How bad are they?

Vonder · May 8, 2009

Wow

Ian Grant said:
Thats not comparing like with like at all as the KA is a genuine Tamron mount the Canon fit just a 3rd party adapter with focus confirmation. The proper Tamron Adaptall EOS mount relays aperture settings etc to the camera and they are now extremely rare and difficult to find.

I do use an M42/EOS adaptor to use my longer focal length Tamrons on an EOS body.

Ian

Didn't even know there was such a beast. And yes, YIKES I can imagine something like that would cost a pretty penny. I've never seen one on eBay in all my years of frequent adaptall searches.

winjeel · May 8, 2009

Paul Jenkin said:
...
One exception was a kit lens (28-85mm I think) that came with a Canon 300 film camera I had around 2003/4. This was built like a yoghurt pot and never appeared critically sharp at any focal length or aperture. This seems difficult to achieve in a modern lens but they managed it with aplomb.

...

I've had perhaps the worst kit lens ever, sadly made by my beloved Minolta, the infamous 18-70mm DT. A yoghurt pot with a clear plastic lid and filter thread it was. :rolleyes:

nicefor88 · May 9, 2009

Thanks to all of you for these answers.
Serge

mhcfires · May 11, 2009

I still have my Topcon RE-Super camera, bought in 1968 with RE-Auto Topcor 58mm 1.4 lens. The RE-Topcor lenses were among the best in their heyday. The R.Topcor 300mm 2.8 was the first real super-telephoto lens, so popular that many Nikon owners bought them and had the mount converted to the Nikon mount. I have held on to my old camera, still use it. It is built like a brick, tough, can take abuse and keep on working.

Chaplain Jeff · May 11, 2009

Hello,

My first 70-210mm zoom was a variable aperture Sigma (back in the 80's). It was not much of a performer. I didn't realize that until I purchased a Minolta MD 70-210mm, f/4 about 5 years later. It was stiff - straight out of the box - and never really loosened up. Once I bought the Minolta I stopped using it and ultimately sold it for nearly nothing on ebay two decades later.

Can't speak for the other third parties you mention, but I had a consumer level Tokina 35-70mm lens that eventually fell apart, but for the 20 years before it did it took wonderful pictures. I think I paid $130 for it new back in '83.

Anscojohn · May 11, 2009

JPD said:
"Top con" sounds suspicious...

******
The Topcor lenses, sold along with the focal-plane shutter Topcon cameras in this country for many years by Charles Beseler, are outstanding in every way. Biggest drawback was the Exakta lens mount. Optical quality and mechanics were superb. But they were not cheap, to be sure.

Sirius Glass · May 11, 2009

dpurdy said:
Tamron is pretty good. I have one for my Nikon and it is at least as good as the Nikkors. Maybe better.

What he said. Tamron XR AF-D f/3.5 28mm to 300mm compares to the Nikon AF-D 28mm to 200mm. The Nikon has a slight edge because zoom lenses with narrower zoom ranges are slightly sharper.

Steve

How bad are they?

Vonder

winjeel

nicefor88

mhcfires

Chaplain Jeff

Anscojohn

Sirius Glass

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency