At 11:43 AM 8/7/03, Walt wrote:
I have great respect for John Lind and his knowledge of things
photographic. But today, for the second time in the last week or
so, he has made disparaging remarks about the 28-105/2.8 Tamron.
I have come to speak in its defense, even to praise it a bit.
John's criticism seemingly is based on (a) unspecified test
results and (b) comparing the 28-105/2.8 Tamron to the 35-105/2.8
Tamron, which, sadly, I don't have one of, so I'm at a
disadvantage there. But I do have the 35-105/3.5~4.5 Zuiko and
the 35-80/2.8 Zuiko. I use all three of these lenses with some
regularity, mostly with Provia 100F and 400F. Viewing the
resulting slides through an 8x loupe, or scanning them at 3200 dpi
and making the occasional 8x10 or 11x14 in. print, or projecting
them onto a 50x50 in. matte screen, I don't see any really
significant differences.
[snip]
Walt . . .
If you have a good one then treasure, care for it and use it well. I agree
My remarks were based on these reviews:
35-105/2.8:
http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/TaSP35-105_28-828.shtml
28-105/2.8:
http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/TaAF28-105_28LDAsp-805.shtml
The latter is allegedly the AF version of the MF Adaptall II. If this
isn't the case then My Bad. In addition, a search of various review sites
that still have the 35-105 SP in their databases show them rating a notch
above the MF 28-105 SP (see note about this just after the paragraph). The
35-105/2.8 enjoys very high marks that very few lenses attain with high MTF
numbers and very low (negligible) distortion figures, whereas its 28-105
successor rates "average" in MTF with noticeable (quite measurable)
distortion. Granted, MTF and distortion aren't everything and I am
admittedly finicky about distortion (because of working too frequently
around architectural objects).
Note:
One should take any single end-user review on a public review site with a
grain of salt. The direction a number of reviews tilt holds more
weight. I've seen a few reveiws obviously mis-posted to the wrong
lens. Watch for that also.
Gary Reese mentions difficulty with focusing the 28-105/2.8 accurately due
to its extremely short focus ring rotation and softness wide open! This
alone can produce some of the effects I've observed in practical use and
comment on below. OTOH, the focus ring rotation on the 35-105 is
noticeably longer and at least for me there's no problem focusing, even in
dimly lit receptions. Which aid I use depends on lighting (split vs.
micro-prism collar vs. matte).
A friend has a pair of the 28-105/2.8 SP Adaptall mounts and uses them for
professional work. His 4x6 prints have good sharpness with decent contrast
but the 11x14's begin to show a little softness. They do exhibit some
distortion and I cannot remember whether it's pincushion or barrel, or both
depending on short vs. long end. "Noticeable" comes to mind in thinking
about what I've seen from the short end (which he uses more often in
settings that would highlight it). In addition they're prone to some flare
from bright light sources although it's not severe and the included "tulip"
lens hood is nearly worthless. I do know when he anticipates prints at
16x20 or larger he uses a medium format Bronica 6x6 instead . . . and
sometimes for 11x14 if it's high end work.
In my estimation the Tamron 28-105/2.8 SP Adaptall it's not a "bad" lens if
one isn't bothered by the distortion which can be noticeable with some
subject material (e.g. architectural); it's average for a zoom in it's
class, and whether or not one gets a "good one" or a "dog" seems to be a
matter of luck. OTOH I place the 35-105/2.8 SP Adaptall on par with my
35-105/2.5~4.5 Zuiko (mine is a surprisingly exceptional performer). My
criticism is more that Tamron seems to have taken a step backward in
performance in creating the 28-105/2.8 as a successor to the 34-105/2.8.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|