Photoclubalpha

Has promised , here is a comparative test focus at infinity (except for the last one a F11 1m focus) for the : Tamron 14mm AF 2.8, Minolta AF 16mm 2.8 and Zenitar 16mm 2.8





Same position on the tripod, Adjusted the exposure to have almost the same histogram. Locked white balance. Pictures taken in RAW, and PP in light room Beta 3.0 : + sharpen, + clarity + contrast.

http://www.pbase.com/nadeauf/16mm_2_8

(I have placed a small white paper with the Aperture number in the middle lower right of the scene)

Waiting for your comments,

Regards,

Frank

Thank you very much for the test.
At 2.8 the best remains Minolta, of course.
But to my surprise, Zenitar performed much much better than Tamron, and that goes for other apertures.
That really surprises me.

My first big impression of this test, is that I prefer the distortion of the Fish eye for this angle of view. The Tamron is really good to maintain rectilinear structure in many picture, but for this one, the view look more realistic with the Fish eye.

On first view, the detail of Zenitar looks good up to F5.6 to F11. At F2.8 there is flare and lost of detail. But not bad for the price.

The big difference I have seen with the Tamron, is that the lens need at least half a stop more light to give the same histogram. The Zenitar was at full aperture a little bit brighter than the Minolta, but up to F/4.0 It was difficult to see a difference.

Probably more viewer will discover other differences .

Budget wise, and for outdoor usage at F/4.0 and up, the Zenitar is the best choice I think. But for low light, nothing I think can beat the Minolta.

Regards,

Frank

Thanks for the samples.

Your sensor is very dirty

youpii wrote: Your sensor is very dirty

I was going to say the same thing.

I have not yet clean my sensor since I have it (more than one year now). So ... I know I should clean it . One day I will do when I will not be able to take shot at F/2.8 without dust .

Regards,

Frank

alphaPDX wrote:As a Tamron owner, I'd hoped to see it steal the show.. but some landscapes are indeed more impressive when slightly bent.
You'll be killing my resale value this way, Frank!

The Tamron is, and will stay my best hyper-wide lens for indoor low light photography and to get rectilinear aspect.

Most of the time, people like when I come back with rock show with 14mm view at F/2.8 :



Or here is an inspiration of the moment on a photo shoot :



Don't be worry, the Tamron 14mm F/2.8 is one of a kind and will stay there.

Regards,

Frank

14mm F/2.8 at 100% crop from the previous picture :



And a last one in low light :



This is when I understand why the lens was so expensive brand new at the beginning .

Regards,

Frank

Great shots Frank! - and a useful comparison. That 100% crop is amazing

Frank,

Those are some sharp photos with the Tamron.

Thanks for sharing your comparison shots and the 100% crop.

Yildiz

Brilliant Frank. I use my Minolta 16mm 2.8 mostly for clouds where a bit of curve isn't so noticed. For such a small lens it's surprisingly heavy. Do you use any of the built in filters?

NevHi wrote:Brilliant Frank. I use my Minolta 16mm 2.8 mostly for clouds where a bit of curve isn't so noticed. For such a small lens it's surprisingly heavy. Do you use any of the built in filters?

I'm too new with the 16mm F/2.8, I have only shot two time outside and mainly for testing the lens. I have always though that Filter was there only for film camera, but probably I'm wrong. I remember having seen some one on the forum showing that there is advantage in landscape with filter to get better green detail on leaf of three ... but this is from a long time.

Probably test I can try when I will have time again. For the moment, next week is the start of finishing my house basement. I will be a father for the first time in April and we need to make place in the house. Probably after that time for testing will be not easier.

Regards,

Frank