Log in or register to remove ads.

Showing all 84 reviews by marcusBMG

Review of: Tokina ATX SD IF / Ricoh Rikenon 300mm F2.8 by marcusBMG on Mon November 6, 2023 | Rating: 9 View more reviews

Views: 24175 Reviews: 3 I've been trawling the listings buying and selling for around 10 years now, but can't recall ever seeing one of these listed here in the UK (readily found in Japan) until this one. I thought it might attract quite a bit of interest but surprisingly I was the only bidder. The lens proved to be a cased, mint condition example with an expensive 112m protective filter when it arrived - very pleasing. The price cited reflects the better value Japanese listings. The 300-2.8's were premium lenses from the 1980's on. OEM manufacturers had used very low dispersion elements to make fast telephotos since the 1970's, eg canon with their FL300mm f/2.8 S.S.C (1974) and then the "fluorite" 300mm f2.8 (1975). By the 1980's optical/manufacturing developments allowed a more mass market approach. However they were still expensive, the tamron 60B 300mm (1984 >) was the priciest adaptall at a grand+ (£), however this was still a lot less than the oem's. We can note that tamron "won" the MF market, judging by the availability of their three versions of adaptall 300-2.8's (107B, 60B, 360B) on the s/h market, but didn't get going as far as adapting to the introduction of AF, their AF versions are rare, ditto tokina (I trawled online for some pics of an AF tokina 300-2.8 for pentax without success). This is a manual focus lens. The PKA mount makes it the equivalent, in function, of the SMC-A* pentax 300mm. The mount has a "ricoh pin" but it is the harmless rounded variety - no concerns. There is also an AF version. Ken Rockwell cites both MF and AF versions, and an updated ATX -AF-II version, however that's in reference to what's available for nikon. This specs page on the tokina web site says discontinued in 1997. It doesn't say when first made, but given that canon switched from the FD mount in 1987, and this lens has FD mount examples, we can estimate mid eighties. The lens comes with a large detachable hood that inverts for storage in the hard case. Like the tamron 107B it has a drawstring bag to protect the front rather than a lens cap. One distinctive feature is a slot in the tripod mount foot to take a carry strap (the third adaptall 360B also has a slot for a strap). The aperture ring has half-stop clicks except between f2.8 - f4. Focus rotation is ~ 180°, mfd of 2.4m. The relatively short throw can be considered advantageous - smooth, easily manipulated when hand holding the lens with fingers/thumb - or disadvantageous - very tight critical focus point, easily nudged off focus, twitchy. It is a common complaint with these lenses that they are not balanced at the tripod mount - front heavy. I diy my own plates to rectify this. An arca type plate or similar will meet the need of course. A plate also facilitates hand holding, the lens can rest on the palm of the hand at the balance point below the focus ring, fingers/thumb can then focus. Tokina 300mm f2.8 vs Tamron 300mm f2.8 360B The tokina is most similar to the adaptall 360B - both internal focus (the focus ring moves an internal group, doesn't extend the lens) designs:[table] |Tokina | Tamron 360B Optics: | 9e / 7g | 10e / 7g Weight (without hood): | ~2270g | ~2350g (with PKA mount) mfd; | 2.4m | 2.5m Aperture: | f2.8-32, ½ stop clicks except 2.8-4 | f2.8-22/32, ½ stop clicks iris: | 7 blades | 9 blades lens length : | 219mm | 216mm hood: | 15cm, metal, 470g, 1 x screw | 11cm, plastic, 339g, 2 x screws, Focus: | Internal, 180° rotation | Internal, 180° rotation, focus stop[/table]Test pics: and then no real change for f8, f11. With sigma apo 1.4x teleconverter = 420mm f4 (labelling indicates aperture set on the lens). I expected good iq with this lens and have not been disappointed. My impression is it is a tad softer than the tamrons at f2.8 but stopped down I can suggest that you won't be able to identify any significant difference. Fringing was present, quite strongly so on occasion, but not more so than the tamrons: I used the tamron 107B alongside the tokina for these test pics of Conwy Quay. I wasn't satisfied with the overall results, feeling that atmospherics had limited/compromised iq. In practice the comparison was comparable to the results with the 360B, main observation the tamron showing a touch sharper at f2.8. Other reviewers, Ken Rockwell link above, making-not-taking blog, are enthusiastic about this lens and so am I. It is a classic plum from the MF era, well worth the attention of anyone happy with manual focus and keen to take advantage of the price one can be acquired for. The only reason I'll move it on is because I have collected a full complement of the tamrons, so it is surplus to requirements.

Review of: Sigma Mirror 400mm F5.6 by marcusBMG on Mon October 18, 2021 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 21055 Reviews: 2 This lens deserves a recommendation. There are far fewer f5.6 mirrors around, and they tend to have a price penalty, but if you bide your time you may well spot one of these and manage to get it for a good price. Mine, a minty one, seems to be a better performer than the one reviewed below - sigma mirrors (specifically the 600mm f8) are known for sample variation. Pics from this lens with crops and comments, and some comparison with the tamron 350mm f5.6, here: http://forum.mflenses.com/sigma-400mm-f56-mirror-t81280.html It is noteworthy that the sigma is just perhaps slightly less sharp than the well regarded tamron. But also worth remarking that this and other mirrors struggle to match the performance of their best refractive contempories. You can also see some images and comments on the lens in the mirror club thread, post 1134, and post 1149.

Review of: Soligor MC / Access / hanimex... 35-70mm F2.5-3.5 by marcusBMG on Mon September 27, 2021 | Rating: 5 View more reviews

Views: 27299 Reviews: 4 This lens looked interesting so I picked it up cheaply. It is a rather typical ?early 1980's metal 'n glass zoom lens with quite a high spec: fast at f2.5, built in macro mode which is a built in extension tube, rather like the tamron adaptall zooms 28A (28-135mm), 40A (35-135mm) etc. thus giving closer focus at all focal lengths, max repro at 35mm. I have added details to the description above - it seems clear that there is a dstinction in body form between the soligors and the other nameplates like Access, but the optical spec seems the same. I have to say the lens is a bit of disappointment. I was expecting much better at 70mm, this is poor, the adaptalls etc are comfortably better at f3.5/4 vs f8 for the soligor.(small nb I should have entered f10 on crop 2) Too soft for me at 35mm f2.5, does sharpen up decently at f8/f11, and iq is consistent across the frame on apsc. Given the proliferation of far better iq 35-70/105/135mm lenses like tamron adaptalls, tokinas etc I can't recommend this.

