Tim Murphy
Well-known
Dear Board,
Now that I have several fully functional 35mm SLR cameras from various brands I see no need to own manufacturer branded lenses except for a 50mm and the Nikkor S vintage I've assembled to compliment my grandfather's Nikon FTN.
I'd like a couple of versatile zooms of decent quality zooms to cover all the bases with all the cameras courtesy of the Adaptall-2 mount? I have a 28-80mm 27A that seems like a useful and worthwhile with some rudimentary testing on an Olympus OM-D-EMII, but there have to be others, hopefully?
If there are no zooms I'm open to primes from 24mm to 500mm. I shoot mostly digital now, but shoot mostly landscapes and birds or wildlife. I'd like to assemble a kit to do the same with film understanding the limitations of ISO and aperture as they apply specifically to film.
Any suggestions?
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg PA
Now that I have several fully functional 35mm SLR cameras from various brands I see no need to own manufacturer branded lenses except for a 50mm and the Nikkor S vintage I've assembled to compliment my grandfather's Nikon FTN.
I'd like a couple of versatile zooms of decent quality zooms to cover all the bases with all the cameras courtesy of the Adaptall-2 mount? I have a 28-80mm 27A that seems like a useful and worthwhile with some rudimentary testing on an Olympus OM-D-EMII, but there have to be others, hopefully?
If there are no zooms I'm open to primes from 24mm to 500mm. I shoot mostly digital now, but shoot mostly landscapes and birds or wildlife. I'd like to assemble a kit to do the same with film understanding the limitations of ISO and aperture as they apply specifically to film.
Any suggestions?
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg PA
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I'm curious what folks have to say as well. I have a few Tamron lenses and a few different adaptalls. I have opinion about two lenses but just not sure about the others.
I'll say now that my 28/2.5 is quite quite disappointing. Unfortunate.
I'll say now that my 28/2.5 is quite quite disappointing. Unfortunate.
Zuiko-logist
Well-known
My setup is 24/2.5, 35-70/3.5, 28-135 SP, 70-210 SP, 90/2.5 SP macro, 300 SP and 500 SP. I can check the specific model numbers when I am back home.
All good for general photography. The 35-70 has good close focus. The 90 is excellent. I don’t use the 500 much.
I also have an older 105/2.5 which is very good.
This is a useful site:
All good for general photography. The 35-70 has good close focus. The 90 is excellent. I don’t use the 500 much.
I also have an older 105/2.5 which is very good.
This is a useful site:
Tamron Adaptall-2 lenses | Adaptall-2.com
A web resource providing information about vintage Tamron non-AF lenses.
www.adaptall-2.com
Last edited:
sleepyhead
Well-known
I‘ve used the 28-200mm 171A (the close focus model) and the 60-300mm. I no longer own either lens.
The former was a decent performer, nothing to write home about. It was better on the short end than on the long end, rather low in contrast, and needed to be stopped down ½ to 1 stop to be useable, in my opinion. But it was very light and compact, and on the Leica SL it gave some quite pleasing results in good outdoor light. It was good enough for family vacation snapshot stuff where the 28-200mm range and compact size meant I could use it all day outside. The ability to focus down to 0.8 meters at 200mm was useful.
The latter (60-300mm), was a heavy, solid beast, with very good image quality already from full aperture at all focal lengths. Stopped down a stop or two it wexcellent in sharpness and contrast. One flaw was the lack of a tripod mount built onto this lens. It really could use one. The 60mm focal length at the short end makes this lens surprisingly versatile. I imagine it can be a great portrait/fashion lens for those with strong arms. This lens also has a “macro” mode, that combined with the long 300mm makes it good for butterflies and flowers, etc. although that’s not my interest and I never used it for that.
I hope this helps you!
The former was a decent performer, nothing to write home about. It was better on the short end than on the long end, rather low in contrast, and needed to be stopped down ½ to 1 stop to be useable, in my opinion. But it was very light and compact, and on the Leica SL it gave some quite pleasing results in good outdoor light. It was good enough for family vacation snapshot stuff where the 28-200mm range and compact size meant I could use it all day outside. The ability to focus down to 0.8 meters at 200mm was useful.
The latter (60-300mm), was a heavy, solid beast, with very good image quality already from full aperture at all focal lengths. Stopped down a stop or two it wexcellent in sharpness and contrast. One flaw was the lack of a tripod mount built onto this lens. It really could use one. The 60mm focal length at the short end makes this lens surprisingly versatile. I imagine it can be a great portrait/fashion lens for those with strong arms. This lens also has a “macro” mode, that combined with the long 300mm makes it good for butterflies and flowers, etc. although that’s not my interest and I never used it for that.
I hope this helps you!
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I also have the Tamron SP 60-300 f/3.8-5.4. I used it frequently on my Nikons (FE2, FE, F2, EM, FM) during the 80s and 90s and it played nicely with all of them. Image quality is OK. Better IQ in the short end of the range. For long time, this was the only truly long lens I owned so I used it quite a bit for the 300mm capability. At this end of the zoom I found IQ to be adequate for my needs. Some of my disappointment with images at 300mm is due to me and my technique. Sometimes it was just my lack of skill/ignorance using too slow shutter speeds handheld. Sometimes it was because I had no other option than to attempt handheld at 1/60sec (at 300mm). However, images from those times when I used the tripod, good shutter speed, good light, etc. the images were reasonably good, sometimes downright great. Often a bit lower contrast than my "better" lenses (that I've acquired more recently). On film, sharpness was good in center, and good enough toward the corners (for a cheapskate like me). On digital, I found sharpness is less, across the zoom range. Still a usable lens given its useful attributes (zoom range up to 300mm, reasonable sharpness, tolerable weight, 62mm filter size, and adaptall-2 flexibility). I bought it and used it for wildlife photos -- 300mm was the key selling point. I know I've used the macro capability on that lens, but don't remember nuthin about performance.
