Going dizzy with Tamron adaptall 2 lenses

seany65

Well-known
Local time
8:39 PM
Joined
Sep 6, 2016
Messages
1,853
Hello all. This post may turn out to be a long (and confusing one 😱), but stick with it and you may be able to help me.

I've just bought A Tamron Adaptall 2 70-150mm f3.5 (20A) lens, and even though I've not got a mount for it yet, I was pleased with it.

I'd bought it as a 'complement' to a Tamron AD2 35-70mm f3.5 (17A) that I plan on getting.

I was then going to get the Tamron AD2 24mm f2.5 (01B).

Simples.

3 things have muddied the water, and muddled my brain.

1) The annoying built-in hood of the 70-150mm (20A) and the way the barrel comes over the the front of the lens when zooming out to anything short of 100mm.

Question: Is there a metal lens hood that is longer than the built-in one and doesn't get in the way of either the built-in lens-hood or the barrel, which would fit? A plastic hood would just about do, if it's longer than the built-in one.


2) I'm not sure I like the focus* ring 'tabs' on the 35-70mm (17A): not enough to get hold of.

Edit: *Zoom.

This made me start thinking of other Tamron lenses. Intitially I decided on the SP 35-80mm F2.8-3.8 (01A), as it seems to have a good reputation. I then thought "If I got the SP 28-80mm f3.5-4.2 (27A), I wouldn't have to buy a 24mm (01B) and so I'd have fewer lenses to carry and fewer filters to buy.

Questions: I've looked at the 'test' data that 'adaptall2.com' has for both and I'd like to ask if anyone knows if there's a noticeable difference in sharpness and contrast between them?

Is the 2.5% barrel distortion at 35mm of the 35-80mm actually noticeable?

How noticeable is the 1.8 stops light fall off (at 5.6) at 28mm, and the 1 stop light fall off (at 5.6) at 80mm of the 28-80mm?


3) I got to thinking about filters, mainly graduated grays, ND filters and the Hoya Red, Green and Blue enhancer filters, and I realised that all three of the 'planned' lenses have different threads: 49mm, 58mm and 55mm respectively.

This made think about the Tamron SP 28-135mm f4-4.5 (28A) and the Tamron 35-135mm f3.5-4.5 (40A).

I've not been able to find any test data for the 28-135mm, and so I can't compare them that way, and the test data for the 35-135mm doesn't mention distortion or light fall off etc.

Questions: I'd like to ask if anyone knows if there's any noticeable difference between the two?

Does either lens have noticecable light fall off?

Does either lens have noticeable distortion?

Does either lens have better sharpness and contrast than the other?

Any help anyone can give would be much appreciated.
 
Ridiculous long post part 2:

As I'm thinking of the wider range zooms previously mentioned, I remember the aperture 'problem'.

No lens produces it's best at full aperture, so you have to go down a stop or 2, thus an f1.8 lens is really an f4. Zooms are usually slower than primes so that starts the aperture at f2.8 or f3.5 etc. and then you have to go down a stop or 2 to f5.6, a zoom that has a varying maximum aperture of f3.5-f4.5 has to go down to f8 to at the long end to start getting goos results.

So I start thinking about the shorter range zooms again.

No do you all see why I'm going dizzy?

It's all very confusing for someone who only has 2 braincells to rub together.
 
It can indeed be dizzying to strategize the zooms. 🙂 One is tempted to try to "cover" all possible focal lengths, with each lens range overlapping the next one a little. Frustration, as I've come to think the zoom's greatest asset is avoiding changing lenses in the field... particularly important with digital rigs. Another thought along this line is increased utility of a zoom at the very wide end of the scale and the very long end as well, useful where "zoom by foot" is usually less applicable.

Long ago I had the Tamron 35-80 and as I recall it was a very good performer. But zooms are handicapped by optical limitations in speed, distortion, aberrations, plus there's the weight, and size.

To add a bit more dizziness, one might think again about primes... small, fast, light, optically superior... And adjust one's eyeballs to see only compositions that suit the focal length that's on the camera!

Kinda stunts the conversation though when someone looks at my Pentax and observes that it has quite a compact lens and asks how far does it zoom... And I have to answer that it's XXmm and doesn't zoom at all! 😀
 
I know what you mean about the handicaps of zooms. I became interested in photography in the mid-late 70's when zooms were crap as far as I knew. 'What Camera Weekly' didn't help much with that opinion either.

Sometime in the early 80's I somehow formed the idea that some zooms weren't too bad, as long as their range wasn't too wide. I eventually bought a Tamron SP f3.5 70-210. The weight but mainly the fact that the barrel came out past the front element put me off, as I'd wanted to get a set of Cokin filters going and I wouldn't be able to use the set with that lens made me sell it. I then got a Tamron SP f2.8 28-105mm. It felt a bit cheap and plasticky and it was huge, especially when extended and had the lens hood on it. I just 'went off' it.

I had been considering a Sigma f2.8-4 28-105mm, but I've seen some reports that it wasn't that good really, so I gave up on that.

I've already mentioned what lens I've bought and the other lens I was going to get with it.

I had just started to think about 'covering all legnths' and 'overlapping', when I began to think "nah! just get one 'big zoom' and a 24mm. Double Nah! Just get a 28-135mm. Sorted!"

I'd always planned on primes, for the reasons you state, but then, which ones? Will the ones I get be suitable for the places I get to, or will I wish I had different focal lengths to the ones I'd got? More ruddy dizzyness!
 
I purchased the 35-70 zoom for my Contax 137 and for my Topcon Super DM years ago. I found it to be an excellent lens with good contrast and sharpness. Yes, the aperture ring is kinda skinny but I've gotten used to it. Also bought the 70-150 telephoto. A nice lens but nothing spectacular. Both lenses will do a great job. Start taking pictures and stop stressing the little things.
 
I've had that 24mm for a bit over 20 years now, I've always been pretty happy with it.
It's the only non-SP adaptall lens I have, and seems to perform just as well.
My experience w/ the SP 28-105 f/2.8 is about the same as yours. huge and unwieldy, not so fun to use. Pictures are ok though, but not my favorite to use.

(my most 'fun' of the adaptall lenses is the 70-150 f/2.8 variable soft focus lens...unique to say the least!)

-Brian
 
Hmmm. I have a few Tamron zooms. From the mid 1980s to quite recent. Most of them are just acceptable performers. I have the 70-150/3.5, its actually a moderately good performer. But in general (of course there are exceptions) zoom lenses made before the 2000's are lacking. Even my Tamron zoom from 2013 vintage is not up to my standards.

I understand wanting a zoom lens (or lenses). If you do get Tamron zooms, only opt for the SP line, and even then you can do better -- with primes. So be sure to get a prime lens (or several) and add them to your lineup. Use them and compare with the results you get from your zooms.

So, what camera are these lenses going to be used with? Any reason why Tamron? For the adaptall capability (for multiple cameras with different lensmounts)?
 
Hmmm. I have a few Tamron zooms. From the mid 1980s to quite recent. Most of them are just acceptable performers. I have the 70-150/3.5, its actually a moderately good performer. But in general (of course there are exceptions) zoom lenses made before the 2000's are lacking. Even my Tamron zoom from 2013 vintage is not up to my standards.

I understand wanting a zoom lens (or lenses). If you do get Tamron zooms, only opt for the SP line, and even then you can do better -- with primes. So be sure to get a prime lens (or several) and add them to your lineup. Use them and compare with the results you get from your zooms.

So, what camera are these lenses going to be used with? Any reason why Tamron? For the adaptall capability (for multiple cameras with different lensmounts)?

I guess, Tamron had a very good reputation in the 1980s — AFAIK, Tamron and Sigma were the only non-European third-party-lens makers that were allowed to offer their lenses having a Leica-R-mount.
 
@fuji645, when I read "...topcon super DM..." I immediately thought of Danger Mouse.😛

Which versions of the 35-70 and 70-150 did you have?

It's taken me a while, but I'm beginning to get used to referring to them by their model No. due to the fact that they've had several versions of each lens.

@BTMarcais, I did think of getting one of those 'soft focus' lenses, but being a cheapskate I thought "Nope, I'll just breath on the lens and take a pic when it looks 'right'."😱

@rfaspan, I've compared the figures and opinions for the different versions of some of the tamron lenses on 'adaptall 2.com' and you can often see quite big differences, especially in the corners, with the newer ones usually being better. The '02A' version of the 70-150 being described as 'average' and the '20A' version being described as 'somewhat better than average'.

Who knew that swapping two of the digits in a lens's model No. could cause such an iimprovement?😕

They'll be used on a Nikon F301. I never ever wanted an F301. I was always an FM, FM2 and then an FM2n kid. I finally bought an FM2n and I couldn't get my right hand comfotable. I've got smaller cameras and my hands are alright or even good, but on my 'dream' camera? not so good. I got an F301 partly out of curiosity and 'just in case' I wanted the flash metering at some point. I kept the F301 and sold the FM2n.

