Hidden gems of independent lenses.

[cooltouch]

Because the Adaptamatics were discontinued before the advent of the K mount, you're out of luck finding a K adaptamatic mount. But you can use an M42 to K adapter, which will allow you to use your adaptamatic 200mm on your K-mount Pentaxes.

Conversely, you can upgrade to the Tamron adaptall-2 200mm f/3.5, which is probably at least as good as the one you have now. And you can use an adaptall-2 K-mount adapter with it. Here's one being sold by KEH on eBay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tamron-200m...803202?hash=item43ea6cbb42:g:33EAAOSwuAVW0vZC

 

[xtolsniffer]

Another big plus for Tamron AD-2 lenses. The 90mm macro in its various incarnations was always a stellar performer, and the 28 mm f2.5 AD-2 was/is surprisingly good. I've got some 20"x16" prints from it on my wall and they look pretty nice. The only issues with it are that it's prone to flare and the inner part of the lens is flush with the focus ring when fully retracted so some lens hoods stop it pulling all the way in to focus at infinity. I use an empty 49mm filter ring on it when mounting a lens hood. It also focusses down to 18 cm so is great for 'plants in their habitats' type shots, plus it takes 49mm filters so works nicely with Olympus OM systems as it has the same filter diamter. I've seen mint ones of these go for less than £20, an absolute bargain as long as you can find the adaptall-2 mount for your system. I've also used a Tamron 70-210 f3.8/4 (not the SP version), and I'd always assumed it was an ok so-so lens, but having dusted it off again, it's actually pretty good. Most of what I thought were its failings was actually my technique, and if you treat it carefully, it can turn in some nice results.

 

[cooltouch]

I can second xtolsniffer's comments all the way around. I own an SP 90mm and it is one of the two sharpest lenses I own. The other is an old 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor. They're pretty much in a dead tie for sharpness. I also own the 70-210/3.8-4 and I've found that it is actually an outstanding zoom. Underrated in my book. Finally, Tamron also made a 24mm f/2.5 that looks just like the 28mm (both iterations, new and old). I have the newer model. Same optical formula as the older one. It's just housed in a more ergonomic . . . um, housing. I performed a test using this Tamron 24mm against my Nikkor 24mm f/2.8. What I found was that the Tamron tended to flare slightly wide open, but that once stopped down just a bit it rivaled the Nikkor in sharpness and contrast. By f/8 it was actually a little sharper than the Nikon. And it isn't even an SP lens -- but it performs like one.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Yes, the 28mm and 24mm lenses are very odd looking, very small front elements for their aperture. I always wanted the 24mm but my budget would only run to second-hand ones back in the late 1980s, and 24mm ones came up very rarely.

 

[PaulWA]

I like the tamron sp 90mm 2.5 macro. I've got the extension element too, making it a great 180mm 1:1 macro that is excellent for portraits too. I used that on my old canon EF before it started playing up, I must get that looked at some time...

Another tamron I've used a lot is the 24mm 2.5. Focuses to about a foot and gives great pictures. I use it on a splayed tripod a lot for mushroom and flower pictures. Both of these lenses have the added bonus of being adapted onto modern kit too, when the need arises.

Posting this has me fondly looking at my canon EF. I wonder how much it would cost to fix the erratic shutter.

 

[Ian Grant]

The quirky little 30mm Meyer Lydith WA lens was an outstanding performer, it was only sold as a preset lens for Exaxta and M42 mounts (that I've seen). I have one with my Exacta outfit.

I've always been a fan of the better Tamron lenses and have a few including the 19mm SP & 28mm & 35mm they are very useful as I can use them with my Spotmatics or K/M series Pentax cameras as well as my CAnon EOS cameras - although I rarely shoot 35mm at the moment.

Ian

 

[Cycler]

As a poor beginner I fitted a Minolta copy Seagull with a M42 adaptor and used a Pentacon 30mm f3.5 pre-set on it. I think it cost £19.99p plus post. Really sharp lens. Later I gave it to a nephew who had got a Zenith B. Before then I'd used it on a Practica and a Zenith E as the Seagull wore out.

 

[Ian Grant]

As a poor beginner I fitted a Minolta copy Seagull with a M42 adaptor and used a Pentacon 30mm f3.5 pre-set on it. I think it cost £19.99p plus post. Really sharp lens. Later I gave it to a nephew who had got a Zenith B. Before then I'd used it on a Practica and a Zenith E as the Seagull wore out.

That's the Lydith after the Meyer name was replaced by Pentacon.

Ian

 

[ozphoto]

When I first started out, I wasn't able to afford Canon's FD lenses, so I opted to read as many reviews as possible on after-market lenses, to see which would suit my needs.

Ended up choosing Tamron as my brand of choice - their Adaptal-2 mount system was great and they had a great selection that suited my requirements as a sports photographer. Apart from the 50mm f1.4 that came with my used A1 and a 135mm f2.8 that I purchased duty free, every other lens I owned for the next 20 years, was from their stable:

• 17mm f3.5 (paid approx $395 used) - as others have said, very little between this one and the Tokina version. I've used both, but the Tamron was always the favourite;
• 28mm f2.5 (paid approx $195 used) - wanted the 24 but was out of my price range new and rarely appeared used. Pin sharp and exceptional value for the money spent;
• 90mm f2.5 (paid approx $295 used) - the older version that needed you to purchase the 1:1 extension tube. Was lovely and a great portrait lens too;
• 180mm f2.5 (paid approx $1.5k new) - magnificent lens that matched perfectly with their 1.4x and 2x converters. Pin sharp, fast (and the leather case it came in was a nice touch too!);
• 300 f2.8 - (I paid approx $3.5k new) this was a monster lens that was so close to the Canon version it was scary. My cousin shot for the local newspaper, and had the Canon version and he swapped it out one day when we went shooting football. He was amazed by the clarity and sharpness - matched with his Canon 2x, it was one wild lens! It came in it's own lovely leather case, with a small screw-in rear filter holder and 1.4x converter as standard. (I even paid $200 for a Tamron front filter (112mm from memory), just to keep it protected.)

The last two were by far the largest purchases I had made (had to pay them off weekly), in my early years of photography. Sadly when I had to go to the dark side, I unloaded them at much less than I would have liked, (needed to change to EF quickly) work taking priority over sentiment.

I loved that 28mm so much I purchased another 5 years after unloading my original, (actually spent more on the EF Adaptal-2 mount than the actual lens!)

 

[cooltouch]

Posting this has me fondly looking at my canon EF. I wonder how much it would cost to fix the erratic shutter.

Most repair people that still work on Canon FD cameras won't touch the EF both because of its early complexity and the fragility of these complex circuits. You might try giving Ken Oikawa a call. His rates are reasonable and he might be one of the few left who will still work on the EF. Ken doesn't do emaill and doesn't have a website. It's best just to give him a call. Here's his contact info:

Ken Oikawa
28288 West Worcester Rd.
Sun City CA 92586
951-246-9136

 

[gorbas]

To add to the previous opinions, Tamron SP 2.5/24mm was very good lens from f4 up. Wide open, was kind of funny. It was pleasure to use it when i couldnt afford original Nikkor.

 

[cooltouch]

Interesting you mention the Tamron and Nikkor 24mm. Several years ago I performed a comparison test on these two lenses. I posted the results over at the MF Lenses forum. You can read them here -- scroll about halfway down for the images and comments:

http://forum.mflenses.com/tamron-24mm-f-2-5-t22049,highlight,+tamron++24mm.html

 

[PaulWA]

Most repair people that still work on Canon FD cameras won't touch the EF both because of its early complexity and the fragility of these complex circuits. You might try giving Ken Oikawa a call. His rates are reasonable and he might be one of the few left who will still work on the EF. Ken doesn't do emaill and doesn't have a website. It's best just to give him a call. Here's his contact info:

Ken Oikawa
28288 West Worcester Rd.
Sun City CA 92586
951-246-9136

That's a pity, it's a wonderfully tough camera externally and the electronics are sound - it's just the padding for the mirror that needs replacing, new light seals (I could do those things) and the aperture lever for automatic diaphragm sometimes just... Locks up and won't move. Which is what needs the repair person, sadly. Actuating the shutter always fixes it, but potentially wastes a frame...

Thanks for the tip, but I'm UK based sadly. I smell it being dropped off to Newton Ellis with my rolleiflex later in the year. He's highly recommended on here.

 

[cooltouch]

Yeah, to get to the problem area for the aperture lever will probably require removal of the mirror box, which involves almost a complete teardown of the camera. I dunno, though -- it might be possible to pull the mirror box without having to disturb the flex circuits.

 

[gorbas]

Several years ago I performed a comparison test on these two lenses.
http://forum.mflenses.com/tamron-24mm-f-2-5-t22049,highlight,+tamron++24mm.html

Without hesitation I will use Tamron 2.5/24mm again. Beautiful lens by all standards.
In good memory of that lens, last year I bought SP 500mm F8 and 80-210 F3.5-4

 

[BobD]

The Vivitar 135mm 2.8 lenses by Komine and Tokina are great (as the OP mentioned) and are dirt cheap.

Tamron Adaptall 105/2.5 is also excellent IMO but hard to find.

 

[KrankyKraut]

The Tamron SP 90mm 2.5 macro (52bb) is a great lens. So is the Vivitar push-pull 70-150mm 3.8 and the Sigma 24mm 2.8.

 

[Frank53]

Tokina 3.5 17mm is great.
Exactly the same lens is offered by Tamron, Sigma and Spiratone.
I paid something like €75 used.
Regards,
Frank

 

[R.Gould]

recently bought an old Komura 80mm lens for my old Leica, lovely lens

 

[BMbikerider]

I have to add to the list with a Vivitar series 1 28/90. All metal and a lot of glass 2.8/3.5 zoom. Close focusses to I think 18". I have it in Minolta fitting. The only downside is it does vignette at 2.8 to 5.6.

It is now rarely used because I found a Genuine Minolta MD 28-85, F3.5/4.5 it is less than half the weight of the Vivitar but sharp all the way through and doesn't vignette. All that for £19. A bargain at any price.

They made a 28/105 ser 1 as well which came later but wasn't a patch on the 29/90. Perhaps a 'stretch too far'

 

[BMbikerider]

recently bought an old Komura 80mm lens for my old Leica, lovely lens

I have used a Komura F3.5/105 many years ago which was just slightly larger than the lightweight Leitz Elma 90/F4. It was fully coupled to the Leica rangefinder and was accurate. It only came in 39mm screw thead, possibly intended for Canon rangefinders of the 60's. I cannot remember how good it was though

The most surprising lens I owned for a rangefinder was the standard 50/F2 that came with a Kiev 1V. When used with Pan F, it would resolve thin metal railings over 1/4 miles away. I have learned since that this was almost certainly a copy of a Zeiss Sonnar design 'liberated ' after the war when Russia captured the Jena Factory in what was the old East Germany

 

[Johnkpap]

I have also found the Tamron 24mm Adaptall F2.5 to be outstanding in its performance the other tamron that is extremely good is the
105mm F2.5 Adaptall, it was my first Portrait lens, and it did not care what brand or model of camera...Used it on everything from a Pentax Spotmatic
an Nikkormat FTN To a Pentax LX and even on a Nikon F5 !!!! all you need is a different mount.

I have found that most Tamron Adaptall lenses to be of good value and always perform well.


Johnkpap

 

[swchris]

Second, aftermarket lenses had a different feel than camera manufacturers lenses. What I mean by this is if you owned 4 Nikkors and a Tamron then the Tamron felt like a Tamron and not a Nikkor so it felt different than your other 4 lenses. This bothered some and was a moot point to others.

What I don't like in 3rd party lenses is that they sometimes use a different direction for the distance setting. Back then I got a Tokina 4/25-50mm for my Nikon FM and had 1.8/50mm and 3.5/135mm Nikkors. On Nikkors (except the GN-Nikkor) you get the infinity setting by moving the lens clockwise, on the Tokina it was backwards.

Btw., I liked (and still do) the 25-50mm Tokina. Was my first wide angle lens.

 

[Paul Howell]

I just bought a Tokina AF 400 5.6 in Minolta A mount, surprised at how good it is, as sharp as my Pentax M42 400.

 

[Jim Jones]

I owned several 400mm lenses in Nikon F mounts before getting a Vivitar f/5.6 from the 1970s that is much better than any of the others.