Eyesthruthelens
Deregistered
eow said:
Free nasi lemak.. lunch for one month..
135mm samples form three lens....guess...
- Thread starter sulhan
- Start date
- Status
Free nasi lemak.. lunch for one month..
I am sure that the first one is 18-200 for the following reasons:
1. It surpasses better the chromatic abberration (purple fringing) than the other 2, because 18-200 is made specifically for Digital.
2. It is a little dark. Minolta lenses are famous for a bit of overexpose.
Now, comparing the second and third. The second is more prone to chromatic abberration, the 135 is a prime lens, thus it has lesser lens elements, more prone to CA.
My take:
1. 18-200 Tamron
2. 135mm Minolta
3. 28-135 Minolta
My nasi lemak?
1. It surpasses better the chromatic abberration (purple fringing) than the other 2, because 18-200 is made specifically for Digital.
2. It is a little dark. Minolta lenses are famous for a bit of overexpose.
Now, comparing the second and third. The second is more prone to chromatic abberration, the 135 is a prime lens, thus it has lesser lens elements, more prone to CA.
My take:
1. 18-200 Tamron
2. 135mm Minolta
3. 28-135 Minolta
My nasi lemak?
Ecclesiasm
Senior Member
My guess:
Photo [1] - 18-200mm
Photo [2] - 28-135mm
Photo [3] - 135mm
Prize is 1 free lesson on Macro-photography by Sulhan!!! ;p
Photo [1] - 18-200mm
Photo [2] - 28-135mm
Photo [3] - 135mm
Prize is 1 free lesson on Macro-photography by Sulhan!!! ;p
fatmansatay
New Member
My eyes are dazed trying to spot the difference :what:
1. Tamron 18-200 @ 135mm: looks dark - too much glass?
2. Minolta 28-135mm
3. Minolta 135mm f2.8 prime - sharp.
Got free satay?
1. Tamron 18-200 @ 135mm: looks dark - too much glass?
2. Minolta 28-135mm
3. Minolta 135mm f2.8 prime - sharp.
Got free satay?
Hiee Pals...
Well...looks like there are a mix of answers and here is the result.
Image1- 135mm f2.8
Image2- 18-200mm
Image3- 28-135mm
Samples as from left to right....
Well...here are my personal inputs:
The 135mm f2.8 lived up to its name for more constant sharpness from center towards the corners although towards the corners it had some "ghosting" that creates blur/softness that smeared some details...(like the right-top example where the detail of the green leaves had the worst detail). Price of this lens should get higher for its rarity..
The 18-200 shots being a super zoom of 11x did stretched to its limit with shot like this at f6.3 (6.7 on KM) wide open. Stopping down would imprive shrpness towards corner. The softness due to shallow DOF could be seen very obvious at the rear wheel of the van with the KIA logo being the softest form the 18-200.
The 28-135mm again is a very well corrected lens which had results in between the 135mm amd the 18-200. Sharpness towards corner hold very well for such a vintage zoom .....
Colors are vibrant too.
Not sure why the 135mm f2.8 image was slightly darker...probabaly change in ambient (sky) lighting as its shot last in the test.
All in all...if the output is going to be a 5R size or up to 8x11...with careful use and aperture selection....all these three lens output may not be that easily differentiated....However, care must be taken especially for the 18-200 for possible shake induced softness in low light condition....
Comments on the lens:
This test was actually to see if the 18-200 is worth a second look as an-all-in one if one is looking at a one lens solution.
Weight: Its the lightest among the three due to its plastic build. Surprisingly its barrels were build with very little play (for these tyoe of "al cheapo feel" lens). Its internal is actually a metal barrel holding the main structure. Its quite "weighty for its size". Suites its use for general purpose travel-light lens. Its mount is also the hybrid stainless steel impregnated mount - which feels study but loks plasticly (looks cheap).
Size: Really compact but extends to 3x its original length...
Optics: Based on the trial usage....its actually very good for such a high power zoom.
Looking at the lens optics formula...it looks front glasses resembles closely similar to the 28-75D hence the easily achieved center sharpness - with positive focusing even for distance subject. Focus ring goes from 0.45~1m~2m~3m~7m~30m~infinity. Its able to differentiate subject focus points very far up to 30m and you can see it working with spoton focus even for far away subject. The only gripe id its slow focus ring...though it is a short travel but it rather slow .