@radi(c)al cam, Yup, I think it's partly a legacy of their reputation in those days as one of the 'big 2' indy makes (Vivitar being the other at the time), and then Sigma came along. I seem to remember they weren't too good until they brought out their apo 300mm and apo 400mm lenses, and then they brought a 28-70 f2.8-4, (I think), which was much better than their 35-70mm lens. The Tokina came along, and they were quite good (I thought). Meanwhile Vivitar seemed to drop by the way-side a bit. No other indy companies were any good as far as I knew. Then came Angenieux, with a 35-70mm and 70-210mm zooms, which I wanted as they were available in NAIS. I think they were also available in Leica bayonet.

Also, it's partly 'cos they had some lenses I wanted.
 
I don't think these questions deserves a thread on their own, so I'll ask them here:

Does anyone know if Tamron's hard-case for their 35-70 f3.5-f4.5 (09A), can fit their 35-70 f3.5 (17A) in it?

Is there a Tamron hard-case that can fit a nikkor 50mm f1.4 mf lens in?

Thanks for any help.
 
I've been looking at adaptall-2 24mm f2.5 01B lenses and have seen reviews and photos which suggest that they aren't very good towards the edges.

Does anyone know if this is generally true?

I see that the adaptall-2 135mm 03B and 200mm 04B lenses have built in hoods.

Does anyone know if they have the same arrangement as the 70mm-150mm f3.5 20A, in which the focusing barrel comes out over the frent element, preventing use of a metal after-market hood?

Any help would be much appreciated.
 
I see that the adaptall-2 135mm 03B and 200mm 04B lenses have built in hoods.

Does anyone know if they have the same arrangement as the 70mm-150mm f3.5 20A, in which the focusing barrel comes out over the frent element, preventing use of a metal after-market hood?

I have the 04B and the focusing barrel does not interfere with fitted filters or hoods. I think the 03B is the same. Another Tamron zoom to consider is the 28-50/3.5-4.5, my copy is really quite good. There's also the SP 24-48 to consider.

For an F301 I'd maybe look at the Nikkor 28-50/3.5 and 50-135/3.5. I have the 50-135 and it's very good.

Ronnie
 
My best Tamron Adaptalls:

17mm 3.5 SP, type 51B
24-48mm 3.5-3.8 SP, type 13A
135mm 2.8 BBAR, type CT135
80-210mm 3.8-4.0 BBAR MC, type 103A
and a 2X BBAR converter.


I also had a 35-70mm but didn't like the barrel distortion, so sold it again.
And had an 28-80mm that was very good, but the inside focus stops are made up from nylon rings and with use these 40 year old rings crumpled, leaving the lens useless.
I have a 75-150mm that needs to get sold. Thing is as new but I'm not using it so off to eBay it is.


Someday I'll pick up the magical 90mm 2.5 with 1:1 adapter and then I'll be set.
 
@ptpdprinter: I've already got the 2 zooms, I'm looking at getting a 24mm lens (and maybe a zoom with depth-of field scale on it, for landscapes with a set of cokin filters), and have decided that at the present a 24mm nikon is bit expensive so I've been considering the tamron and sigma lenses.

Zooms are quite useful, especially if when getting the right framing etc. using a zoom prevents me having to stand in the middle of a busy road...

@ronnies: Thanks for the info. Shame they couldn't do that 'focus barrel not interfering with the filters or hoods' thing with the 70mm-150mm 20A.

I've seen a lens test of sigma's and tamron's 24mm and the 24mm-48mm. The sigma kicks both Tamrons arses wide open and down a couple of stops, Tamron's 24mm has poor image quality towards the edges at the wider apertures but this improved.

But the sigma seems quite 'plasticky' and I prefer metal and rubber, but I'm not so sure about the tamron's edge performance, which is why I'm wondering how typical is that 24mm lens in the test I've seen?


For some reason I'm not too keen on very wide zooms such as the 24mm-48mm. The one in the test wasn't all that great, and apparently the 28mm-50mm isn't as good as that.

Thanks for the idea about the nikon 50mm-135mm lens. I'll have a look.

@raid and johannielscom, I'm aware of the high rep. of the 90mm. I remember reading reviews of each of the last MF 2 versions.
 
I have used the Tamron 90/2.5 with a M 4/3 camera for a sharp 180mm view. The built-in IS in the camera made it a snap to take very sharp photos hand-held. I have also used this lens with Velvia 50 transparency film for 20x30 enlargements that look awesome.
 
Back
Top Bottom