Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-20-2015, 02:49 AM - 1 Like   #1
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,209
What are the best Adaptall lenses?

Since there's so many it's a bit confusing and difficult to tell which ones are the best performers.

Both zooms and primes btw. Need to extend this LBA by getting a adaptall PKA... thing...

08-20-2015, 03:44 AM   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Location: Adelaide
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,364
This site is probably the best reference site for Adaptall lenses: adaptall-2.org

For quite a few of the Adaptall 2 lenses, the site provides, in addition to its own opinions, Modern Photography magazine test results from the time when these lenses were in production as well as comparisons to some of the manufacturer's equivalents from the same era.
08-20-2015, 04:04 AM   #3
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 58,946
I'm familiar with only 3 Adaptall 2 lenses.
1) The 400mm EDIF f4 (I own one) is generally regarded as a very good to excellent lens of that FL, still desirable;
2) The 300 EDIF f2.8 was generally regarded as a very good to excellent lens of that aperture and focal length, probably with better IQ than the 400 f4;
3) The 17mm was regarded as an excellent WA of that FL, but remember, that would have been an exceptionally wide lens for FF when it was in production, at a great bargain price compared to something like the 15mm Takumar, and also very compact.
08-20-2015, 05:11 AM   #4
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 6,027
QuoteOriginally posted by WPRESTO Quote
3) The 17mm was regarded as an excellent WA of that FL, but remember, that would have been an exceptionally wide lens for FF when it was in production, at a great bargain price compared to something like the 15mm Takumar, and also very compact.
I've always heard that the 17mm wasn't so great, but I've never tried it.

08-20-2015, 05:19 AM   #5
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 58,946
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
I've always heard that the 17mm wasn't so great, but I've never tried it.
I could not dispute that, but when it was in production it was quite popular, perhaps because of the combination of price and wider than the typical 20-21mm lenses available. At the time I had a 17mm Tokina that I found 100% satisfactory (used on an LX, ZX5n, and *ist), later replaced by a Sigma 15-30mm that I liked better. I would not seek any of these WA lenses for use on APSC cameras, but on a FF, maybe.
08-20-2015, 05:30 AM   #6
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,782
400 f4.
08-20-2015, 07:01 AM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Greeneg's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 146
The 90 mm f2.5 or f2.8 are still highly sought after for portrait lenses. Personally, I prefer the f2.5 but either will get the job done in great fashion.

Ed

08-20-2015, 07:09 AM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Wales
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,856
I put together this list when I started getting adaptalls .

http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/Adaptall/TamronAdaptallList2.html

PS I have some for sale....
08-20-2015, 07:10 AM   #9
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 222
I have the following.
SP 35-80mm f2.8-3.8 (01A) is mandatory!
SP 17mm F3.5 is good but have to work at it.
SP 300mm F2.8 60b and previously the 360b
SP 350mm F5.6 mirror is great.
SP 60-300mm f3.8-5.4 is cheap and very good.
80-210 F3.8-4 103A tele macro
The PK/A adapters are cheaper than they used to be?
08-20-2015, 07:50 AM   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Paris, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,349
There's a lot of info in the Adaptall Club sub-forum and in the Tamron Adaptall lens review section.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/59769-adaptall-mount-club-...ml#post3346937

Tamron Adaptall Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

(note separate section for the SP lenses)

And on the Adaptall.org site mentioned above. (Do read the history articles too.)

adaptall-2.org

And do search for 'Adaptall' in the Articles forum

The Adaptalls are generally of high quality, both optically and in build quality, with development and expense going into the optics while taking advantage of the competitive economic advantage of using adapters rather than unique barrel mounts. Most of the SP lenses of the late '70's and early '80's are optically comparable to all but the very top line lenses of that era from OEMs.

Many of the second tier, non-SP lenses of that era are also very good optically differing from the SP line in that they incorporated industrial plastics in the barrel and usually were limited to F/3.5 - 4.0 apertures. This was an era of intense exploration of computer aided design for both optic formulas and mechanics with SP lenses building on what was learned in the less expensive non-SP development and marketing process. Many of those lenses are the precursors of the modern Tamron SP AF lenses. Unfortunately, that was also the period when OEMs began to develop electronic AF and AE mounts which couldn't be economically replicated with adapters and the Adaptall concept was abandoned.

Today there are fine bargains in Adaptall SP lenses for those willing to forgo the pleasure of complaining about Pentax auto-focus problems and the nominal advantages of Di coatings. Fortunately the PK mount adapts well to the Adaptall concept.

Take the SP 80-200/2.8 (63B) as an example. Typically 1/3 the cost of the SP AF 70-200/2.8 and I'm unable to tell the difference between the two lenses without a helpful nudge from EXIF after normal tweaking in post-processing.

The SP 300/2.8 (60 and 360) lenses are quite capable when used for nature or tele-close-up tasks at about 1/2 the cost of equivalent AF lenses.

The SP 90/2.5 - 2.8 (52B/BB) lenses and the excellent SP 180/2.5 (30A) macro lenses continue to be well respected for their intended purposes even today.

The SP 35-80/2.8-3.8 CF Macro (01A) is a favorite general purpose lens with a good rep.

Both the 350 and 500mm mirror lenses are still considered among the bet of that type.

Optically I cannot tell any difference between my 1.4x TC (140F) and the more modern Tamron Pz-AF 1.4 converter. Both play very well with most newer lenses as well as the Adaptalls and have good reps.

I've owned and used each of these lenses along side their modern AF off-spring and find very little advantage in the newer lenses except for occasionally being thankful for AF owing to 70+ year old eyesight.

When used on-task for static macro and telephoto tasks manual mode and the inexpensive PK adapters combined with instant review/histograms leave no points on the table relative to the more expensive PK/A adapters.

May I suggest starting with three items that shouldn't cost more than a good steak dinner -- the AD-2 28-70/3.5-4.5 CF Macro (44A) and/or the 35-135/3.5-4.5 (40A) lenses with a PK adapter (the known good PK/A adapters cost about $80 today but can sometimes be found for less.

My all time favorite -- the SP 180/2.5 Macro -- but I'd have to vote the SP 80-200/2.8 the most useful Adaptall of all and it has comparable IQ when used side-by-side with the 180 in the field.

If your skill set includes manual focus and exposure try 'em. You'll like 'em.
08-20-2015, 08:07 AM   #11
Veteran Member
mcgregni's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 2,603
I stumbled across a 135mm f2.8 (CT-135) in a second hand shop, and it was a great find! I clicked through from above here to the database reviews and I agree with all the positive points made .... (it scores 9.25).

Great value, great focusing, Sharp wide open ... Very handy. I've got some great macros with it and tubes, and it's a good portrait option. A thumbs up all round ....
08-20-2015, 08:22 AM - 1 Like   #12
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 6,027
"SP" Adaptalls are better than non-SP -- personally I'd stick with the SP line.

Some general points:

They are all manual focus. (Duh)

The adapters can be somewhat fiddly and unreliable, especially the PKA ones. Most people end up getting an adapter for each lens so they don't have to change them. The PKA adapters are nice when they work, but they don't recognize lenses slower than f/4 -- they still operate, but for instance the 300/5.6 will show as an f/4. There are various workarounds and possible fixes for the various problems you might run into with the PKA adapters. Reams of discussion to be found on this forum about that.

Optically, there does seem to be an "Adaptall look" . The optical drawbacks they exhibit tend to be similar -- compared to modern lenses they are quite prone to purple fringing and LoCA (green/magenta bokeh fringing). (Some more than others, and zooms more than primes). On the other hand, with the SP lenses anyway, otherwise they are pretty much without exception very sharp and have nice color rendition. For the price among older lenses, dollar-for-dollar I'm not sure they can be beat.


Personally, I've owned the following (and tried a few others for limited tests, but not enough to comment other than "SP really is better"):

primes:
63B 180/2.5
65B SP 400/4
54B SP 300/5.6
55BB SP 500/8 (mirror)

zooms:
23A SP 60-300/3.8-5.4
19AH SP 70-210/3.5
30A SP 80-200/2.8
31A SP 200-500/5.6

And I've used all the Adaptall specific teleconverters -- the 1.4x, the 2x, and the special long 2x (200F/SP-200 model).

The "lowest-end" of the Adaptalls I've used personally is the 60-300 (and that's actually the only one I still have), and I must say that given you can get one for $40-$60, it is an awesome lens. Some have complained about the "macro" function sticking or being hard to get into/out of but my copy is great. (My copy seems to have been never used before I got it.) Surprisingly, for a "consumer zoom", it has less aberrations than some of the others (probably cause it is slower), and it is quite sharp, colors great. Really nice. However, I'm not a big fan of one-ring push-pull zooms, and using a variable aperture manual zoom on a modern DSLR presents a few quirks (setting the SR focal length value, PKA fiddliness, etc), so I don't use it much -- there are lots of alternatives in this category. But I can't knock it, I'm always surprised how good it is when I try it.