Review of: Vivitar (komine) 400mm F5.6 by marcusBMG on Tue April 20, 2021 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 13547 Reviews: 2 I took a long time to find a PK mount version of this lens - for a good price, that is. Eventually I acquired one cheaply but with fungus, and it sat in my to-do box until I recently took the plunge and set to it. I had been put off by a forum thread by a guy who had failed to reassemble his. In the end, I don't know what his problem was, I had none, see here. There is always a small question as to whether the reassembled lens is corrrect and therefore representative, all I can say is that the performance seems absolutely par in comparison to a couple of other (non-pk) examples of this lens from which I have sample pics taken with my mirrorless cameras. I have a nice little collection of komine lenses because of the combination of good optical quality and classy, trad metal 'n glass construction. This lens is no exception, it is probably the best made of the viv 400's with typical komine looks, mechanics and operation Unusually, the focus is just extension of the lens away from the camera rather than changing the separation of the front and rear groups like the tokina 400's and the generic 400's. This results in a long focus throw (which, while super smooth, is just a bit "heavy" on my lens), which gives very accurate focus, at least in mechanical terms. But not fast focus. Closest focus is only a class average 6m/20' - the tokinas get to 4m. I would have liked the aperture ring to be a bit bigger and have more positive clicks But add in a good hood, and a solid tripod ring and foot that is close to the natural balance point with a dslr mounted, and you have a lens that certainly looks and acts the part. Optically it is a 5 element lens with a triplet objective. However I have to say IMO the lens promises more than it delivers. Performance at f5.6 is, IMO, only average - infderior, for example, to the panagor lens it might be sibling to in the pic above. Some might say tending to mediocre. Resolution improves a jump at f8, and again at f11 at which F I can suggest its good, actually, equal to the panagor. Contrast is so so, normally requiring enhancing in PP. The lens tends to be relatively free of CA in good light, but eg reflections can immediately produce pronounced fringing eg see the boat pic below. Test crops: Although mechanically the lens lends itself to accurate focus, visually the focus is not snappy but tends to be indistinct, even though I use an OVF magnifier. To-and-froing the focus to a middle position is standard technique and focus confirm cues help, as does judicious focus bracketing. The blackbird pics below were taken by eye. These sample images testify that the lens can produce very worthwhile results, specifically stopped down, but as and when I get my 400mm multi lens mega test comparison up and running, I don't think this lens is going to challenge for a top spot. A worthwhile, and something of a classic lens, but there are better out there. Big crop - 1400px resized to 999px.

Review of: Tamron 490 / YO-8 400mm F7.5; 400mm F8 by marcusBMG on Sun May 31, 2020 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 3835 Reviews: 1 This 1960's tamron t-mount lens goes along with the cheap 'n simple 200mm f5.9/6.3, 300mm f6.9, the basic design being an achromatic objective in a long tube. This one is actually optically a telephoto, 4 elements in 2 groups, the length at ∞ is ~31.3cm. There is also a similar f8 version, that is 3 elements. This is a clunky little 400mm of very limited spec: slow, cfd only ~9m, manual aperture, no hood, no tripod mount. It is however one of the smallest and lightest refractive 400mm lenses you can get. The "Nestar" when packed together has it beat for portability however. In use it's easy to hand-hold weight wise, but holding it still while simultaneously manipulating the long ~ 350° focus throw and clickless aperture ring (the lens is probably intended to be used mainly wide open) is a different matter. But if you can manage that, then like the 200mm f6.3 I reviewed, this lens has something good to offer: In fact this lens first came to my attention with this thread on mflenses, the poster, L Alegria, presenting a really very nice set of pics. However a certain amount of effort was required: "Getting a sharp picture with a slow manual lens like this ...is difficult. The process requires bracketing focus - taking many pictures, checking the monitor, small adjustments to focus between each shot until accurate focus is achieved. Behind each reasonably focused picture there are 20-30 taken and discarded." That's diligence for you. But he was using a 6Mpx pentax K100D back in 2009, the good news is that things have really improved since then with magnified Live View, focus peaking, ?more accurate focus cues ... and after I made my support plate (pic 3 above), the handling of the lens + camera (mainly using a monopod) improved dramatically. I also use a VF magnifier and my own experience with K30 and KS2 is that the focus cues are pretty accurate, I was ditching only about 75% of the pics! But I still recommend the basic techniques of focus - review - fine tune, zeroing in on critical focus by to-and-froing through optimum focus and finding a mean position, and bracketing, with this and other lenses (mirrors for example). And the point is the effort, IMO, is worth it. I mean, when this cheapo delivers probably my best pic so far of one of the linnets by the golf course (regular subjects), that's saying something. These pics are ~1300-1500px crops from the original 5492x3664px 20MPx sensor (in effect a ~4x enlargement or "crop factor"), resized to 999px, a very different ask to the 6MPx of Alegria's K100D but this lens is up to it. This is competitive with or maybe even better than numerous other lenses, inc eg pentax M 400mm 5.6, vivitar 400mm etc. Here are 1:1 pixel peep crops of my usual test subject - a tower on Conwy Castle. There is, variably, some fringing with this lens as this example pic illustrates - typical magenta/green lateral CA on the front focussed/back focussed branches. Specular highlights typically have a red doughnut ring. One other useful piece of advice from L Alegria: extension tube(s) on hand to reduce the CFD (all the bird pics posted are close to cfd distance). Because the focus is simple extension of the lens away from the camera, you can use a lot! A full set 13mm + 21mm + 31mm reduced the cfd to ~2.9m. But the trouble with tubes is the focus range diminishes dramatically. It was 4m to 6m focus range with just the 31mm tube, that's probably a practical compromise - bird feeder sort of distances. The comparison test linked to in the description does suggest that this lens is oriented more for distant focus. As and when I get my big 400mm mega test sorted that will include both distant and close focus test subjects. Recommended of itself for good results (9/10), but lenses like the tokina rmc (soligor etc) 400mm F6.3 are much better specs and capable of similar results stopped down a bit, and this lens is not to be preferred to the nestar.

Review of: Kiron Matchmate MC 1.5x teleconverter by marcusBMG on Thu December 12, 2019 | Rating: 6 View more reviews

Views: 11872 Reviews: 2 I have over the last few yrs had a couple of examples of these, one in C-FD mount that I tested on a FD 400mm f4.5 using mirrorless, and a PK mount one that I tried on a number of lenses inc tamron 300mm f2.8. Results were consistent and unimpressive: noticeable loss of IQ with the tc, pretty much negating the gain in "reach". Based on these results I don't think this is a recommendable item. For pentax look for more recent sigma/kenko/teleplus etc 1.4 or 1.5x tc's.