I have other Tamron adaptall lenses. Mostly zoom, but a couple primes as well. The only other zoom I can recall right now is the 35-135 f/3.5-4.5. I used that one quite a bit on the Nikons duirng 80s and 90s as well, but can't remember anything particular about performance. I just remember it delivered satisfactory images and I used it quite a lot. I do remember it never gave me images with the sharpness and/or contrast quality I was getting with some of my prime lenses, or with my Minolta HiMatic-E. The Himatic (40mm f/1.7) really stunned me. On my Nikons, I would use my 50/1.8 (amber coating) or 50/2.0 and they gave better sharpness and contrast than the Tamron 35-135. So did the 35/2.8 and 105/2.5 Nikkors. But these are not fair comparisons, are they? I bought the Tamron 35-135 back in the mid 80s to be a standard walking-around lens. The camera bag would often just contain the FE2 with 35-135 attached (and some filters, cable release, batteries, tiny notebook). For some reason, back then I didn't go for a Nikon zoom in that range and just got the Tamron. I've acquired some Nikon zooms since then
Now, the little Tamron 28mm f/2.5 is definitely not up to my standards. I got it back in the late 80's as well and used it with film. I've also tried it on digital more recently. I like the size and handling of this little lens. The 49mm filter size is convenient. and I really want to like this lens, but image performance makes that untenable. It's just too soft. Sharpens up a bit with smaller apertures, but for a 28mm prime lens from a manufacturer that has demonstrated their ability to make a genuinely sharp lens, it never quite delivers. I suspect that the softness at f/16, maybe even 11 is from diffraction? Regardless, the end result is more softness than I'd like. While it's not fair, I compared an image made with my Tamron 28/2.5 and my Elmarit v4 28/2.8 just to quell my ADHD brain and the need to see a satisfying image from a 28mm prime. Ahh, that's better now.
Truly the most disappointing of all Tamron lenses I've ever tried is the autofocus SP AF 20-40mm f/2.7 (in Nikon mount). But, that one's not an adaptall-2 lens. Whew! Because it's truly awful awful awful.
I can already tell I'm going to search through the lens cupboards and find my other adaptall Tamrons. Might be a fun walk down memory lane.
I have other Tamron adaptall lenses. Mostly zoom, but a couple primes as well. The only other zoom I can recall right now is the 35-135 f/3.5-4.5. I used that one quite a bit on the Nikons duirng 80s and 90s as well, but can't remember anything particular about performance. I just remember it delivered satisfactory images and I used it quite a lot. I do remember it never gave me images with the sharpness and/or contrast quality I was getting with some of my prime lenses, or with my Minolta HiMatic-E. The Himatic (40mm f/1.7) really stunned me. On my Nikons, I would use my 50/1.8 (amber coating) or 50/2.0 and they gave better sharpness and contrast than the Tamron 35-135. So did the 35/2.8 and 105/2.5 Nikkors. But these are not fair comparisons, are they? I bought the Tamron 35-135 back in the mid 80s to be a standard walking-around lens. The camera bag would often just contain the FE2 with 35-135 attached (and some filters, cable release, batteries, tiny notebook). For some reason, back then I didn't go for a Nikon zoom in that range and just got the Tamron. I've acquired some Nikon zooms since then
Now, the little Tamron 28mm f/2.5 is definitely not up to my standards. I got it back in the late 80's as well and used it with film. I've also tried it on digital more recently. I like the size and handling of this little lens. The 49mm filter size is convenient. and I really want to like this lens, but image performance makes that untenable. It's just too soft. Sharpens up a bit with smaller apertures, but for a 28mm prime lens from a manufacturer that has demonstrated their ability to make a genuinely sharp lens, it never quite delivers. I suspect that the softness at f/16, maybe even 11 is from diffraction? Regardless, the end result is more softness than I'd like. While it's not fair, I compared an image made with my Tamron 28/2.5 and my Elmarit v4 28/2.8 just to quell my ADHD brain and the need to see a satisfying image from a 28mm prime. Ahh, that's better now.
Truly the most disappointing of all Tamron lenses I've ever tried is the autofocus SP AF 20-40mm f/2.7 (in Nikon mount). But, that one's not an adaptall-2 lens. Whew! Because it's truly awful awful awful.
I can already tell I'm going to search through the lens cupboards and find my other adaptall Tamrons. Might be a fun walk down memory lane.
I like the unique 70-150/2.8 Soft Focus zoom.
find it if you can!
find it if you can!
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I have maybe 4 or 5 Tamron lenses these are ones I use most:
SP 90mm 2.5. 52BB
35-70mm 3.5 CF Macro 17A
28-70mm 3.5-4.5 CF Macro 44A
All are very sharp and produce wonderful images.
SP 90mm 2.5. 52BB
35-70mm 3.5 CF Macro 17A
28-70mm 3.5-4.5 CF Macro 44A
All are very sharp and produce wonderful images.