I am a bit surprised there aren't more than reviews on this lens, its pretty common, so since I acquired ane every bit part of a task lot here are my thoughts.
There question basically is: we know how readily available the 103A is; if instead yous find yourself looking at a 03A should y'all walk away? Adaptall-2.org makes no basic that the later on model is a revised and improved blueprint. Just does that hateful forget it, or does it hateful well really if you have a choice so definitely become for the 103A, but otherwise don't worry about it, both reflect Tamron quality?
So we are primarily comparison the two. In advent and handling the two are almost identical, with similar markings. If you are looking at a tamron eighty-210 and don't know which it is, 03A is the one with the built in hood, and the bigger discontinuity collar (that extends further along the butt of the lens). Mechanics of both are slap-up. One thing I noticed was a tendency to dorsum focus at high zoom: since this was with both I am now inclined to arraign the camera (user..?). Focus is millimetric at that end; with both I used alive view. On the 03A focus is covered in half a rotation of the sleeve, on 103A in 2/3rds. Sharpness get-go and my impressions are that they are broadly equal. I did some comparisons of the same subject at f4, f5.6, f9 at different focal lengths and felt the differences were relatively insignificant.
For what its worth I thought this lens was stronger at the long cease, while I idea the opposite of the 103A. Both were softer broad open up simply not unacceptably so except below ~120mm - I would say avoid f3.viii at the short focal lengths. Contrast wise I have to say I preferred the contrast of 03A when scrutinising the slate roof but that could exist more than related with 03A's blue tone.. both were pretty good. Optically the lenses do offer a different look - bluer for 03A, yellower for 103A (unprocessed jpg'due south hither). I checked both out with the 01F 2x TC. test subject: the estuary marker. Long distance (~500m) high mag shots like this are a scrap pernickety, a passing draught can make a difference, simply I tentatively offer a conclusion: 03A consistently showed a bit better (and that yellowish bounding main looks a scrap !*!*). This is representative (f5.vi, 200mm x2, x1.5 crop = 600mm). Now I need to do the same with close upwards subjects (watch this space).  Shut upward I seemed to get better results with the 103A. Both focus to 0.9m/3ft, 03A has an eight blade iris, 103A six blades. Bokeh was similar at wide apertures, stop down and 103A becomes spotty, just ok, while 03A becomes scratchy - ugh (looking through the lens while closing the iris the edges of the aperture at f4-f8 are non shine!). I also noticed sensor reflections with both lenses. But overall 103A gets the vote on this one. Aberrations: here 03A virtually lost its case. Tree confronting the sky shots exhibited pronounced CA and strong purpling that was nonetheless axiomatic at f9; this was worst at 210mm. However this almost disappeared when the sun wasn't shining - RH crop. Merely reason I don't cry bye bye 03A: 103A isn't cracking on this either. Not equally bad, but I've had more a few instances of PF and complementary R-G fringing. 50% crops
 Below are two shots of the quay, ~180mm, tripod mounted, f5.vi, pentax k-r, click the links for full size. I'll leave it to you to evaluate them for yourself, and assign moving picture to lens. Then whats the verdict? 03A about lost it simply I find myself somewhat in the center. The CA was disappointing only the sharpness is skilful, and it does offering such a dissimilar look it actually asks to exist judged on its ain merits. Information technology seems the reply to the which 1 question is ....19AH! Play tricks question, see! Only these are bachelor for a tenner or less, and the terminal 19AH sale I watched went for over a hundred... .
Full size here
 Full size hither
 |
0 Response to "Tamron 80-210mm 45-56 / Mdl 178d / Canon Ef Review"
Postar um comentário