Tamron 35-105 f/2.8 test shots

<p>I got out and shot the 35-105 over the weekend in Margate, with my Contax 159MM (is that OK for this forum?) so I thought I'd post a couple of samples and my opinion. The colours are a bit over punchy as the scan's are boots the Chemist's finest.</p>

<p>Sample 1... A bit of wall art paying Homage to Margate's most famous daughter, Tracey Emin.</p><div></div>

<p>Sample 2... In a Cafe</p><div></div>

<p>Sample 3... Cafe Wall Art</p><div></div>

<p>Sample 4... The Turner Gallery, opened a couple of years ago to showcase contemporary art.</p><div></div>

<p>Sample 5... Another of the gallery. I guess the hot spot is because the building is kind of glossy and the sun was reasonably low with a bit of power behind it.</p><div></div>

<p>Overall, I enjoyed shooting the lens. I'd forgotten how nice it is to use a one touch lens, no need to think, just grab the ring. The lens seems sharp enough, pretty contrasty and distortion is well enough controlled for a walk around lens - certainly better at the wide end than either of my EF L series zooms. All in all, it looks like a pretty decent lens. The scans aren't good enough for me to draw any conclusions about the ultimate quality, but it's clearly good enough for the quality of D&P available to me. I'll probably test it against my 24-105L when I get round to buying an AD2->Eos adapter.</p>

<p>As it happened this was also my first chance to properly shoot a late model Tamron SP 17/3.5 which I've just had some fungus cleaned out of and I ended up taking more shots with the wide, which also impressed. Given that I've previously been impressed shooting an SP 24-48 it looks like my Tamron SP series lenses are keepers. As a Contax owner that's a big relief as the Zeiss alternatives, where they exist are a lot pricier!</p>

<p>PS I may soon be able to post some shots from the Konica EYE I posted about a while back, it takes a while to work through 72 exposures!</p>

<p>Hi Barrie, your pics look really good, and I especially like the first shot of the wall art. Also the collection of condiments on the table could be in any Cafe in the Western world...very iconic!<br>

The only Tamron lens that I ave owned was a 200mm F3.5 back in the seventies, and that was remarkably good. A zoom with that range in F2.8 would be a very handy.</p>

Looks good to me. I was tempted to buy the AF version at one time but resisted. Thanks for posting.

<p>I have the Tamron SP 300/5.6, and it's a wonderful (and under-appreciated) lens.</p>

<p>I want some Tabasco sauce. I'll be right back.</p>

<p>Barry-<br />To answer your question, I'd say the "Modern Film Cameras" forum would be the most appropriate.<br /><br />I like the rendition of the shots. I haven't used a Tamron zoom except for a 75-150/3.5 I bought in the 70's. Whenever I picked up a reflection with that lens like the one you got, it would completely cover the image with heavy magenta-covered flare- all other color would be gone. I sometimes used that as a cool effect-- might as well use a deficiency to advantage! I don't know if it just was specific to that lens or characteristic of their BBAR coating at the time.<br>

I haven't used wide-to-tele zooms much, but I'm thinking of getting one for the versatility when taking family photos.</p>

<p>HP sauce! Haven't seen it for ages, used to be a favourite of mine with bangers and mash...Nice lens, <strong>Barrie</strong>, and you've used it well. Tamrons, at their best, must still constitute some of the greatest value for money. Thanks for the post.</p>

<p>Can't beat a bit of HP on a bacon & egg butty!</p>

<p>I think Tamron struggled to keep up with the pace of change in the AF -> early digital era(a good example being the cheap and not cheerful 70-300 my wife got with her canon 350D). That and the rise of Sigma has obscured how good many of these Adaptall-2 lenses are. IIRC in the 80's Tamron were consistently decent and probably regarded as the up there with the best of the independents and most of the SP lenses were as good as anything. I remembered after getting hold of this lens that I'd actually kept a rave review from Amateur Photographer in a binder for years. It had been a target of mine in the late 80s/early 90s but was too expensive for my Student budget. Unfortunately the review went in the bin along with a bunch of other lens related stuff when I moved in with my wife...</p>

<p>Just for the heck of it a couple of shots from the same day taken on the Tamron 17mm... Both of the Turner Contemporary. Waited for the kid in the pink top to be in the right place for the shot, the group on the left was just a bonus.</p>

<p>This one highlights the strong Vignetting the lens gives (but how many 17/18mm wides don't vignette?) at wider apertures. The lens has pincushion distortion which, in this case didn't really need correcting. It was my first proper shot at using this lens as well, previously I'd only done a quick comparison via a cheap C/Y>Eos adapter against my TS-E 17, which wasn't really fair on the Tamron and only proved what you'd expect i.e.the Tamron is decent but the TS-E is absolutely stellar. However, given that I managed to snag a 17mm of any sort for £50, let alone one that adapts to just about anything it still seems like a good deal to me.</p><div></div>

<p>And another. This one highlighted that the lens has a bit of pincushion distortion which I corrected in PS, (about -15 on the slider in lens correct).</p><div></div>

<p>Nice work. I'm a sucker for white angular surfaces anyway. :)</p>

<p>Frankly neither the Classic Manual nor the Modern Film forums are very touchy about where a camera goes. You could probably make a case for the lens belonging here if anyone cares all that much.</p>

<p>So far, we pretty much insist on film for the cameras themselves, but we're really easy when lenses are the concern.</p>

<p>After all the struggle to get a Modern Film Cameras forum, I hate to say it, but maybe we really only need a "Collector/User Camera Forum" where the main criteria would be something like</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you can only buy it used, then it probably belongs here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have used a few Tamrons over the years. Still have a 90mm 2.5 SP macro and a 28mm-85mm zoom. The lens you have is the one I always wanted in my film days.</p>

<p>Very nice images you made with it. Looks like I'll have to find a sample of the 35mm-105mm 2.8 for my OM4T.</p>

JDM, I like that suggestion about used film cameras. My only nit is that I bought some my cameras brand new. Nearly all

of us have items that are both classic and modern, and the endless arguments about classification are getting very

boring.

 

You have noticed that CMC's only subdivision is Brownies. The Nikon forum has quite a few subdivisions, and I

personally treat that forum as digital.

JDM: that is a suggestion which makes a lot of sense to me. Barry, the 17SP may be the only one I haven't got but all the

rest, including those mid-range Zooms, performed nice( have to find a 17 ...)