Review of: Tamron Adaptall Pentax P-KA auto aperture mount by marcusBMG on Thu October 10, 2019 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 30042 Reviews: 8 The first thing is: if you are using adaptall lenses then pretty much you do want one of these. These PKA mounts turn your adaptall lenses into the equivalent of Pentax SMC-A lenses. The most important benefit: on the fly metering in auto Av, Sv, P or Tv modes, no need to press a green button, spin a dial, chimp or guess. And the additional conveniences of aperture adjust using the on-camera dial, aperture data recorded in EXIF. So well worth the $40 cited, though that's just an average. Resellers are probably somewhat more typically, the cheap way to pick up one is with a lens, or the occasional low start auction. However these mounts aren't straightforward. The first thing is that everything has to be correct for the mount to function in auto modes in the first place. Mount correctly engaged and clicked in on the lens. Note that on occasion you may need to press the wee black button on the mount rim to free up the movement of the ears. Ears correctly engaged in the spaces on the aperture ring. Note that slightly bent ears (quite common with used mounts) may not click into place, and can easily move out of position. Lens aperture ring properly clicked in to AE/F32 position. Problem? check #1, #2. Electrical connection good - see "mount not working" in description above. Wiggling and fiddling a bit is commonly required. But usually once the f numbers are displayed on both the rear and top lcd's (must be both), you are good to go. And once you have a functioning mount, then the bug is inconsistent exposure results across the f-stop range. This is a bad one: This is a quite common pattern: underexposure leading to increasing overexposure with higher F stop. This would be consistent with some mechanical "stickiness" in the mount. Pentax cameras operate the iris by holding it wide open, then relaxing that hold to match the set aperture when the shutter is pressed. We can hypothesise that if there are connections that are a bit slow or sticky in the chain camera-mount-lens-iris then the iris simply doesn't close the full amount. However that's not the whole story by any means, as my qualitative ad hoc test results on 17 x PKA mounts with several different lenses show. I have tried 6 lenses (so far): a 35-80mm f2.8-3.8 01A (used @ 35mm); 28mm f2.5 02B; 90mm f2.5 52B; 300mm f2.8 360B; 35-210mm f3.5-4.2 26A (at both 35mm and 210mm); 28-135mm f4-4.5 28A (at both 28mm and 135mm). These are all adaptall-2 SP's, but I didn't see the need to include eg early adaptall-1's, the design and function of the adaptall mount never changed. All the lenses were tested first with a PKM mount and manual exposure mode to check that exposure results with the lens were relatively consistent. That they might not be was illustrated by a 52BB 90mm I tried initially : So if you have inconsistent results don't necessarily attribute that to the mount, or only to the mount. I have simply tabulated the results by hand. Each f-stop column has been divided into 4, this mirrors the dividing lines on the histogram display on the camera. I used a whitewashed wall as subject, this monochrome relatively uniform subject results in a single narrow peak on the histogram, as in the "filmstrips" above. The highlighter line marks the approx position of this peak. The centre line is correct exposure, the lines to L and R are approx -1⅓ and +1⅓ stops respectively. The second PKA column indicates mount fuctionality. tick = AOK, mounted and worked; ! = wiggling/fiddling required but did work. It was noticeable that the 28mm 02B and 35-80mm 01A caused more issues than the other two lenses. Mounts #1, #2, #7 and #15 were pernickety on these lenses but not on the 90mm 52BB or the 300mm 360B. F4 = couldn't get the mount to show correct F2.5*/F2.8; Mounts 12 and 14 showed the "F4 fault" consistently, although #14 twice went down to f3.5, and with the zooms 28A and 26A showed f5.6. Also mount #6 also refused to show below f3.5 with one lens, the 90mm 52B. In these cases I still went through the same 5 or 6 stop range, F3.5/4/5.6 - F22. (*The Pentax KA mount logic means that F2.5 lenses will show as F2.4, this affects the 02B, 52B in this test and also lenses like the elicar 90mm f2.5, vivitar 105mm F2.5. See note 1 below.) F4 fix - see note 2 below. X = didn't work. Mount 4 proved non-functional (surprisingly, I'm sure I had it working previously, however nothing I tried, including re-scratching the screw head, worked). The camera , a K3-ii, was set on Av, 100, 200 or 400ASA, default multi-segment metering, no exposure compensation, JPG - XS. One point to bear in mind is that the camera doesn't adjust the shutter speed steplessly but in steps of 1/3 stop (as per camera settings). Charts: click on the link or on the chart to view 1250px sized. Control: 4 x PKA mount lenses. SMC-A 50mm f1.7; Vivitar 28mm F2; Elicar 90mm F2.5; Vivitar 105mm F2.5. My K3-ii demonstrated almost perfectly consistent exposures F1.7-16 with the SMC-A 50mm, good consistency with the vivitar 105mm, vivitar 28mm, the elicar 90mm was consistent through middle stops but showed large underexposure. Click on a chart to pull up large. Observations: 1. My K3 underexposed initially (min F) with all the adaptall lens+mount combinations. Only slightly with the 02B, by almost a stop with the 360B. And the "F4" mounts #12, #14 underexposed by more, though I can't think of a reason why they would, or why there is a significant discrepancy between 01A + 02B and 360B + 52B, and between wide angle and telephoto with 28A and 26A. The discrepancies between the two sets of results with each of the zooms 26A and 28A adds a frustrating extra variable to the use of these mounts. 2. Then first stop down there was a correction to, or near to, correct exposure with a majority of the mounts. This is most noticeable with the 52B and the 360B because the initial underexposure was significant with these two lenses. With 52B half the mounts jumped to near correct exposure, with 360B just about all the mounts moved near correct exposure, though the "F4" mounts #12, 14 were still showing underexposure. From this point, the "good" mounts would be pretty consistent with only relatively small + or - variances through to F11. Mounts which tended to vary more would show gradually increasing overexposure through to f11. Mount #3 above was the worst, mount #16 also showed this pattern, while mount #9 was one of the best: 3. Exposure variance did tend to increase with f stop, and most notably from F11 to F16. Mostly a jump to overexposure, but also in a couple of cases (mount #8 especially) a jump back to underexposure! Why mount 8 might do that is unclear. 4. Each PKA mount exhibited a broadly consistent pattern of exposure with each of the test lenses. 5. The mounts showed clearly bigger exposure variances with the 28mm 02B, and the least with the 300mm 360B and the 35-80mm 01A. So the lens can certainly be a significant factor. 6. I also checked to see if a different metering mode made any difference, specifically to the initial wide open metering, it didn't. Also whether bright light/high ISO fast shutter speeds vs low light slow shutter speeds made any difference in the response of the mount + lens combo, but, broadly speaking, I didn't notice anything significant. Conclusions? First: be aware of these inconsistencies. It's clear to me this is the nature of the beast. Check out your mount(s), familiarise yourself with how they perform and factor in exposure compensation accordingly. Second: wide open may not be the best f-stop to set exposure compensation from. With many, or even most, of these mounts that would be better done chimping one stop down (unless you are taking pics at wide open aperture), then the mounts are most consistent through those middle F stops. Finally, it's well worth IMO shopping around for PKA mounts, checking them out and when you find a good one, keep it! And the "F4" mounts are perfectly usable, particularly so with lenses like the 300mm f5.6 54B, 200-500mm f5.6 31A, with which the f4 issue doesn't matter (see link above in the description for how to get the mounts to read f5.6) Note 1. Does the erroneous F2.4 with F2.5 lenses cause exposure error of around an eighth of a stop? On reflection, I don't think so. Two opposite things happen that cancel out. The camera registers the F2.5 lens as F2.4. Then, when you set the aperture to eg F4, the camera (in an auto mode) adjusts the shutter speed to compensate, assuming the base is F2.4. This adjustment will therefore be that 1/8 stop more ie slower than it should be. However the camera also calculates the movement of the iris from this same base. The closing of the iris will be ~ 1/8 stop more than it should be, causing an underexposure that cancels the overexposure from the slower shutter speed. So the net effect on exposure is ~ nil, but you will actually be at ~F4.15. Note 2. I spent some time afterwards disassembling and inspecting the "F4" mounts 12 and 14, mount 3 (overexposure) and mount 4 (not working). I was able to fix mount 12 by fiddling/bending to improve the connection of the internal moving contact E, but mount 14 still wouldn't go past f3.5. I could not identify any particular reason for mount 3 overexposure. My tentative hypothesis is that the PKA mount may not be engineered well enough, it is easy to flex the aperture actuation levers ends by touch, flexion (or some looseness) under the implulse forces of shutter release could cause the observed inconsistencies. And as for mount 4 I probably need to fault trace the internal circuitry with a continuity tester.

Review of: Tamron adaptall lens tripod grip ring by marcusBMG on Sat September 21, 2019 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 5611 Reviews: 2 These crop up every so often, if you want one you'll have to browse around and keep your eyes open. As mentioned in the description they are intended for lenses like the "beercan" 300mm f5.6 54B. They typically go for £10-15. The inside diameter is up to approx 65mm and thus can fit a range of lenses of up to that size. Most useful I find for lenses like the tokina/vivitar 400mm f5.6 that don't have a TM. For the adaptalls, the cheap 65-66mm ID ones from China are actually more rigid, though those will need a bit of packing or modding (see this article ) to fit most lenses like the 54B.

Review of: Adaptall 018F 1:1 extension tube for 52B/52BB 90mm macro by marcusBMG on Sat May 18, 2019 | Rating: 10 View more reviews

Views: 5171 Reviews: 1 Excellent item, well worth acquiring if you are into macro with the 90mm adaptalls.

