Lonely Toads- Tamron Adaptall Lens 60-300mm 3.8-5.4(23A) on Sony A6000 video

**Sliver-Surfer** · 04-23-2016, 07:26 PM - **1 Like**

Was in the park today and thought I might record some video which I almost never do. All shot at 300mm except for 1 shot of the dead tree at 60mm on Sony A6000

Youtu.be

surfar · 04-23-2016, 10:39 PM

Its a very good lens,despite the bullfrogs,

**Sliver-Surfer** · 04-24-2016, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by surfar

Its a very good lens,despite the bullfrogs,

They are American Toads about 2" or 5cm long. The lens is one of my favorite Zooms.

osv · 04-24-2016, 10:58 AM

i've used that lens on the a7r, it's a nice piece of glass.

**Sliver-Surfer** · 04-24-2016, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by osv

i've used that lens on the a7r, it's a nice piece of glass.

Your shots convinced me to buy this lens. I usually dismiss superzooms as cheap kit but there are some great adaptalls
edit: I usually dismiss legacy superzooms as cheap kit.

reh321 · 04-24-2016, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer

Your shots convinced me to buy this lens. I usually dismiss superzooms as cheap kit but there are some great adaptalls

This is one of the classics from the film era; I bought one because of the good things I'd heard about it. I'm not sure why you would call this a "super zoom". One of the Pentax standards these days is the DA 55-300 f/4-5.8 ED WR, which is a little more zoomy, of course. I have both lenses, and if I were to prefer the DA, the preference would be primarily because the DA is WR and AF. A true "super zoom" typically goes 18-300mm or so.

**Sliver-Surfer** · 04-24-2016, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by reh321

This is one of the classics from the film era; I bought one because of the good things I'd heard about it. I'm not sure why you would call this a "super zoom". One of the Pentax standards these days is the DA 55-300 f/4-5.8 ED WR, which is a little more zoomy, of course. I have both lenses, and if I were to prefer the DA, the preference would be primarily because the DA is WR and AF. A true "super zoom" typically goes 18-300mm or so.

A super zoom is 5x or greater

reh321 · 04-24-2016, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer

A super zoom is 5x or greater

I haven't seen that definition, but I'm not going to argue definitions with you. What I can tell you is that lenses like the Tamron 18-270mm and the Sigma 18-300mm are neither kit lenses nor cheap {and certainly not inexpensive}

**Sliver-Surfer** · 04-24-2016, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by reh321

I haven't seen that definition, but I'm not going to argue definitions with you. What I can tell you is that lenses like the Tamron 18-270mm and the Sigma 18-300mm are neither kit lenses nor cheap {and certainly not inexpensive}

FF superzooms can't be defined the same way as aps-c superzooms. I did not mean to imply all superzooms are cheap kit. Im generally a legacy glass guy. I'll edit my statement.

reh321 · 04-24-2016, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer

FF superzooms can't be defined the same way as aps-c superzooms. I did not mean to imply all superzooms are cheap kit. Im generally a legacy glass guy. I'll edit my statement.

That's OK. I asked because I didn't understand what you were getting at, essentially.
I now have several AdaptAll lenses, and I've found all of them to be reasonably OK {each depending on its history, that is}
Certainly, each one had been worth more than what I paid for it.

**Sliver-Surfer** · 05-24-2016, 07:44 PM

heres another shot with lens

04-24-2016, 05:57 AM	#3
Sliver-Surfer Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558 Original Poster	Originally posted by surfar Its a very good lens,despite the bullfrogs, They are American Toads about 2" or 5cm long. The lens is one of my favorite Zooms. Last edited by Sliver-Surfer; 04-24-2016 at 06:27 AM.

04-24-2016, 01:28 PM	#5
Sliver-Surfer Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558 Original Poster	Originally posted by osv i've used that lens on the a7r, it's a nice piece of glass. Your shots convinced me to buy this lens. I usually dismiss superzooms as cheap kit but there are some great adaptalls edit: I usually dismiss legacy superzooms as cheap kit. Last edited by Sliver-Surfer; 04-24-2016 at 07:22 PM.

04-24-2016, 06:52 PM	#9
Sliver-Surfer Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558 Original Poster	Originally posted by reh321 I haven't seen that definition, but I'm not going to argue definitions with you. What I can tell you is that lenses like the Tamron 18-270mm and the Sigma 18-300mm are neither kit lenses nor cheap {and certainly not inexpensive} FF superzooms can't be defined the same way as aps-c superzooms. I did not mean to imply all superzooms are cheap kit. Im generally a legacy glass guy. I'll edit my statement. Last edited by Sliver-Surfer; 04-24-2016 at 07:21 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Tamron SP 60-300mm F/3.8-5.4 Model 23A	davidxgreen	Sold Items	4	03-23-2016 02:34 PM
Help with my Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 on my K-3ii!	gaofiore	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	03-17-2016 09:35 AM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 (23A)	alanjoke	Sold Items	4	12-20-2013 11:26 AM

04-23-2016, 10:39 PM	#2
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,945	Its a very good lens,despite the bullfrogs,

04-24-2016, 10:58 AM	#4
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	i've used that lens on the a7r, it's a nice piece of glass.

04-24-2016, 03:10 PM	#6
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 22,064	Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer Your shots convinced me to buy this lens. I usually dismiss superzooms as cheap kit but there are some great adaptalls This is one of the classics from the film era; I bought one because of the good things I'd heard about it. I'm not sure why you would call this a "super zoom". One of the Pentax standards these days is the DA 55-300 f/4-5.8 ED WR, which is a little more zoomy, of course. I have both lenses, and if I were to prefer the DA, the preference would be primarily because the DA is WR and AF. A true "super zoom" typically goes 18-300mm or so.

04-24-2016, 05:41 PM	#7
Sliver-Surfer Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558 Original Poster	Originally posted by reh321 This is one of the classics from the film era; I bought one because of the good things I'd heard about it. I'm not sure why you would call this a "super zoom". One of the Pentax standards these days is the DA 55-300 f/4-5.8 ED WR, which is a little more zoomy, of course. I have both lenses, and if I were to prefer the DA, the preference would be primarily because the DA is WR and AF. A true "super zoom" typically goes 18-300mm or so. A super zoom is 5x or greater

04-24-2016, 05:52 PM	#8
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 22,064	Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer A super zoom is 5x or greater I haven't seen that definition, but I'm not going to argue definitions with you. What I can tell you is that lenses like the Tamron 18-270mm and the Sigma 18-300mm are neither kit lenses nor cheap {and certainly not inexpensive}

04-24-2016, 08:09 PM	#10
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 22,064	Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer FF superzooms can't be defined the same way as aps-c superzooms. I did not mean to imply all superzooms are cheap kit. Im generally a legacy glass guy. I'll edit my statement. That's OK. I asked because I didn't understand what you were getting at, essentially. I now have several AdaptAll lenses, and I've found all of them to be reasonably OK {each depending on its history, that is} Certainly, each one had been worth more than what I paid for it.

05-24-2016, 07:44 PM	#11
Sliver-Surfer Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558 Original Poster	heres another shot with lens

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search