Maybe I have to re-run that one too ...

S

EDIT I've been comparing the SP 28-80mm and the SP 28-135mm indoors - and surprisingly the SP 28-80mm is much wider at its wide end than the SP 28-135! The difference is pretty stunning. The SP 28-80mm also clearly wider than the Nikkor Ai 28mm ... !

Wide open and at 28mm, the image quality of my sample of the SP 28-80 however is clearly inferior to the SP 28-135mm. At 28mm f11 they are comparable (other focal lengths not tested yet).

In addition the SP 28-80mm, again at f=28mm, has clearly more distortion that the 28-135mm, and clearly more than the "<1%" reported by "Modern Photography" in their test (http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/27A.html). So well, I'm still not convinced by the performance of my SP 28-80mm ...


Understood. That might be a copy issue. At 5,6 my 27A is truly good from 28 to 60mm and same until 80mm at 6,7.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2023 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I own this lens, but frankly I find it uncomfortable to use because of the huge focus range at the shorter focal lengths, to make it virtually impossible to determine the point of greatest sharpness. In contrast, the color rendition and some vignetting at 135 mm I like very much for portrait or fashion shots


PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2023 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ultrapix wrote:
I own this lens, but frankly I find it uncomfortable to use because of the huge focus range at the shorter focal lengths, to make it virtually impossible to determine the point of greatest sharpness.

No such problems on mirrorles, though ... And probably split image focusing screens on SLRs would work pertty well, too?


Ultrapix wrote:
In contrast, the color rendition and some vignetting at 135 mm I like very much for portrait or fashion shots

Good to know! I had assumed that the lens was optimized in a pretty clever way. Using the Macro mode at f=135mm would even allow for pretty tightly framed portraits.

S


PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2023 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
I own this lens, but frankly I find it uncomfortable to use because of the huge focus range at the shorter focal lengths, to make it virtually impossible to determine the point of greatest sharpness.

No such problems on mirrorles, though ... And probably split image focusing screens on SLRs would work pertty well, too?




S


I use a mirrorless, but sometimes there is not enough time to zoom in, and a quicker focus ring is welcome...


PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2023 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doc Sharptail wrote:

I normally avoid lenses of extended zoom focal range.
The early ones that I tried were pretty disappointing. Some reviewers of these lens types back in the day were far from impressed.


Fun fact: The venerable Minolta AF 4-4.5/28-135mm at f=70mm has less lateral CAs and better corners than both the Minolta AF 2.8/28-70mm G as well as the Zeiss ZA 2.8/24-70mm!

Another fact: the Tamron 3.8-5.6/28-200mm (71DE) simply is terriible at the long end. At f5.6, at f8, at f11 ... you name it. Yep, two sample tested ...

S


PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2024 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I recently bought a copy of this lens that has seen a bit of use.
It suffers from an expanded rubber grip on the focusing collar. I will have to find one that is tight enough to fit.
The glass is clear with no haze or fungus. There is a bit of internal dust on the elements~ not really surprising on a lens this old.
The information on it on the adaptall-2 site seems to be fairly consistent with what I'm experiencing.

Fall-off is a bit steep at the 135 end.
I'm not sure how to label the slight distortion at the 28mm end- it seems to be both pincushion and barrel distortion, depending on where you are in the frame.
Sharpness is very good for a zoom from this period, up to about 85-90mm, then the fall-off starts.

The macro/close focus function appears to work fairly well on my copy, giving some comfortable shooting distances.

It is an interesting lens, if not a little big and heavy.
Performance-wise, for all the bulk and weight, the nikkor 28-85mm A/I-s is a much better fit in my bag, with slightly better I/Q at the 28mm end.

I still have to get out into some decent daylight at low ISO's to give it a fair test.
I think it's a lens I could learn to like, if I'm willing to put the time and effort into learning it's strength zones.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some sample images:
All are un-manipulated except for re-size.



At 28mm and f8.
Slightly flat contrast here, but nothing major.
Color leans a bit more yellow than actual, but it is very slight.
Image center is very sharp for a wide zoom.
There is a bit of fall off towards the edges even at f8, but I have to "peep" considerably to find it.



At about the 50mm position here, and f8 again. I like this rendering a lot. Lens actually shows the weak side-lighting, which I was a bit surprised to see.



A bit over a 100% crop of image center.



At the max 135mm position. Fall-off is quite evident here at f8. Edges and corners are actually pretty blurred.



100% crop of image center. Not bad, but no where near the equal of the same shot with a prime 135 at f8.



At 135mm with the macro lug engaged to the stop. f8 and the D-810's built in flash as a fill light. Shadow cast by the lens is visible on the lower petals. Lens has a tendency to glow a bit on white subjects without the fill light.



It gets a bit curvy at 28mm with the lens front pointed slightly downwards. f8 again. The ground in this scene is actually a lot flatter than what is shown here.

Definitely an interesting lens- a bit better than I was expecting at the wide end, and decent at the mid part of the focal length range. I think I am keeping this one for it's rendering qualities.

-D.S.