Review of: Tamron 02F teleview eyepiece adapter by marcusBMG on Wed July 25, 2018 | Rating: 9 View more reviews

Views: 7960 Reviews: 2 There are but a few eyepiece adapters on the s/h market, mainly the generic vintage japanese made ones that give focal length/10 magnification. This is far superior to those. I have mainly been using mine on my 500mm mirror and my 300mm f2.8. Taking the eyepiece adapter means I have spotting scope magnification to back up my binocs with only the need to carry this relatively small item extra. Because the magnification factor with this is the focal length divided by 20 ie 25x with the mirror or 15x with the 300mm, it pays to also have a TC along to to boost the mag. I invariably have the 014F 1.4x on the 300mm anyway, giving 21x. The mirror lens + eyepiece combo is a super-convenient "in your (large) pocket" compact scope. The images by eye are excellent, fully comparable in resolution to my Opticron HR66 scope. In terms of fringing the eyepiece adapter + either of the lenses mentioned is better (no LD glass in my old model scope), and the 300mm with its 104mm objective knocks the socks off the HR66 in low light. Exit pupil is wide and the eye relief is generous, unlike those generic eyepieces I mentioned. And there is a built in diopter adjust, though with the lens focus you only need that for infinity focus. But it does make a useful fine focus/quick adjust as well. So far so excellent, but if I have a gripe it is the 90° prism these have. Perfect for moon gazing, not so good for general use. With my 300mm f2.8 it is easy to rotate the lens + eyepiece 90° in its tripod ring, and look in from the side, the image is still erect and laterally correct. But it takes a bit of getting used to and sighting on to your subject is a hassle, it's all less natural than sighting along a scope and then putting eye to eyepiece. I also did a few tests using the adapter with my camera - eyepiece projection digiscoping (pic link above). Results were pretty comparable to using the 01F 2x tc, slightly higher magnification. Limited of course to adaptall lenses, though it's worth bearing in mind the 49mm thread on the mount facilitates adapting to scopes etc as well (update - see description above). Strong recomendation if you use adaptall long lenses. But the trick is finding one, and when you do they tend to be around a hundred pounds, so not cheap but worth it IMO.

Review of: Soligor / Cunor et al... 350mm F5.6 by marcusBMG on Fri May 25, 2018 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 4895 Reviews: 1 I picked up this classic old preset to check out. Mine is branded Cunor (pic above) but it is most commonly found as a Soligor. There has been an ongoing debate on mflenses.com as to who made this and other similar lenses. The soligors have a H6xxx serial, as does this cunor coincidentally or not, H6's have been attributed to Kino. However I am going to place a flag and say this is a tokina, and the kino attribution to H6xxx serials, at least in this case, is wrong. Even though I haven't been able to find any evidence of one branded as a tokina (or tokyo koki) online, for me the "faux" 47mm thread t-mount that this lens has is distinctively, and pretty much definitively, tokina. I took along my soligor (tamron) 350mm f5.6 for comparison, that's a lens I rate. These are standard crops of the turret on Conwy Castle. From these and other test pics there isn't much between the two 350mm lenses. The tamron made soligor tended to show a bit better, mainly I think due to better contrast. It's notable that the Cunor is a consistent performer over the aperture range. It has a pretty typical tendency to purple fringing for lenses of this type, noticeable for example as purpling below the tourists hat in the f5.6 crop, in the reflection highlight in the f11 crop and in the specular highlights in the eyes of the birds below.. Both lenses took similar pics of the jackdaws and gulls on Conwy quayside (cunor top, samsung NX20, f11, these pics were PP'ed in LR3, sharpened on export): crop: crop: The other point on which the tamron made soligor is edging it is its much superior close focus: 3.5mm approx vs 6.6m measured mfd for the Cunor. However I did manage to reduce that to ~ 4m with ~ 360° focus rotation by unscrewing the stop screw on the focus sleeve (at your own risk, don't blame me if the front end of the lens falls off the helicoid). Using that trick enabled me to get some better pics of the gulls, and some more pics of the jackdaws. These at f8 I think. crop: crop: Overall a good lens IMO, well worth looking for if you are interested in a relatively high performing vintage preset.

Review of: Sigma APO 500mm F7.2 by marcusBMG on Sun December 31, 2017 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 28774 Reviews: 2 My impression is there aren't many of these old sigma 500mm f7.2's around. The original spec is impressive: 12 elements in 9 groups with 3 LD elements, USP of "smallest non-reflex 500mm" (that's my tamron 500mm mirror behind for comparison) and the indicated price bracket is of prosumer proportions. However these have the infamous disintegrating "zen" rubberised coating that was a sigma "thing" at that time. Yep, that's sticky! However the more the coating is deteriorated the easier it cleans off with meths/similar - see pic above, post cleaning. Only trouble is the distance scale and other markings come off with it. A post in this thread on fredmiranda.com suggests using an artists spray fixative (update - which is what I used later, taking off the adhesive tape you can see on the lens in the pic above). This lens certainly is relatively light and compact compared to other 400mm and 500mm MF lenses I have tried, indeed positively casual compared to eg my SP 31A 200-500mm adaptall zoom, , but it's still not a lightweight. It has a useful strap attachment point by the foot of the tripod mount so that it can be carried without the camera/mount taking the strain. Both the built in hood and TM are good, however the TM isn't quite at the balance point - distinctly front heavy, and more so with lighter cameras like my mirrorless NX20. I am quite favourably impressed with the performance of the lens - images are sharp and well corrected, the only fringing I have noticed has been a few pixels wide PF in some backlit circumstances. But focus is really ticklish, due to that base f7.2 (I really notice increased difficulty by eye through an OVF as lenses get slower than f5.6), and the really short focus throw on this IF lens - only ~ 135° throw to cover from 3.5m to ∞. Test crops f7.2, f11, f16 - samsung NX20. I was looking for good performance straight from f7.2 and I can suggest that the lens delivers. Pentax K5, mostly f9, varyingly cropped, resized. Samsung NX20. Some more birds at a feeder, samsung NX20. This image showed some more significant CA - purpling seeping into the head and neck of the tit. Ameliorated with fringing tools and reducing purple luminence and saturation in LR3. 1:1 pixel peeping crop of a mallards head. At 800ASA the NX20 is much noisier than the K5, but the underrlying resolution is quite good. If you want 500mm then this is a very good option. As a 500mm I would give it 9/10, in fact I can suggest this might be the best price/performance M/F 500mm on the s/h market, based on typical prices it goes for. It's certainly way better than those long "wundertute" 500mm f8's, and I would overall put it ahead of my tamron SP 500mm mirror. Particularly stopped down to eg f11 the images (bokeh) are smoother and contrastier and more pleasing, and the slighly larger depth of field helpful, even if the sharpness is not that much greater. But 400mm alternatives are likely to be easier to use/focus - I get constently better results witth my FD 400mm f4.5, or my adaptall 300mm f2.8 + 1.4x tc, hence the 8/10. That faster nature of those optics makes more difference than any reach gain 500mm vs 400mm/420mm. But the sigma has a particular cachet as a value grab-and-go, fits in my camera bags lens pocket, option. Let's face it, to really make the next level you're looking at 10-times-as-much four digit prices for a 500mm f4.5, or, even s/h examples of sigma x-500mm zooms will be much more, without really offering anything much more in IQ or speed (but AF).

Review of: Tamron FO-59 / FO-63 200mm F5.9 F6.3 F6 by marcusBMG on Mon November 13, 2017 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 3707 Reviews: 1 The most important point - don't dismiss this lens. Yes it's real old school: slow and simple, primitive even: optically just an achromat, manual aperture - not even preset, has an "economy model" character and doesn't even have any "old" vintage ie prewar etc cachet. To see that this lens has something to offer, check out my tulip picture. Some test pics prompt the following observations: - this lens is a tad softer at f6.3, nothing between f8 and f11. - sharpness is good. Actually when I browse through my test pics of the castle turret with various lenses the similarity between the best of them prompts me to suspect that the limiting factor may be the camera (+ distance, atmospherics etc...). In any case this 200mm makes the grade IMO as one of those "best" lenses. - this lens is remarkably good in terms of chromatic aberrations (CA), in spite of its simple design. The pic of the white boat below has numerous aspects to prompt fringing, purpling, haloes, coma etc - hardly a smidgen. Click on it to see full sized, look especially at the relections off railings etc. that are normally guaranteed to show up CA. - And you've already seen the bokeh on my tulip pic! f6.3, f8, f11 crops, 1:1 pixel peep. The tulip pic was taken with an extension tube, close focus otherwise is an unimpressive 2.5m. Some portrait distance pics corroborate this lens certainly doesn't dislike closer focus. Resized, f8 1:1 pixel peep crop F6.3 This lens probably suits mirrorless more than dslr. I have mainly used it with my NX20 so far, the fact is I find lenses this slow (and slower) to be a bit hit and miss, focussing optically on my K5, even with VF aids. If I can find a f5.9 version, there wil be a part 2...

Review of: Vivitar (Tokina) MC Wide-Angle 17mm F3.5 by marcusBMG on Fri July 14, 2017 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 61565 Reviews: 4 Much to like about this classic MF lens - the mechanics, handling, construction and all. And performance is pleasing, see my sample pics here. Consistently sharp in the centre from f3.5, noticeably softening a bit towards the edges though even on an APSC sensor camera, and more so on the left side with my example (lens pic 2 above), suggestive of a little decentering or similar optical flaw. Good colours and contrast - comments in other reviews suggesting the opposite are off the mark IMO, probably those reviewers needed to adjust jpg settings or use a hood to avoid a bit of flare (though this lens did not seem particularly susceptible during usage so far). Close focus to ~5"/13cm from the front of the lens allows eg nice flower shots, taking advantage of the depth of field. More considered scrutiny against a DAL 18-55mm shows that there is little difference in the field of view between this lens and the DAL 18-55mm at 18mm. This lens has a slightly wider FoV but it looks less to me than I would expect 17mm vs 18mm. And the comparison tends to corroborate the notion that modern wide angle lenses typically outdo vintage ones. Certainly f3.5 vs f3.5 I have to hand it to the DAL: most specifically more consistent across the frame. Here is the comparison, click to pull up the full sized 4928x3000px, 3MB image. These images of the castle illustrate the level of distortion, with again comparison against the DAL. Results are again similar, overall both results please with good resolution and detail. The Viv sharpens up a just bit more at f8 and f11 - the typical f stops to use with a wide angle - mainly off centre. One point on which the viv scores is it has less/less obvious fringing than the DAL. Stopping down the lenses are pretty equal, but the question is still begging as to what the older lens offers optically over the DAL on apsc. It's good, but why not just content yourself with the DAL? Images developed from RAW in lightroom 3.6, identical minimal PP for the comparisons, export jpg quality 90.

Review of: Tamron 670 preset t-mount 300mm F5.6 by marcusBMG on Mon April 3, 2017 | Rating: 9 View more reviews

Views: 5142 Reviews: 1 Finally acquired one of the original tamron 300mm f5.6's. I have found these to be uncommon, in fact I can hardly recall any cropping up on ebay. All the longer focal lengths - 350mm, 400mm (f6.9 and f7.5), 450mm can be more readily found IME. The "tamron" rather than "Tasei Kogaku" on the nameplate suggests mine (pic above) is a later one. Structurally it is very similar to the 350mm f5.6, and optically it looks identical to the later adaptamatic 300mm - optical schema, proportions, everything. So that's a three way choice for this 300mm optic: this t-mount; the adaptamatic (=M42); or the version 1 adaptall with choice of PK mounts. Like the 350mm, there is a "cheat" to reduce the close focus distance. Just slacken the grub screws on the focus ring, then wind it firmly back past the close focus position, this will start sliding the focus ring back from the front barrel. I moved it back sufficiently to allow a full 360° focus rotation, you might be able to steal a bit more. If you go too far the grub screws will be falling off the edge of the underlying ring and won't tighten. Also like the 350mm, the lens easily unscrews into sections: front optical group; central section with aperture rings and 12 blade iris; rear mount and telephoto group section. So although the aperture rings were a bit sticky, a quick clean and relube fixed things (note the ball bearing is right next to the DoF markings). In my opinion this lens maintains what IME is the the superior performance of the tamron presets over their contemporaries. This lens is already way ahead of those in any case due to its much superior close focus: less than 3m ( I measured the cfd to be 2.4m with "mod") instead of ~6m typically for all those prinz-galaxy etc etc 300mm f5.6's. My test pics of the castle turret are good actually, just slightly softer at f5.6, negligible fringing. Samsung NX20, jpg's, f5.6, f8, f11. Some more pics - tweaked, resized etc in faststone. This is a 1:1 pixel crop. Lesser black backed gulls squabbling over a stolen goose egg. Recommended - if you can find one!

Review of: Tamron Adaptall P-KM mount by marcusBMG on Tue November 22, 2016 | Rating: 9 View more reviews

Views: 8069 Reviews: 3 All the pentax K bayonet adaptall mounts work equivalently on the range of adaptall lenses, and the two versions of the P-KM mounts both provide equivalent functionality. The only lens that is idiosyncratic AFAIK is the 200-500mm f6.9 06A (and ? its predecessors). This has only one "tab" on the lens side to accomodate the "ears" on the mount - one ear is left hanging. The main consequence is that a PKA mount will not slot into AE/f32 auto aperture position. Typical market price for a PKM mount is $10-30, depending on source etc. Cheapest way to acquire is probably with a lens. Only problems I have ever had with one are: 1. A slightly bent aperture lever (serious - could damage camera!). Note these don't have a guard, like most lenses do. 2. bent/broken/missing "ears" (that engage with the slots in the adaptall lens aperture ring). The ear that moves the flange with the f-stop numbers on doesn't matter. I have cannibalised relatively worthless eg cfd or md mounts for replacement ears and screws. 3. Movement of the parts stiff or seized up due to poor/damp storage. 4. Out of sync or ineffective actuation of the iris has normally IME been due to a problem on the lens side, not the mount*. The mount has a pivotted plate that pushes against a wheel on the lens side, I have had a 24mm 01B where that wheel had become knocked out of position. *Don't assume a problem if the iris isn't working on an adaptall(-1) lens. Check the A-M switch!!

