Originally posted by Spodeworld Does anyone know if there is a difference in the quality of the optics between equivalent Adaptall and Adaptall 2 lenses? Is it just the mount that is different and the communication? (I think they might even share the same numbers.)
Thanks
Originally posted by Spodeworld I was interested in the 46-A (70-210). It seemed like I heard that the 46A exists in both mounts, but when I went to adaptall-2.org, I could only find it in the Adaptall-2 list. I'm going to assume that the person who said that there is an Adaptall version of it was incorrect.
Thanks for the feedback.
In the beginning (ignoring even earlier lens lines such as Adaptamatic) there were
Adaptall "without-2" lenses and corresponding Adaptall Custom Mounts.
Then (in 1979 or thereabout) came the
Adaptall-2 lens line with corresponding Adaptall-2 Custom Mounts. Those lenses that Tamron considered "something special" were given the additional
"SP" ("Super Performance") designation. All Adaptall-2 lenses, whether SP or not share the same line of Custom Mounts. And Adaptall-2 Custom Mounts may also be used with the earlier Adaptall-"without 2" lenses.
Adaptall LENSES are of a different mechanical and mostly also a different optical design than their Adaptall-2 successors. The former are usually considered as "good" or ""very good", yet inferior to the lenses in the Adaptall-2 line (whether SP or not).
Adaptall CUSTOM MOUNTS are universally reported as mechanically less reliable than the Adaptall-2 mounts. Thus, if you find an attractive Adaptall lens, you should still go for an Adaptall-2 mount to use with that lens.
Now to your 46A and its "closest relatives". I can think of:
- Adaptall: Model Z-220 (80-220)
- Adaptall-2: Model 03A (80-210); Model 103A (80-210); Model 46A (70-210); Model 47A (70-210 - with AF!); Model 158A (70-210)
- SP Adaptall-2: Model 19AH (70-210); Perhaps also Model 30A (80-200 - pricy f/2.8 lens).
I hope the above clarifies more than it confuses???