Addicted to Tamron Adaptall-2

[xkaes]

Thanks for that link. I think it's interesting that it has the start dates for the different Tamron mounts, but mentions two Adaptall mount -- the Adaptall (1973) & Adaptall-2 (1979), but fails to mention that there are two versions of the Adaptall-2. Who know when the Adaptall-2 (model 1) and the Adaptall-2 (model 2) actually appeared?

The Minolta XD-11 appeared in 1977, and that's one of the Minolta cameras that needed the second version of the Adaptall-2 mount.

 

[benjiboy]

I only have one Tamron S.P Adaptall 2 lens, the 17mm f 3.5, it's an outstanding rectilinear ultra wide angle, and although all my other fourteen other lenses are marque Canon F.D ones I have never been tempted to replace it with the FD 17mm one because it's not only expensive, but just can't be any better.

 

[ozphoto]

Love the Tamron adaptall-2 system too!

Sadly I had to let them go when I changed to EF, but I'm slowly building it back up. Owned the following when I shot FD:

• 28mm f2.5 (http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/02B.html)
• 90mm f2.5 (with 1:1 adapter) (http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/52B.html)
• 180mm f2.5 (http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/63B.html)
• 300mm f 2.8 (with 1.4x converter) (http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/60B.html)

My cousin shoots pure Canon gear (FD then EF) and he couldn't tell the difference between the Tamron 300 f2.8 or his Canon 300 f2.8. Prior to him purchasing the Canon, he often used the 180mm with the 1.4x converter and was blown away by the sharpness of this combo.

Always lusted after the 17mm, but couldn't find one back in the day to match my bank balance. Recently picked one up and it too is an outstanding lens. (http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/51B.html) Now on the hunt for a 180mm and the 300mm (khaki version), the former to use, the latter for the memories and some limited use these days.

 

[xkaes]

That Tamron 17mm is a weird one. Actually, it wasn't just one. It came in FOUR versions -- even though they all had the same optical design. Two had front filter threads -- 67mm & 82mm -- but two others did not. Two had internal filters, but two did not. The one I have has a 67mm front -- WITHOUT filter threads -- and NO BUILT-IN filters. It is marked "82" for the add-on lens shade -- which allows you to attach filters. I bought mine -- without the "lens/filter shade" and got it for a great price. The front is 67mm, so I attached (glued) a 67-77mm step up ring, and now I can attach filters.

Great lens. I use an Adaptall-2 (version 2) mount.

 

[benjiboy]

That Tamron 17mm is a weird one. Actually, it wasn't just one. It came in FOUR versions -- even though they all had the same Toptical design. Two had front filter threads -- 67mm & 82mm -- but two others did not. Two had internal filters, but two did not. The one I have has a 67mm front -- WITHOUT filter threads -- and NO BUILT-IN filters. It is marked "82" for the add-on lens shade -- which allows you to attach filters. I bought mine -- without the "lens/filter shade" and got it for a great price. The front is 67mm, so I attached (glued) a 67-77mm step up ring, and now I can attach filters.

Great lens. I use an Adaptall-2 (version 2) mount.

The big hard rubber hood that was a very expensive optional extra for the final version of the 17mm Tamron S.P had an internal 82mm filter thread.

 

[Chuck1]

And it's not easy to unscrew a filter from.

 

[ozphoto]

I wanted my 17mm to match my 28mm f2.5 design, so I purchased the 51B (early version), with the inbuilt filters, purely for the cosmetics. ie: no plastic cover to be seen.

Previously I owned the Tokina version, which was okay, but I sold that off when I switched to EF, only recently purchasing the Tamron version, which IMHO is far superior.

I use this whenever I head out to shoot for pleasure, rather than work - I have the Canon 17mm TS-E for that, but the front element is so large, shooting on the fly as I wander around really isn't an option. It's too heavy and overkill for landscapes and wide-angle stuff that doesn't involve vertical lines.

 

[kl122002]

Another interesting Adpt-all mount is for the Rollei/Voigtlander (aka QBM mount) . There are 2 versions : older one has no place to indicate the aperture ; the newer one has an external support for it which is designed for VSL-1 or SL35M that could read the aperture from the view finder.

The newer version also comes with aperture stickers so that user can stick the scale based on which lens is using.

