Feedback on 3 lenses please.

[hoakin1981]

I currently have a 50mm f1.9 and since I plan on using my Pentax MX for many years to come (hopefully) I would like to complement my options with more focal lengths. I have found the 3 below options and I would like some feedback as to their overall performance and what you would consider a fair price for them. The overall condition for all is described as "very good".

Tamron Adaptall-2 28mm f/2.5 - Asked price 40 Eur

Tamron Adaptall-2 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 - 70 Eur

Tamron Adaptall-2 80-210mm f/3.8-4 - 80 Eur

The 28mm one is the most attractive and with a reasonable price but I am not sure about the other 2.

Thanks.

 

[Ian Grant]

The 28mm Tamron is an excellent lens I can recommend it, I had one in the 80's unfortunately it was stolen. 4o euros sound about right, I bought another more recently because I can use it on my Spotmatics as well as my MX, KX etc, I also have a 17mm and f2.5 135mm.

The 80-210 is OK not a bad performer, I can pick them up for far less than 80 euro, I see them regularly at camera fairs. Not sure about the 35mm to 135mm I always steered away from zooms of that range.

Ian

 

[Athiril]

The 28mm is probably good, but for the same price I think you could get a Takumar. The zooms are not worth it, I wouldn't take either one, even for 20 Euros.

 

[trythis]

The zooms should be $10 to $15, maybe $20

 

[John Koehrer]

Zooms are literally a dime a dozen here in the US. Years ago it was unusual for someone to buy a fixed focal length lens because they wanted the convenience over size, weight & speed.

 

[johnha]

The Tamron Adaptall lenses are very good for working on a variety of manual focus camera mounts. The 28/2.5 is reputed to be a good lens. The 80-200/3.8-4 is quite common and 80 Euro sounds expensive to me, I have the 70-210/3.5 SP which is probably better.

There are two Adaptall-2 mounts for Pentax, the 'KM' and the 'KA'. The 'KM' is better for the MX as they have an additional aperture display that appears in the Judas window of the MX (and similar cameras) - the aperture ring on the lens itself is in a different position and doesn't project into the finder. The 'KA' mount provides the electronic connections similar to Pentax 'A' lenses, allowing automated aperture settings and shutter priority/program modes (useless on the MX but helpful on later cameras).

 

[chip j]

Any Tamrons other than SPs are junk optically-no brilliance.

 

[Ian Grant]

Any Tamrons other than SPs are junk optically-no brilliance.

The 28mm f2.5 Tamron Adaptall II is as good as a Takumar it's definitely not junk, I've had 2.

Ian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you're looking at vintage Tamron lenses, keep an eye out for the Tamron SP 35-105mm f:2.8 constant-aperture zoom. Like nearly all tele-wide zooms, it's got a tiny amount of barrel/pincushion distortion at the extremes, but it's sharp as a tack, and if you're using manual exposure, you can zoom, and the exposure doesn't change. If you use aperture-priority auto-exposure, constant aperture isn't as important.

Here's a sample photo from when I had one of these, but note that the curvature at the top of the sign is actually a feature of the building and not the lens.

 

[JRoosa]

I'd pick up a 28mm for sure. The midrange zoom doesn't do much for you that you can't do with your feet.

For a longer lens, I would keep an eye out for a faster prime around 80 to 100 ish. That's where I use my 70-210 zoom anyway and the prime would be a lot faster.

Ironically I've come back to mainly using my 50mm lenses most of all.

J.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I hate it when I get feedback on my lenses... that stuff's darned hard to remove.

 

[JRoosa]

I find that even though it's hard to get rid of, feedback can be ignored pretty easily.



J.

 

[hoakin1981]

Thank you all for the input so far. How about the below?

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 90mm f/2.5

The asked price is 120 Eur but I may be able to lower it a bit.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The SP 90/2.5 macro is another gem. 120 eur is a bit on the high side in the current market, but in its day, this lens outperformed the comparable Leitz offering in the magazine tests.

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm actually looking for an SP 90mm f2.5 for one of my friends, other friends used them a few years ago and they were about the best 90mm macro lenses around.

Tamrom have made some excellent lenses, I have about 6 or 7 all as good as the top 5 manufacturers offerings.

Ian

 

[julio1fer]

The 28mm, for sure.

As for the tele, it depends on your favorite subjects. If you do portraits, a 90 to 135mm would be excellent.

For general purpose I'd recommend trying an 80-200 or 100-300 zoom. Lens quality will be a bit lower than with primes, but zooms should be cheaper. Besides, consider that, in the normal lens range (say 35 to 70mm) you may be able to adjust your composition by walking - but that type of composition adjustment becomes a lot harder in those situations where you need tele lenses. That is why tele-zooms are so handy.

 

[dynachrome]

I have all of these. The 28 is not a bad lens if closed down a little. I think I have two of these. There were two versions of the 35-135. I have both of them. They are fine if you close down a ittle and of you are not doing serious architectural photography. They are heavy, if that matters. There were two versions of the 80-210. One has a built-in hood and one does not. I must have five or six of them, with both types in the mix. My experience is very good with them. I suspect that the poor attitude some people have toward them is caused by using them hand held with film which is too slow for the lighting conditions and by the fact that in most cases the split image and microprism focusing aids black out in all but the brightest light. My best results with the lens were from using it (either model) with a Minolta X-700 with a grid type screen or with a Canon F-1 with the L D screen. When you can see what you're doing it makes a big difference. Would I like using an 80-210 with a Nikkormat or Canon FTb? I wouldn't. I have some SP lenses too. The 90/2.5 is very handy. It's a good general purpose lens, good for portraits and good for close-ups/macro. Mine is the 52BB. The barrel has more plastic in it but it may have improved coating.

 

[jstout]

Thank you all for the input so far. How about the below?

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 90mm f/2.5

The asked price is 120 Eur but I may be able to lower it a bit.

Although I haven't used the f2.5, I have the newer version the f2.8 and it's an excellent lens. Mine is the Model 72B, the SP90mm f2.8 macro 1:1, and I'm very impressed with it. There are probably many examples of photos out there to show what the Tamron 90 macro can do. I have other Tamron lenses also, and nothing but good to say about them. The SP designation, if I remember correctly, indicates that it's a special achievement in some way regarding that type of lens, i.e. difficult to put those qualities in a lens of that type, but may not mean that a non-SP lens has less optical quality. In other words, a fast zoom in a certain range, or compact size. I especially like my 17mm Tamron f3.5 for it's quality and being so much more affordable than Nikon.

The 90 macro is probably a safe bet.
Jeff