Review of: Tokyo Koki tele-Tokina ( soligor etc) t-mount pres 300mm F5.5 by marcusBMG on Thu November 10, 2016 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 14182 Reviews: 1 I have handled several examples of these, they have all left a similar impression: optically quite good but I end up never using them because the close focus distance of 6 to 8m (19-25') limits their use. Certainly for birds unless you carry around an extension tube to reduce the cfd you are never close enough to smaller ones to get a really good fill of a frame and have to seriously crop (the coverage at 8m is approx 60cm x 40cm on an apsc pentax according to this calculator). The 400mm f6.3's are to be preferred for that, however I still got some respectable results on my K5, sample below (this was with the palinar lens in pic 1 above). There is a good review with pics here on mflenses. Long range:

Review of: Tokina RMC / SL300 (Sears Hoya .. et al) 300mm F5.6 by marcusBMG on Sat October 15, 2016 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 52407 Reviews: 10 I picked up a Hoya branded one of these cheaply with a view to resale, NAI mount. It's a very nice lens, very compact for a 300mm, excellent handling and feel. I took a variety of images with my Lumix G1, for which I have a M43-NAI adapter, with it side by side with a Tamron Adaptall CT300 to get a comparison. The CT300 has a very similar specification, slightly larger, slightly lighter weight. Little to choose between the lenses IQ's, TBH. I think the tokina might just edge it at f5.6, but then the CT300 seems to improve a touch more stopping down through f8 - f11. The tokina has distinctly less fringing, the CT300 slightly better contrast (but the light fungus afflicting an element or two of the tokina might be influencing that). Overall I would slightly favour the CT300, most specifically because of its close focus advantage - 2.5m vs 4.5m, and also it is easier to retro fit the tamron with a split ring tripod mount. But if you pick up one of these, as you can, for say $30-60 I can suggest you'll be happy with price/performance. Just the neigbours boring chimney. jpg's exported from RAW in faststone, minimal identical PP.

Review of: Novoflex Noflexar modular PIGRIFF system 240mm, 280mm, 300mm, 400mm, 600mm, 64cm by marcusBMG on Wed September 21, 2016 | Rating: 9 View more reviews

Views: 19243 Reviews: 4 This unusual vintage bazooka was a top item in its day. Browse (google) the old ads in magazines from eg the 1970's you will see these priced new at around a grand - big money! The use of it is IMO a longer learning curve than with more standard lenses, and I am still customising it - remote shutter cables see this thread - for use with my DSLR bodies. I'll work up to a more detailed review, but overall I can say I am pleased with the 3 element 400mm T-noflexar optically. It is superior to the soligors, vivitars and other lenses I have had quite a lot of familiarity with - I can suggest the only of its contemporaries that might be better are eg the Tamron Adaptall SP 400mm f4, OEM lenses like Canon FD 400mm. But I got this for a fraction of the price those typically go for. My main gripe so far is the lack of auto aperture. The iris ring is large and clunky and it really is tricky to try to manipulate it on the fly - I do tend to feel like I need three hands all the time with this! My other gripe is the cost of a PK mount - €69/£55 from the UK novoflex distributor, for a simple one piece alloy double bayonet. Similar items from china cost a tenner and less. Are you 'avin a larf, novoflex.... :mad: For the moment here is a link [s]to some of the posts I have made in the 300mm lens club[/s] to my novoflex album. My pics are missing from my posts in the 300mm lens club thread, but my comments on using this lens are stil there. I was typically using the novoflex mounted on a CF monopod, or rested on a bean bag in a hide. Depending on your tripod head you may be able to use the bush situated in between the grips (with a 3/8" to 1/4" adapter), my slik p&t head and QR plate is ok but I needed to diy a plate with a bush that effectively moved the position of the attachment point a cm or so to allow me to use my heavy duty Slik SL67 tripod. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/53487-marcusbmg/albums/14885-novoflex/

Review of: Opteka ( Top-max, kelda etc ) 420-800mm F8.3-16 by marcusBMG on Tue September 20, 2016 | Rating: 6 View more reviews

Views: 11105 Reviews: 1 I picked up one of these cheap just to satisfy my curiosity. It is the cheapest way to try ultra telephoto. Chinese made, marketed under numerous brands, Opteka seems to be the most common, mine was a Top-Max. There is also a 650-1300mm version (Opteka, Samyang, Walimex...). These are t-mount lenses, so easy adapt to just about all DSLR's. It is not a preset lens however - there is NO iris to stop down, aperture is fixed. It's a slow lens too, only f8.3 at 420mm, slower than those long tube vintage 500mm f8's, dropping to a bright sunshine only, diffraction setting in, f16 at 800mm. Although it's a 62mm filter thread its front element is only ~ 50mm diameter - ~ 60% of the light gathering capability of eg a 67mm filter (~65mm element) soligor . A solidly made, metal lens however, no complaints there. Long (very) focus throw is helpful, closest focus distance of 1.6m is way better than eg the vintage 400mm I compared it to, zoom operates OK - not particularly smooth but works. This pic shows how it works - pretty simple actually, the cam slot in the sliding sleeve alters the separation of the 2 element rear telephoto group, changing the telephoto effect. Test pics however were simply disappointing. Crop #1 is the Soligor 400mm f6.3 at f6.3. The Top-Max is soft at all focal lengths, best at 420mm, worst at 800mm, strong CA, poor contrast, halos/coma (samsung NX20, jpg's from RAW). My test pics of the castle turret were no better, in fact they showed significant flare (?sensor reflections). So there you go - you're better off with a shorter focal length and cropping. Already got rid of it. I dare say the 650-1300mm is no better. You want "800mm" or more? - try a good prime with a Pentax Q!

Review of: Tamron 689/T-135 Auto Adaptall 1 (1st gen) 135mm F2.8 by marcusBMG on Sat May 14, 2016 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 19062 Reviews: 3 I acquired a silver one as one of a lot of three of the authentic 1st gen adaptalls, all in the original boxes. All nice acquisitions for the collection. All were essentially unused but were still showing their age - deteriorated grips specifically, and stiff focus movements on the 28mm and this 135mm. I have several 135mm and it's a reliable focal length for good IQ - the design is relatively simple. This 135mm measures up, it's a good lens, but I have to say it's probably not quite my best. I think the adaptall-2 03B pips it (a very similar spec lens actually, the adaptall 135mm didn't change much through the years), and my "sonnar" jupiters and CZJ edge it too. But really there's not a lot in it - all these lenses tend to be tack sharp stopped down. This, and the 03B, do show a marked drop in IQ wide open however. These crops illustrate the case. Very noticeable drop in contrast and resolution, distinct purpling of the lettering at f2.8. Mostly ameliorated at f4, consistently good from f5.6. The other thing I noticed on the contrast transitions was persistent fringing, even at f11. The other reviewers remark upon good colours and "pop", I don't disagree, I just get that with the other 135's too. So in the end I hardly use this lens, not because its not worthy, just because I have too many other options, including my other 135mm f2.8, a panagor, that has a similar performance profile apart from cooler colours, but exemplary handling and feel that puts the slightly stiff focus on this into the slightly irritating category.

Review of: Vivitar (tokina) T4/TX mount Wide-Angle 28mm F2.8 by marcusBMG on Fri April 22, 2016 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 27261 Reviews: 4 I have the T4 mount version (Parmars T93), as in pics above. It's a chunky all metal 28mm, larger and weightier than the average 28mm. Mechanics are good, IQ is rather average at best, quite consistent in the centre frame stopped down, but mediocre at the edges wide open. The edges improve steadily as it's stopped down. Here is my landscape test using my 20MPx Samsung NX20 (apsc), you can compare with the same test on a slightly better hanimex (makinon) 28mm, and the distinctly superior Hoya 28mm (also made by tokina BTW). Usable of itself, but the recommendation has to be to look for the later versions, or a Hoya!