Chromatic aberration seem to be quite obvious towards corners - like the 17-35mm f2.8-4D(again depend on light source) - but improved if stopped down.
However, its corner sharpness seem to be better in performance than the 17-35mm f2.8-4D at widest open @ wide angle.
To top it all up....here is a bokeh example for a shot with the 18-200. Background lights are flourescent lamps..not point source of highlights...
Would rate it:
Price to Performance:90/100
Build: 80/100
Optical Output:90/100
Well...looks like there are a mix of answers and here is the result.
Image1- 135mm f2.8
Image2- 18-200mm
Image3- 28-135mm
Samples as from left to right....
Well...here are my personal inputs:
The 135mm f2.8 lived up to its name for more constant sharpness from center towards the corners although towards the corners it had some "ghosting" that creates blur/softness that smeared some details...(like the right-top example where the detail of the green leaves had the worst detail). Price of this lens should get higher for its rarity..
The 18-200 shots being a super zoom of 11x did stretched to its limit with shot like this at f6.3 (6.7 on KM) wide open. Stopping down would imprive shrpness towards corner. The softness due to shallow DOF could be seen very obvious at the rear wheel of the van with the KIA logo being the softest form the 18-200.
The 28-135mm again is a very well corrected lens which had results in between the 135mm amd the 18-200. Sharpness towards corner hold very well for such a vintage zoom .....
Colors are vibrant too.
Not sure why the 135mm f2.8 image was slightly darker...probabaly change in ambient (sky) lighting as its shot last in the test.
All in all...if the output is going to be a 5R size or up to 8x11...with careful use and aperture selection....all these three lens output may not be that easily differentiated....However, care must be taken especially for the 18-200 for possible shake induced softness in low light condition....
Comments on the lens:
This test was actually to see if the 18-200 is worth a second look as an-all-in one if one is looking at a one lens solution.
Weight: Its the lightest among the three due to its plastic build. Surprisingly its barrels were build with very little play (for these tyoe of "al cheapo feel" lens). Its internal is actually a metal barrel holding the main structure. Its quite "weighty for its size". Suites its use for general purpose travel-light lens. Its mount is also the hybrid stainless steel impregnated mount - which feels study but loks plasticly (looks cheap).
Size: Really compact but extends to 3x its original length...
Optics: Based on the trial usage....its actually very good for such a high power zoom.
Looking at the lens optics formula...it looks front glasses resembles closely similar to the 28-75D hence the easily achieved center sharpness - with positive focusing even for distance subject. Focus ring goes from 0.45~1m~2m~3m~7m~30m~infinity. Its able to differentiate subject focus points very far up to 30m and you can see it working with spoton focus even for far away subject. The only gripe id its slow focus ring...though it is a short travel but it rather slow .
Chromatic aberration seem to be quite obvious towards corners - like the 17-35mm f2.8-4D(again depend on light source) - but improved if stopped down.
However, its corner sharpness seem to be better in performance than the 17-35mm f2.8-4D at widest open @ wide angle.
To top it all up....here is a bokeh example for a shot with the 18-200. Background lights are flourescent lamps..not point source of highlights...
Would rate it:
Price to Performance:90/100
Build: 80/100
Optical Output:90/100
LittleWolf
New Member
sulhan said:
Could you repost the original (uncropped) images again? I think it's instructive to see them and the "giveaway" mentioned. In the absence of any image details, my guesses were based purely on the amount of pincushion distortion of a supposedly straight edge in the foreground.
Sulhan, I did not see this earlier but I would have pointed out that the test is not fair... the 2nd and 3rd photo obviously has been lit by the sun that came out from behind a cloud if you look at the area just behind the front window of the blue van. There is a huge scattering of light from the reflection from the metallic paint and this affects the perception of sharpness as the contrast for the 1st shot is much higher than for the other two...
Hiee Bro...
Come on
...this is just an informal casual trial.....lets not get to worked up on how fair is it as there is nothing fair in such situation that i could possibly achieve....
Another person may come and later say that one image got an ah-pek in it and the other without etc....one got wind and one dont...etc...
As the ligthing condition variation is not that i could actually control and light value changes dynamically. Well, i have picked the key corner areas where there are some fair bit of consistency in terms of illumination and exposure. and stationary object where possible.
The original 18-200 posting was slanted and i rotated it anticlockwise -2 degrees to avoid misjudgement of distortion - though there was slight pincushioning at tele but for this shot it was negligible.
The objective of this test is to share with those who may still want to venture to all-in ones and have been worried dead by reviews that are on the web. This lens (18-200 KM/Tamron version) is one that amatuers would want to check out if they want simplicity and wouldn't want to change lens in the field...yet wanting the maximum coverage.
What triggered me to get this lens : Last two week i was in Beijing. Walked out in the street in the evening and observed the colloidal system in the air when spotlight pointing upwards.
I made a lens change to get a teleshot of the light that glows a light streak into the air....and then realised that there are actually large dust/sand particles in the air. Coming back from that walk, i realised that there were "obvious dusts" on images after that walk. Plus the fact its winter and its very dry static buildup in the flip mirror area could have worsened the situation. So lens change in such situation could have been avoided if i have a lens that have the wider coverage i needed. Fortunately i manage to cleaned my CCD.
Come on
...this is just an informal casual trial.....lets not get to worked up on how fair is it as there is nothing fair in such situation that i could possibly achieve....Another person may come and later say that one image got an ah-pek in it and the other without etc....one got wind and one dont...etc...
As the ligthing condition variation is not that i could actually control and light value changes dynamically. Well, i have picked the key corner areas where there are some fair bit of consistency in terms of illumination and exposure. and stationary object where possible.
The original 18-200 posting was slanted and i rotated it anticlockwise -2 degrees to avoid misjudgement of distortion - though there was slight pincushioning at tele but for this shot it was negligible.
The objective of this test is to share with those who may still want to venture to all-in ones and have been worried dead by reviews that are on the web. This lens (18-200 KM/Tamron version) is one that amatuers would want to check out if they want simplicity and wouldn't want to change lens in the field...yet wanting the maximum coverage.
What triggered me to get this lens : Last two week i was in Beijing. Walked out in the street in the evening and observed the colloidal system in the air when spotlight pointing upwards.
I made a lens change to get a teleshot of the light that glows a light streak into the air....and then realised that there are actually large dust/sand particles in the air. Coming back from that walk, i realised that there were "obvious dusts" on images after that walk. Plus the fact its winter and its very dry static buildup in the flip mirror area could have worsened the situation. So lens change in such situation could have been avoided if i have a lens that have the wider coverage i needed. Fortunately i manage to cleaned my CCD.
Hiee Bro...zcf said:
If its light.....bring it along as a backup.....access the situation....if its not too bad.....just be extra careful if wanna swap lens outdoors. The dusty breeze i was told was due to dust form the dessert region....dunno how tru....
Well....if you feel that memories are better than all the technical details of the image (like minor softness or aberrations....) then any lens that would provide the field of view coverage would do right...
I think the sand storm mainly affect the North like Bei Jing. But you are right about accessing the situation. Will bring that 18-200mm travel lens along.sulhan said:Hiee Bro...
If its light.....bring it along as a backup.....access the situation....if its not too bad.....just be extra careful if wanna swap lens outdoors. The dusty breeze i was told was due to dust form the dessert region....dunno how tru....
Well....if you feel that memories are better than all the technical details of the image (like minor softness or aberrations....) then any lens that would provide the field of view coverage would do right...
tankm
Senior Member
It's a good test on one focal length, but I hope readers do their own homework before deciding on buying long coverage zoom. Buy it knowing what it can do at both wide and long focal length and how many stop down is required to achieve better image if situations allows it. Performance is different from wide to long focal.
I'm not against 10x zoom, as I myself have one 18-135. It's handy when there is a needs to travel convenient and light.
Wide focal coverage do have advantages, but it you don't mind carrying extra weight...carry two cameras. :bsmilie:
I'm not against 10x zoom, as I myself have one 18-135. It's handy when there is a needs to travel convenient and light.
Wide focal coverage do have advantages, but it you don't mind carrying extra weight...carry two cameras. :bsmilie:
sulhan said:
- Status
Similar threads