The 19AH 70-210 is extremely well-regarded, and it is a good performer, but I was a bit disappointed in the amount of purple fringing I got with this one. (Too much fringing annoys me if you didn't notice.) I didn't have it long -- got a good deal on it and sold it shortly thereafter.

The 30A 80-200/2.8 is a very good lens. But heavy as hell, and tripod collar doesn't always come with it and is hard to find (matching hood as well). It NEEDS a tripod collar -- there are various alternatives.

The 31A is a beast. Heavy, super-long, super-unbalanced. However, if there is a better 500/5.6 out there that you can get (often) for only $300 and change, I don't know what it is. And of course you get the 200-500 range as well -- I used it mostly on the long end, can't imagine buying this to shoot at 200 much. Tripod only, get the longest arca plate you can find to balance it, and don't plan on moving around much. But if you can set it up in one spot and are prepared to use it in a patient manner, very nice lens. Extremely sharp. Fringes more than than long primes, but not that bad.

55BB mirror lens. I found this rather low contrast (like a lot of mirror lenses) -- and I did use a long hood on it (longer than the one that originally came with it). Sharp, but not great. I have a Russian 500/8 mirror than I have found much better. However, I have seen some samples of other people's work with this lens that is better than anything I could get out of it, so your mileage may vary.

30A 300/5.6 macro. Oddball lens, this was one of my favorite Adaptalls. Very lightweight for a 300, unlike others very easy to walk around with and hand hold. Smooth & easy focusing all the way down to 1.33 macro. Real pleasure to use. Green/magenta bokeh fringing a bit strong at times.

400/4. Prices vary, but again where else can you get a 400/4 for $600-$800? Great lens, very sharp, fringes like the others. Usability is high -- it's a 400/4, so it is heavy, but not THAT heavy. Internal focusing, easy action. Very nice lens to use with a PKA adapter. I haven't used the 300/2.8 60B, but in talking to people that have it in comparison to the 400/4, it sounds like they perform very similarly, so it is just a matter of that extra length or the extra stop. The 400 is much harder to find than the 300. (There are also two other 300/2.8 models I haven't used.) As much as I liked this lens, as soon as I tried the Pentax-A* 300/2.8 (much heavier and $1000 more) I sold the Adaptall. The Adaptall was great, the Pentax was stunning.

180.2.5. This is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever seen anywhere. Wow. Aberrations much better controlled also (pretty much gone after f/4). With the 200F (or other very good 2x TC), makes a very nice handholdable 360/5. Also internal focusing. Really really top of the line lens. Somewhat scarce, but I don't believe there were only 3000 made as reported some places -- I'm guessing that the ones where the gold plate says "35th Anniversary" are from that original run though. Mine did NOT say that, and it was still excellent in all respects, so I wouldn't worry about finding one of those in particular. (btw, pacerr sold me his 180, so we are talking about the exact same particular lens)

Teleconverters -- using the Adaptall only teleconverters is a pain because they go between the mount and the lens (you remove your mount adapter from the lens and put it on the TC). But the 1.4x is very good quality, it has the same optics I think as the non-Adaptall Tamron-F 1.4x, which is well-regarded. The common 01F 2x is about what you'd expect -- its a 2x. The 200F (also called the SP-200) is hard to find and more expensive (but not as expensive as it used to be), and is in fact better around the edges and produces less fringing. Worth the cost? You decide. (The 200F only works on some lenses.)

One note about the Tamron 90 macro (I think there are two versions?), which I have not used. Reports are common that on digital the flat rear element causes internal reflections off the sensor making a hotspot, so unless you're staring at a great deal maybe a different macro in the range would be preferable. Like I said, haven't used it, but have run into that problem with certain other older lenses with flat rear elements, and it is annoying and can ruin images.

Last edited by vonBaloney; 08-20-2015 at 08:40 AM.
08-20-2015, 08:26 AM   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Wales
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,856
From buying and selling I can say i have a pretty good idea of the cost and value for money of the various adaptalls (at least in the UK...). Many of the plum lenses mentioned like 63B, 30A, 06B, 60B/360B are relatively great value but are not bargain basement being stout 3 digit prices...

Mid range zoom:
- I would put the 17A 35-70mm ahead of eg 44A any day. Availability: easy. Cost: $5 to 30 Earlier 09A didn't disappoint me either.
- 40A is good (Availability: average. Cost: $20 to 40) but if you bide your time you may be able to pick up the superior but somewhat scarce SP 28A for not a lot more as and when it crops up.
- 27A SP is a bit of a mixed bag but is readily available and is strong at the wide end, in contrast to most of the other ones. Availability: easy. Cost: $20 to 50
- 01A YES YES YES but check condition carefully its prone to mechanical wear particularly (complicated mechanics) and there are some old beaters out there. Check out Doundounba's macro pics here on PF in combo with 01F 2x tc and diopter. Availability: medium. Cost: $20 to 100+

Wide angle zoom:
- the 24-48mm SP 13A has only the kiron/vivitar 24-48mm as a rival legacy lens. Highly recommended but not so easy to find. Cost: $70-150

Telephoto zooms:
- I am not a fan of the 103A, 46A is better corrected and has truer colours IMO. Availability: easy. Cost: $10 to 30. 103A can be acquired in any case for next to nothing if you start acquiring adaptalls it's so common, and there are plenty of images online showing what it can do.
- 23A 60-300mm ONE OF THE BEST, MUST HAVE. Availability: easy-ish. Cost: $25 (if you're lucky) to 150 +. Check out OSV's pics with lens using Sony mirrorless camera..
- 19AH 70-210mm ALSO ONE OF THE BEST generally considered superior to Viv series 1 versions of 70-210mm (which I would concur with). Availability: need to look around. Cost: $50 to 150

Primes:
Generally speaking none of the primes disappoint, whether adaptall or adaptall-2. Principal amongst them the 90mm macros have already been mentioned and if you bide your time on the auctions 52B can be picked up for ~$100 which is just fantastic for the quality. I thought 01B 24mm to be similar in IQ to my Sigma superwide II. 02B 28mm came back with some better pics of the castle one day than my SMC 28mm f3.5 (but maybe that was just me..). All the 300mm f5.6's fill a hole in the pentax legacy line up - no similar spec/priced lens, and I have got good pics from all of them. The 135mm's are as good as 135mm are generally (which is good). I like the 200mm 04B sharpness, but it is a bit prone to fringing. The mirrors were the state of the art the best when they first came out and the 500mm are still absolutely the best value for money for cat lenses ($100-150); the 350mm has got a bit overpriced. The ct105 adaptall-1 (note that its easy to distinguish the early adaptalls from the later ad-2's the rubber grip changed see pics on my list page) 105mm deserves a mention its a good focal length for apsc and a nice lens, but the reviews here on PF overrate it - between a ct105 or a 52B is a no-brainer IMO..

PS some previous posts are mixing up lens numbers eg 300mm 5.6 macro is 54B - refer to my list.
PPS the cheap way to acquire PKA mounts is with lenses - learn to recognise one in a pic of a lens.

Last edited by marcusBMG; 08-20-2015 at 09:39 AM.
08-20-2015, 09:00 AM   #14
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,868
I have the 24/2.5, 28,2.5, 90/2.5 macro (52BB I think) and the 200-500/5.6

I find the wide angles acceptable, but like my vivitar 28/2.5!lenses better than the 28 Tammy. I have not used the 90mm macro much, but find the 200-500/5.5 a very good lens, although it needs a really good tripod to support it

Right now, I would vote the 200-500/5.6 is my favourite. Whe wide angle lenses are OK but I don't get excited. By them
08-20-2015, 01:12 PM   #15
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,209
Original Poster
Wow this is fascinating, didn't realize the naming scheme of them so now it's a bit easier to sift through them.

Thanks these lenses are actually sort of exciting to look into.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
adaptall, ergonomics, f2.5, f3.5, focus, k-mount, m42, mine, pentax lens, pk, post, slr lens, sp, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What are the lenses that work best with K3 kkgiyer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 06-02-2015 10:10 AM
5 Reasons Cheap Kit Lenses Are Best First Lenses interested_observer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 02-13-2014 09:47 AM
Shooting with two similar lenses? what are the differences? cperry Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 7 09-14-2013 02:57 PM
What Are The Best "All Around" Lenses For A Beginner On A Budget? vega Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 36 03-22-2013 03:47 PM
What are some of the best m 42 mount 85mm lenses? Vantage-Point Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 05-03-2011 04:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:17 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top