Review of: Topcor / Topcon 55mm F1.7 by marcusBMG on Wed April 20, 2016 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 29676 Reviews: 6 Picked one of these up for almost nowt. First impressions: cheap! Plastic mount and aperture ring! Body is metal however and mechanics are actually good. Took it into the garden and snapped the tulips with my NX20 - this at f2.8 if I remember right. Nothing wrong with that! And that good impression continued with further use, this lens makes the "sharp nifty fifty(five)" category no problem. I took these landscape test pics. This lens seems better at closer focus, these shots only got good f4 and up, the wider open shots show, as you can see, lower contrast, anaemic colours, coma/glow and general softness. F1.7; f2; f2.8; f4; f5.6; f8; f11; f16. Click on image to open full sized. Finally these test pics are a comparison, wide open, with my tak 55mm f2 (left pic) on my K5. Tak is a bit sharper, more vignetting on the topcor and notice the glow on the rhs of the lampost with the topcor. Should have been f2 vs f2 but I had forgotten that a non-conducting mount won't stop down on my K5. Click on image to open full sized. I may pass this on to my nieces to use on a canon eos. I have my smc-a 50mm f1.7 which is better, especially at the smallest f's . Recommended but marked down a point for that nuisance plastic mount 8/10

Review of: Hoya HMC Wide-Auto 28mm F2.8 by marcusBMG on Mon April 18, 2016 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 42826 Reviews: 5 One of the better 28mm I have tried, holds its own well against eg the vaunted SMC 28mm f3.5 and showed better than the sigma miniwide II compared it to. A bit underwhelming wide open but that's almost always the case, these wide angles are really designed to be stopped down. Good at f4 and from f5.6 shows very good sharpness across the (apsc ) frame. Click on the composite to open full sized test image in a new window (4MB). Samsung NX20 (20MPx, default pp from RAW only) 8.5/10

Review of: Tokina RMC ( soligor ) 2 ring zoom 70-210mm F3.5 by marcusBMG on Sun April 3, 2016 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 14718 Reviews: 4 I acquired this curiosity on a whim. It is very different to most other vintage tokina offerings. Joe below credits the weight and solidity. For me this is OTT, a kilo of glass and metal that feels like a piece of military ordnance! Although the tokina /vivitar one touch 70-210mm f3.5 is just 300g lighter it handles way better on my cameras, particularly the smaller mirrorless ones, because I don't need to take my hand off the zoom focus ring so can suppport the weight of the lens continuously with my left hand. I cradle this 2 ring lens in my hand when walking around, worried it might overcome the strength of the camera mount (more than a few folks who have ripped the K mount off their pentax, usually by dropping the camera with a large/heavy lens on). And, also unlike Joe, I want a two ring zoom to be parfocal ie the focus doesn't change when zooming. This isn't, zoom and you must refocus, jumping from zoom ring to focus ring and back again. Having said that only fair to note the mechanics are excellent. Optically the lens really feels like an early generation zoom: distinctly soft wide open and with poor contrast at all f's. The pic below of the Deganwy Castle sign, a litmus test for contrast and PF, illustrates the weak contrast, the colours are quite true however, negligible purpling. Backlit pics of the castle however showed fringing. Stopped down IQ jumps and I took some very acceptable pics, mainly on my Samsung NX20, using the EVF magnification to fine tune focus (I was struggling a bit by eye on my K5). And the close focus facilitated some quite nice flower pics. [update] Some CF test pics I took later and posted here, showed the lens to be pretty sharp in the centre but IQ fell off rapidly away from the optical axis. 1-3 developed from RAW. jpg from RAW default PP apart from exposure compensation (image was deliberately underexposed). Cropped and resized, f5.6. One for vintage aficionados/metal 'n glass hardliners of the more dedicated kind, IMO :).

Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 (54B) 300mm F5.6 by marcusBMG on Fri April 1, 2016 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 53613 Reviews: 10 The Adaptall f5.6 300's have a particular USP for pentax users: there is no direct equivalent in the Pentax legacy lens lineup. The SMC-M and SMC-A 300*'s are much higher end high spec beasts: f4, larger, ~ twice the weight and several times the price on the occasions they crop up. The closest equivalents in price are the M42 takumars, again f4 (the 300mm f5.6 tak is the ultra rare "ultra achromat"). The SP 54B superceded the adaptall-1 CT300, which superceded the very first version which was derived directly from the earlier adaptamatic mount 300mm f5.6 lens. 54B is readily distinguishable from the CT300 by its lined as opposed to crinkled rubber grip and "beercan" profile, the adaptamatic derived version 1 is significantly larger and has a built in tripod mount. [LEFT]My first 54B was, and is, a bit of an old beater. However in spite of its dings and scratches, and slightly rattly focus, it performs just about as well as a LNIB one I acquired subsequently. [/LEFT] In my opinion it is one of the best vintage non-OEM 300mm f5.6 available, and I have tried quite a few. It's sharper, especially at f5.6, contrastier and warmer OtC than the adaptamatic and the earlier CT300. Stopped down though those two lenses catch up in terms of resolution. It's particular USP is its close focus, a point on which it leaves all those old generic preset/t-mount 300's for dead, and I have taken for example nice flower pics with this lens. I do have a bit of critique of the 54B. For me the ~180deg focus throw is just a tad short (I particularly like the adaptamatic/adaptall version 1's handling and ~270deg throw) More significantly the 54B definitely has a propensity to strong purple fringing in certain circumstances. I could also remark on the lack of a tripod mount but that is easily remedied with a cheap 66mm TM from China (usually described as for Canon), used with a bit of packing or modded to fit. And finally I have to say that although its good, it's not in truth the sharpest, this is shown up by use with the 01F 2x TC, results from which for me are persistently disappointing, and also when I obtained a preset t-mount tamron 250mm f4.5 that was slightly, but definitively sharper, especially through f5.6, and had less fringing to boot! One other question you might ask is: how does the 60-300mm 23A compare with this? I haven't done a definitive comparison, but I can suggest that overall it has similar resolution but a different character/rendering. 23A isn't in fact 300mm though - more like 285mm! Price cited is typical auction (but can go up to ~ $150). At that price you should be happy, however much more than that and you should probably be considering a s/h DA/DAL 55-300mm, which is probably about as sharp and has AF of course. Overall 8 - 8.5/10. 1:1 pixel peep test crops of the castle (again), K5, f5.6, f8, f11 jpg from RAW default settings only LR3. Note PF on the contrast boundary betwen the guys white t-shirt and jacket. Typical 54B! However it's only fair to point out this lens is in other respects good for control of CA - there is no purpling on the edges of the tower on the pics from which these crops have been taken, test pics of a sign with dark writing on a white background are true in colour not purpled, I don't tend to see fringing on eg horizon lines either. But I do see quite strong longitudinal CA off eg sunlit subjects like this. Sample pics, developed from RAW in LR3, cropped: Lumix G1. Pentax K5 Samsung NX20 Crop (not quite full sized ~ 90%). F8 More pics: 300mm lens club #20600 300mm lens club #17252

