I just love tamron

kb244 · Oct 12, 2006

Adaptall lens that is. I just gota brag once in a while.

A while back I got a Tamron Adaptall-2 70-210 f/4.5-5.6 lens for rather cheap, that had a Canon FD mount on it. Seemed like a nice big lens. I learned later on that the "Adaptall" basically allowed me to remove the mount and get a mount for another camera just fine. I managed to get a M42 mount and a Canon EF mount from my store (my coworker had the EF, and the store had a M42 ), so then I was able to use the lens on my Canon FTb, Canon Digital Rebel, Canon EOS-1 film body, Mamiya 1000DTL or Zenit-11, or whatever suited my fancy later down the road. But the 70-210 wouldnt exactly be an 'excellent' lens, but rather your general consumer. So over time I eventually got.

Tamron 28mm f/2.5
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro
and now
Tamron SP 180mm f/2.5 LD (IF)

I didnt bother too much with a normal lens as all of my cameras have a good 50mm prime (FTb has the 50mm f/1.4 SSC, EF has the 50mm f/1.8 Mk2, Mamiya has the 50mm f/1.7, so forth). And I have no problems with shooting in full manual focus and such ( Though on the EF I do have to stop down manually ). Would be nice to find a Tamron adaptall teleconvertor ( where you put whatever the lens mount is ont he back of the TC, then the lens without a monnt on front of it) so I'd only need one TC for all the cameras. Just seems nice to have good glass at an affordible price thats not strictly made for one mount, nor has the downsides of "adapting" such as infinity loss.

Dave Parker · Oct 12, 2006

Been shooting Tamrons for most of my photographic career and have never had a complaint about any of them so far.

Dave

David A. Goldfarb · Oct 12, 2006

I have three of them, all quite nice lenses--SP 17/3.5, SP 35-105/2.8 ASP, and SP 90/2.5 Macro.

If anyone needs a Nikon AI mount and has a Canon FD or EF mount to trade, send me a PM.

kb244 · Oct 12, 2006

David A. Goldfarb said:
I have three of them, all quite nice lenses--SP 17/3.5, SP 35-105/2.8 ASP, and SP 90/2.5 Macro.

If anyone needs a Nikon AI mount and has a Canon FD or EF mount to trade, send me a PM.

I got an EF mount, but I got a death grip on it. I aslo got a few Canon FD mounts ( Seems to be the most common mount ), though I don't need a Nikon mount. I got a spare minolta MD mount that I'm not using since I gave away my X-370.

I wonder if I can find a SP 17/3.5 on ebay or something, sounds like a lens I would love to have.

ozphoto · Oct 12, 2006

I've been shooting with Tamron for most of my life as well, and other than needing to replace an Adaptall mount once, no complaints from Down Under!

I too was able to get my little mitts on an EF adaptor ($$$), and have been able to use some fine pieces of glass since changing from FD to EF.

My stable consists of:

28mm f2.5
90mm (macro w/ ext) f2.5
180mm LD IF f2.5
300mm LD IF f2.8

A friend uses only Canon gear and in all honesty, I can't tell the difference between the shots.

I'm not too sure about the looks on the newer gear though, looking a bit "cheap & nasty" compared to the older adaptall gear. Which is why I purchased a 28-70 f2.8 Tokina and 17mm Tokina f 3.5 instead.

Cheers from Adelaide South Australia.
Nanette

kb244 · Oct 12, 2006

ozphoto, you get any purple frindging when shooting that 180 at all?

Jerry Thirsty · Oct 12, 2006

Tamron 180/2.5

I got this lens a while back thinking it might be good for astrophotography. Instead I found that, at least at 2.5 and 4 it has terrible light fall-off from center to edge. Has anyone else seen this?

thanks,
Jerry

kb244 · Oct 12, 2006

I havent noticed a light fall-off per se, I have yet to put the 180 on my EOS-1 or my FTb as i just got the lens, I Did take a test shot on my digital rebel and noticed that i get purple frindging quite easily on anything white. (probally because the sensor is probally recording light differently, and probally if the back of the glass gets 'reflected' so to speak where as film doesnt give a damn lol )

I'm quite certain it'll be great on my EOS-1, I'll let you know.

Dave Parker · Oct 12, 2006

The purple fringing is chromatic abberations, it is very common in some of the older lenses and will actually show up on color slides as well, it is because not all of the light rays are fousing in the same spot and they are being recorded in different focus planes, that is what the APO designation means on lenses, it has been corrected to prevent this type of problem

If your scanning, it is pretty easy to fix in Photoshop, especially CS2 they have a channel to fix this problem with older lenses.

The link below has some good information on optics

http://www.zbirding.info/zbirders/blogs/sing/archive/2006/08/08/181.aspx

Dave

ozphoto · Oct 13, 2006

kb244 said:
ozphoto, you get any purple frindging when shooting that 180 at all?

No Karl.
Haven't seen any frindging on any of the stuff I've shot (film or digital).
I've used it on 3 FD cameras - AE1 Program, A1 and F1, EOS 1 & 1N, and just recently on an EOS 10D.
Anybody else had this problem?
Nanette

ozphoto · Oct 13, 2006

Jerry Thirsty said:
I got this lens a while back thinking it might be good for astrophotography. Instead I found that, at least at 2.5 and 4 it has terrible light fall-off from center to edge. Has anyone else seen this?

thanks,
Jerry

Hi Jerry.
Afraid I haven't had this particular problem either. I've used it for a lot of different stuff; architecture, sport (with a 1.4X Tamron converter, portraits, and have always found it to be very good.
And I almost always shoot sport wide-open for speed and background blur.

Cheers
Nanette

kb244 · Oct 13, 2006

Dave Parker said:
The purple fringing is chromatic abberations, it is very common in some of the older lenses and will actually show up on color slides as well, it is because not all of the light rays are fousing in the same spot and they are being recorded in different focus planes, that is what the APO designation means on lenses, it has been corrected to prevent this type of problem

If your scanning, it is pretty easy to fix in Photoshop, especially CS2 they have a channel to fix this problem with older lenses.

The link below has some good information on optics

http://www.zbirding.info/zbirders/blogs/sing/archive/2006/08/08/181.aspx

Dave

I'm aware of what CA is, but what I thought was odd when just quickly testing it on the digital at the store, I thought it was odd how much CA I got off the white lettering under standard hot lights, as well as a slight yellow edge.

Taken 1/100th of a second, on a tripod, ISO 100, wide open f/2.5

Here one taken earlier in the day with the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Adaptall-2 lens, which is what got me wondering bout the 180mm.

1/10th of a second, on a tripod, ISO 100, f/8

So ya , wasnt sure what to make of it.

srs5694 · Oct 13, 2006

kb244, you say your sample shots were taken using a digital camera at a store. I don't know the details, but I've heard that digital and film have different characteristics concerning the position of the film grains/sensors. Specifically, with film, the grains that respond to different colors of light are at different depths in the emulsion, whereas with digital sensors they aren't. The result is that lenses that perform perfectly with film may not perform perfectly with a digital camera and vice-versa. As a practical matter, I get the impression that this effect is greater for some lenses than for others. Unfortunately, I don't have any personal experience or hard data, nor do I have any links to extensive discussions of the matter. It's something you might want to consider and investigate further, though. Certainly the Adaptall series lenses were all designed for use on film cameras, so I'd want to evaluate them when used on film cameras -- particularly on APUG!

kb244 · Oct 13, 2006

srs5694 said:
kb244, you say your sample shots were taken using a digital camera at a store. I don't know the details, but I've heard that digital and film have different characteristics concerning the position of the film grains/sensors. Specifically, with film, the grains that respond to different colors of light are at different depths in the emulsion, whereas with digital sensors they aren't. The result is that lenses that perform perfectly with film may not perform perfectly with a digital camera and vice-versa. As a practical matter, I get the impression that this effect is greater for some lenses than for others. Unfortunately, I don't have any personal experience or hard data, nor do I have any links to extensive discussions of the matter. It's something you might want to consider and investigate further, though. Certainly the Adaptall series lenses were all designed for use on film cameras, so I'd want to evaluate them when used on film cameras -- particularly on APUG!

Understandible, I just got the lens yesterday so I havent had a chance to try it on my film bodies out of work. Will likely do a few shots on C-41 with the lens initially, then just shoot up the rest of the roll with whatever I desire.

Dave Parker · Oct 13, 2006

Karl,

If you want to really check it, shoot a roll of slide film such as Velvia or Provia, if the lens is aberation problems, it will show up quite noticably when you scan the slide, I had a Tamron 300 f/2.8 that was showing this problem and had to exchange it for another, try to shoot some lit up while background signs with letters on it...or white birds, that always shows if there is a problem.

Dave

dpurdy · Oct 14, 2006

I have the Tamron 28-105 2.8 Nikon D. Really good lens, probably sharper than any of my nikkors. But it is big and heavy and lately has been losing electical contact with my F100 so the auto focus doesn't work. I have to take it off and put it back on and then it works again. I switch to manual focus and the other auto functions continue to work fine. In dim light or with auto focus help from the SB 28, the Tamron struggles to focus. Then I switch to a Nikkor prime.

Flotsam · Oct 14, 2006

The only non-Zeiss lens that I use on my Contax's is the 17mm 3.5 Tamron. I've been very happy with it and it's nice to know that I can use it on my Nikon if needs be.

Confusion Circle · Oct 15, 2006

I have a Tamron 70-210 f2.8 SP LD Minolta mount lens and it is pretty sharp on my film bodies....but on my 7D dSLR, it is very, very soft. My 20 year old Minolta 70-210 f4 (apparently designed by Leica) is much sharper with almost no CA on my digital, and incredible on my film bodies. I've always wondered if I got a soft copy of the Tamron.

Dave Parker · Oct 15, 2006

I have never had a problem with 80-200 f/2.8 it is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever owned..

Dave

oscroft · Oct 15, 2006

I've used several Tamron lenses over the years...

I had an example of the popular 80-210, which gave me pretty good results. But after a few years the balsam between two of the internal elements started to bubble and go nasty, so it ended up in the trash. (I have another one now - I rarely use it, but it was a cheap eBay purchase).

I also had an SP 24-48, which I used a lot and got some nice results from. I found it gave good contrast when used with transparency films - better than I'd expected from a w/a zoom. It was a bit prone to flare (which is not surprising) and did have a very small amount of barrel distortion at the 24mm end. I sold it quite some time ago when I switched to medium format, but now that I've switched back I wish I still had it (but on the other hand, I nearly always used it at the ends of the zoom range, and I get better results from the 24mm and 50mm primes that I have now).

The other Tamron lens I had was the 500mm mirror. It was pretty good, but I quickly realised it was of almost zero use to me, so I sold it.

Alan

Black Dog · Oct 16, 2006

I've owned a 90mm Tamron SP macro for several years now and IMO it's one of the finest macro lenses available to humanity-my most used lens on 35mm by a country mile.

kb244 · Oct 16, 2006

Black Dog said:
I've owned a 90mm Tamron SP macro for several years now and IMO it's one of the finest macro lenses available to humanity-my most used lens on 35mm by a country mile.

Couldnt agree with you more.

I just love tamron

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency