Tamron lens questions (2)

[Mike Kennedy]

While I was visiting my local camera shop a bag of Tamron gear was dropped of for assement
One lens is a 200-500 f6.9 apaptall mount which weighs a ton.Has anyone used one? Venture an opinion?
Lens #2 is a Tamron 80-210 3.8 adaptall with a huge scratch on the front element.More like a gouge really.That lens was given to me (thanks eh?). Any way to make this glass usable?

Thank You

 

[Peter Black]

Lens #2 is a Tamron 80-210 3.8 adaptall with a huge scratch on the front element.More like a gouge really.That lens was given to me (thanks eh?). Any way to make this glass usable?

Thank You

I hate to tell you Mike, but this wasn't even that great a lens in perfect condition.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Probably why I got it as a freebee.

 

[Abbazz]

Mike, one big scratch will probably have less effect on your pictures than many of those so-called "cleaning marks" scattering light all over the place. Usually, defects on the front element are less detrimental to the pictures than when the rear element is affected.

What I suggest: try to fill the scratch with black ink to reduce light scattering and test the lens, it wouldn't surprise me if you could get decent results from it.

Cheers,

Abbazz

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I looked through that 200-500 once and wasn't too impressed with it, but I didn't actually try it with film.

Some of the Tamron SP lenses are quite good. The SP 90/2.5 and 2.8 Macro is one of the sharpest lenses in its class. The SP 35-105/2.8 ASP constant aperture zoom is a first rate lens. There are professionals who have used the SP 300/2.8. I have a Tamron SP 17mm lens that's quite good as well. I don't own the 300, but I have the others.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

While I was visiting my local camera shop a bag of Tamron gear was dropped of for assement
One lens is a 200-500 f6.9 apaptall mount which weighs a ton.Has anyone used one? Venture an opinion?
Lens #2 is a Tamron 80-210 3.8 adaptall with a huge scratch on the front element.More like a gouge really.That lens was given to me (thanks eh?). Any way to make this glass usable?

Thank You

All I can tell you is that I bought a later iteration of the 200-500 on e-bay recently. This is from the SP series, uses an Adaptall 2 mount and has a constant aperture of f5.6. To be honest, I didn't realize quite how heavy this lens was before I bought it, but my initial impressions are good and I mean to try it out for motor racing pix some time soon. I have found the SP series (of which I have 4 examples) consistently good.

I have one or two non-SP zooms around the place, acquired in package deals - these can be quite mediocre!

Regards,

David

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

Try Tamron's 200 mm - 400 mm f 5.6 Constant aperture Zoom.

All I can tell you is that I bought a later iteration of the 200-500 on e-bay recently. This is from the SP series, uses an Adaptall 2 mount and has a constant aperture of f5.6. To be honest, I didn't realize quite how heavy this lens was before I bought it, but my initial impressions are good and I mean to try it out for motor racing pix some time soon. I have found the SP series (of which I have 4 examples) consistently good!
Regards, David

The 35 - 105 mm f 2.8 ASL, are outstanding lenses, as are the 90 mm Macro's & 300 mm f 2.8's.
I've owned the first & third lenses.

I also want to put in a good word for the earlier 200 mm - 400 mm f 5.6 Constant Aperture Zoom lens. Because it's f 5.6, AF works & it's not too heavy, or big compared to the later model.

The problem with the 200 mm - 500 mm is that the aperture varies.

 

[dougjgreen]

While I was visiting my local camera shop a bag of Tamron gear was dropped of for assement
One lens is a 200-500 f6.9 apaptall mount which weighs a ton.Has anyone used one? Venture an opinion?
Lens #2 is a Tamron 80-210 3.8 adaptall with a huge scratch on the front element.More like a gouge really.That lens was given to me (thanks eh?). Any way to make this glass usable?

Thank You

I agree, the Tamron 200-400mm f5.6 AF lens is definitely better than the old manual 200-500, and supports AF and metering in current cameras. (expect to pay under $200 for a clean used one).

As for the other lens, even a gouge in the front element is probably not a problem. The lens is quite probably useable as is. Although, it was never a GREAT lens, it is not too bad. The gouge will not show up in the images. The suggestion of filling the gouge with black india ink to cut down on flare is a good one. But it's market value is nill because even in good shape, it would only be worth around $25-30.

 

[dynachrome]

Tamron Lens Question

There were two versions of the 80-210/3.8 Tamron Adaptall II. One had a built-in lens hood and the other came with a separate one. I have several of each and both are quite good. I have even had good luck using one of them with a Minolta 2X 300S teleconverter. The problem with a lens as slow as the 80-210/3.8 is that it can be difficult to focus. For this reason I prefer to use the lens with a camera which has interchangeable focusing screens. A grid type or plain matte screen will work well.

 

[PentaxBlue]

There was more than 1 version of this lens. The SP version of it is pretty decent though heavy.