 

[benjiboy]

And it's not easy to unscrew a filter from.

That's true, and impossible to use a polarizing filter with.

 

[DTC]

I have a pretty good set of Tamron SP Adaptall lenses. Really like them. I have the 17mm (with hood and built in filters), the 35-80 f2.8 (very sharp and takes great closeups), 70-150 f2.8 Soft (very rare, very sharp with soft focus off to very dreamy with soft focus set high), 2x -- 80-200 f2.8 (with hoods and tripod mounts), and the latest (3d version)(grey) version of the 300 f2.8. All of them, except the 17mm (which has good sharpness), are really sharp. The 80-200 SP is better/sharper with less chromatic aberration than the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 lenses (Versions 1 and 3) that I have, although the Vivitars are lighter and focus closer.

 

[benjiboy]

I have a pretty good set of Tamron SP Adaptall lenses. Really like them. I have the 17mm (with hood and built in filters), the 35-80 f2.8 (very sharp and takes great closeups), 70-150 f2.8 Soft (very rare, very sharp with soft focus off to very dreamy with soft focus set high), 2x -- 80-200 f2.8 (with hoods and tripod mounts), and the latest (3d version)(grey) version of the 300 f2.8. All of them, except the 17mm (which has good sharpness), are really sharp. The 80-200 SP is better/sharper with less chromatic aberration than the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 lenses (Versions 1 and 3) that I have, although the Vivitars are lighter and focus closer.

I used to have the Vivitar Series 1 f 2,8 70 -210 mm zoom, which although it was a very. good lens optically, I didn't use very much because it was so heavy. I eventually part exchanged it for the Canon FD 80 - 200 f 4 that is much lighter, and has separate focus and zoom controls that I much prefer.

 

[moggi1964]

I have, over time, parted with most of the SP range that I owned as I stopped using SLR's and only occasionally shot adapted on my EM1 MkII.

Recently tried to sell the 90mm F/2.5 with the teleconverter but could not get anything like a decent price for it. Glad I haven't let it go as I picked up a nice Canon A1 that I think I'll keep and it came with a Tamron zoom and more importantly the adapter. The 90mm is a fabulous lens.

 

[dynachrome]

The Canon FD 70-210mm lens is an f/4 model and is a one touch design. The earlier versions of the 80-200 FD (not the L version) are also f/4 models and have a two touch design.

 

[xkaes]

I used to have the Vivitar Series 1 f 2,8 70 -210 mm zoom, which although it was a very. good lens optically, I didn't use very much because it was so heavy. I eventually part exchanged it for the Canon FD 70 - 210 F 3.5 that is much lighter, and has separate focus and zoom controls that I much prefer.

I knew there were different versions of the Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm -- f3.5 vs f2.8-4.0 -- but I didn't know there were eight of them (seven listed here):

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-series-1-70-210-line.html

I rely on a Minolta Rokkor-X 70-210mm f4.0 for normal use, and a Tokina 80-200mm f2.8, for low light.

 

[benjiboy]

I knew there were different versions of the Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm -- f3.5 vs f2.8-4.0 -- but I didn't know there were eight of them (seven listed here):

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-series-1-70-210-line.html

I rely on a Minolta Rokkor-X 70-210mm f4.0 for normal use, and a Tokina 80-200mm f2.8, for low light.

Neither did I, as I wrote previously, it was far too heavy for me, and I dislike one tuch zooms because the way that the human wrist is constructed it's very difficult to pull the zoom control backwards or forwards without turning your wrist and putting the image out of focus.

 

[gorbas]

Almost 40 years ago I had a lot of fun using Tamron Adaptall 2.5/24mm. Most likely it was standard, not SP variant. It was very soft full open, soft from 2.8 up to f4, especially in the corners and from there it was amazingly sharp. Always regretted selling it to buy Nikkor 2.8/24. Until today I was not even aware that they had 3 versions of that lens. Today I checked on Ebay and prices are very high, way above prices on that table and there are not many of them for sale.
Thank you Andreas for this thread! Are you behind www.apotelyt.com web site?

 

[Andreas Thaler]

Thank you Andreas for this thread! Are you behind www.apotelyt.com web site?

No, not in any way!

 

[xkaes]

It looks like Tamron had three 24mm lenses -- two f2.5 with 55mm threads, and one f3.5 with a 72mm thread.