An image quality comparison ...

[DonSchap]

I kind of forgot about the older TAMRON AF 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 Aspherical lenses that I have for my film cameras ... and figured I'd toss one of them into the mix, too. Also, the MANUAL FOCUS TAMRON Adaptall 2 135mm f/2.5 lens.

SONY CZ 135mm f/1.8


TAMRON AF 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 Aspherical (1996-version)

@ 135mm - f/5.6 - 1/60 sec. - ISO-400

TAMRON Adaptall2 MF 135mm f/2.5 (discontinued)

@ f/3.3 - 1/60 sec. - ISO-400

w/o the Di optimized coating ... purple fringe just creeps right in.

[DonSchap]

Okay ... you ready?

I just got the TAMRON AF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO back and they made a focus adjustment to it (Call it a tweak).

B4 "Tweak" on the α100


AFTA "Tweak" on the α100


B4 "Tweak" on the α700


AFTA "Tweak" on the α700



Hey, how about it? Look at that crystralized background! Pays to have those lenses "tweaked", huh?

I feel a lot more confident, now, mounting it on the camera.

Remember: this is a utility lens ... not perfect, but okay. And now, a lot more than okay ... that it's been tuned up.

[dr4gon]

Hey that didn't take too long. That's a great tweak they did. Is it just me or does the a100 shot in this instance look better?

[DonSchap]

Nah, it does look better. I'm not sure what may be screwing up the A700, but don't let that be a deciding factor ... it's just one shot and taken at a different time ... minor setting changes may have affected the cameras, etc. I think the A100 shot might have been a bit shorter focal length ... like 120mm ... as I just mounted the returned lens; roughly sized the 28-300 to 135mm (which is kind of a gross adjustment. I was a little more careful with sizing when shooting the A700 shot); quickly set the camera to the same basic manual settings ... and snapped.

The A700 does so much more ... and you only have to see an image like this ...



and it makes the decision much simpler. LOL

Also consider that the A700 tends to point out a lens' issues more than the A100 will. It has more pixels to do so. It is precisely the same issue people will face placing a lens like this on the A900.

[seanhoxx]

so with the Tamron warrantywould it be worthwhile to pay the shipping and fee to get your tamrons "tweaked" up say like in year 5 of ownership, or if no problems or concerns leave it alone?

[DonSchap]

so with the Tamron warrantywould it be worthwhile to pay the shipping and fee to get your tamrons "tweaked" up say like in year 5 of ownership, or if no problems or concerns leave it alone?

You might, but I'd be doggone if I'd use a poor performing lens for five years, knowing it could be been repaired from day one. I don't play around with these things. If it is in trouble, it gets FIXED, NOT SWAPPED.

I felt extremely pleased when I received my Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens from Japan and it worked wonderfully. Re-furbished lenses are sometimes better than the OOTB new ones. They been corrected. Of course, not always, but I appreciate people that care for their gear enough to make sure it works correctly and it doesn't become someone else's problem. Swapping for another new lens doesn't fix it. In essence, I say, "Break the cycle. Fix it!"

[seanhoxx]

I see your point Don but I ment send it in anyway as sort of preventitive service, a clean up tune up whatever you want to call it. I don't know if they do that or not, would it be wise to have a lens "opened" up if there wasn't a need.

[DonSchap]

Well, I do not believe that would be a "no charge" issue, unless there were actually something "WRONG" with the optic. You need some kind of demonstrable proof that it is not working properly. I always include documentation providing a "starting point" for the repair. This keeps the transaction honest and straitforward. Plus, it also provides a reference point as to whether or not the performed repair was successful (or made matters worse).

[dr4gon]

So to ship it, you're shipping it to a domestic shop to have it done. how much is the fee involved? I assume they pay for return shipping? I know on my sony warranty, they cover shipping both ways.

[DonSchap]

That's not quite true, 'dr4gon', unless things have really changed. When I returned my AF 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM lens to SONY in Texas, the return to SONY was on me. I was never re-imbursed.

I had bought the lens from B&H and they would have "swapped it" (except that I had bought their last unit,at that time, and I needed it quick, holidays coming and all. That's why I bought it when I did), sending me a return shipping tag ... but, I went directly through the SONY Repair Depot (told they could have one back to me, overnighted) and lost about $50 in the bargain.

BTW: I returned the lens SONY sent me back to B&H, after the whole fiasco wound up taking nearly three weeks to get the promised "overnight" replacement. I lost all my holiday shots from Turkey Day. Really rattled my cage. Told one thing ... definitely got another. For a two-thousand dollar lens (at the time), I was pretty torqued off.

So, that's kind of why I'm waiting for the TAMRON AF 70-200mm f/2.8 to show up. I promised myself I wouldn't give in to the SONY G-version of the lens, again. It did not work OOTFSB (out-of-the-factory-sealed-box). So, what's new? I seem to find that a lot, no matter whose lenses I purchase. Some more than others. SIGMA has more than likely seen the last of my money.