Review of: Hanimex ( makinon ) MC 28mm F2.8 by marcusBMG on Sat February 6, 2016 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 18092 Reviews: 1 This well made, all metal, M42 mount Hanimex (? Makinon) was in the cheap as chips category, boxed with original paperwork and came with a bonus M42-PK adapter, original Japan but not OEM (or should I say I got a free lens with the adapter...). I can always use another M42 adapter. But is the lens any good? These test crops of the signpost are jpg's, small levels adjust in faststone, samsung NX20, dull light. I was impressed with the consistent IQ from f4. And although visibly softer at f2.8 the colours were still true with no purpling, unlike some more vintage W/A's I have tried. On my K5 with some sunshine for a landscape test (RAW, export jpg from LR with just default or nil settings except for minor exposure equalisation and recovery), the lens showed a distinctly cool blue colour bias, and a lack of contrast and colour compared with the DAL 18-55mm WR, wide open. I have a clear impression that although designated "MC" the coatings aren't that great. This discrepancy rapidly reduced stopping down, and at middling f's there was little to choose between this and the DAL centre frame, although, somewhat disappointingly considering this is a full frame lens being used on APSC, the left and right margins still weren't quite as good. Composite pic shows f2.8, f4, f5.6, compared to DAL at f5.6. There was little change centre frame f8, f11; a small discernable improvement left and right margins. Click on the image to see the full sized composite in a new window - 3MB. Is this lens recommendable? Test pics say - yes, that's more than worth a tenner. Not so hot wide open but that's common for wide angle and particularly for a reseller marque. But no worse than eg a Vivitar TX (tokina) 28mm or Tamron Adaptall 02B. Wide open vs wide open, 28mm vs 28mm (but f2.8 vs f4) there is no reason to take the 18-55mm kit lens off the camera. Vis a vis the DAL well I would have to say that the kit lens has consistently better colours and contrast if not resolution, not to mention AF convenience. But I can remark that the only vintage 28mm I've tried that clearly bests the DAL 18-55mm, specifically wide open f3.5 vs f4, is the lauded SMC 28mm f3.5 (and you won't get that for a tenner unless you get very lucky)! Here's one last pic demonstrating acceptable performance of the Hanimex - Samsung NX20, f8, jpg. Click to see full sized.

Review of: Tamron 750 ( soligor ) preset t-mount 350mm F5.6 by marcusBMG on Thu October 29, 2015 | Rating: 9 View more reviews

Views: 8934 Reviews: 3 The tamron made preset t-mounts have consistently impressed so far so I was pleased to acquire the less common 350mm, Soligor badged (T-xxxx serials are Tamron made), in fact I haven't seen an original Tamron 350mm yet. Compared to the 400mm: trade 50mm of reach for slightly more than half a stop, f5.6 vs f6.9, and about 3m closer focus. Actually I think that's a good trade! The lens is a bit smaller and shorter, and has another big plus, a CFD half that of the 400mm with a wee "mod" described below. I have done something similar on my Nestar 400mm, that focuses to ~6.7m, but this goes to ~3.6m which makes a big difference with eg small birds at a feeder. As the review below notes this lens is easy to refurbish, in fact it unscrews into four sections: But don't do what I did and lose the aperture ball bearing in a moments carelessness. No clicks any more. Both my examples of this lens had sticky aperture rings and helicoid, and a bit of oil on the iris blades. Don't forget to mark the point of disengagement if you unscrew the helicoid so you re-engage at the correct thread. Optically this hasn't disappointed. I have compared to the 06B mirror (ten times the price!). Results were what I expected, this lens lagged a bit at f5.6, with noticeable fringing, but was pretty equal once stopped down. Test pic of the mussel fishermans raft, approx (est) 80m distance, samsung NX20, focus using 7x EVF magnification on the orange crates. These crops were default pp only from RAW . Click to see full sized for proper comparison. 06B is of course fixed aperture f5.6 only. I can see myself using this lens in preference to both the 06B mirror, because of the advantage of the variable aperture and easier focusing, and the 400mm Nestar specifically for closer focus opportunities (I suspect the Nestar might just be a bit sharper for longer range shots), and I am giving it a strong recommendation. I think it's a good 'un. Now that leaves the elusive 250mm tamron... Sample pics: 300mm lens club #18142 300mm lens club #18340 Close focus mod All you need is a suitably small jewellers/modellers flat screwdriver and (ideally) a bit of acetone (nail varnish remover). 1. Put a drop of solvent in turn on the three small grub screws sitting in little holes on the ribbed part of the focus, to soften the thread locker, let sit a minute or two. 2. Loosen the screws carefully - no need to remove. 3. Wind the focus back past the 5m mark - and on a bit more, this will push the focus sleeve down a few mm. On mine I went just past the infinity mark ie just over 360deg rotation. 4. Retighten the screws.

Review of: Vivitar auto wide angle (komine 28xxxx) 35mm F2.8 by marcusBMG on Tue August 4, 2015 | Rating: 9 View more reviews

Views: 36639 Reviews: 3 That auction site is a dangerous place for anyone with an LBA twitch, but sometimes you get a result. This vivitar 35mm attracted my eye because is made by komine, which I had not seen before. Most commonly one sees the tokina made versions (T4/TX/fixed mount, f2.5 or f2.8). But I can't complain about the price, and it proved to be a fine specimen indeed held in the hand, very similar to a smc-m prime, apart from the opposite focus of the M42 mount version reviewed (though I subsequently got a PK mount one and that had pentax rotation focus). First impressions image wise very favourable, crisp and colourful, slightly cool rendering lends to skies, buildings.... More considered test shots showed the lens was not great wide open at f2.8: soft, halos from bright objects, and prone to fringing, of the kind least amenable to post processing, a seepage of purple across the edge and into the subject. But at f4 both these issues had largely ameliorated and from f5.6 through f11 the lens really impressed! I even did a bit of a comparison with my DA 35mm f2.4 and I have to say this lens matched or even edged it on resolution. And in comparison to the old silver version Mir 1 I had this is sharper across the frame (even on apsc), easier to focus and has way better contrast. Test crops f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8, f11 right to left. You can compare with the same crops with the TX mount vivitar 35mm I have also reviewed. Crops f2.8; f4; f5.6; f8; f11. Particularly good for landscape IMO. I also took some nice flower pics but this lens doesn't focus particularly close, only to 40cm, more distant than the 27cm of the TX version or the 30cm of the DA35mm, so that's not so much it's strength. More comments and posted pics in this thread on mflenses. Overall a keeper, recommended. PS I have now noticed there is also a kiron made vivitar 35mm f2.8.. uh oh twitch twitch. More sample pics with the Viv (komine) 35mm on a Sony A6000 here

Review of: Sigma Superwide (original) 24mm F2.8 by marcusBMG on Thu June 11, 2015 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 19729 Reviews: 2 Since I had both the early superwide and the the superwide II for a wee while I was able to do some comparison shots. While the lenses have clear similarities they also have clear distinctions in optical performance. Most immediately noticeable: the superwides warmer tone. Resolution was fairly similar at matching f, I would say, although that assessment was blurred by the very distinctly better contrast of the superwide II. Add in the more natural and brighter colours and that's overall a clear preference. But the superwide is pretty decent and can be picked up much cheaper. Sample pics + crop, pentax K-r, from RAW, same default pp LR3, f8. Superwide. Superwide II

Review of: Sigma DC 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 by marcusBMG on Sun April 19, 2015 | Rating: 9 View more reviews

Views: 54933 Reviews: 9 I acquired this lens as a sub for the DA 18-135mm which came with my K5 but was sold to offset the cost. This was less than half the going price of a S/H DA18-135mm. My thinking was that a kit lens replacement like this with AF and versatile zoom range for me needs to be merely good enough. I see myself using this on holidays, family occasions etc., making use of the cameras own profiles to deliver good jpg's to be shared online (I need to look around and see if there is a profile for this lens mind you, the K5 was reporting it as a Pentax-F 28-80mm). However while I had both I did some side by side pics to see what I was getting, or might be losing, in terms of IQ. These are my results. Note that these are all exported from LR3.6 using just default settings, I was only equalising exposure and tweaking to correct any clipping, so these pics and crops are not representative of the out-of-camera jpg's you will get with either lens. Mostly manual focus 10x LV, tripod mounted. Specification wise the lenses really are pretty similar. I hardly noticed the 10mm difference at the long end of the focal range - IMO that would not be a reason to make a choice. They look and feel quite similar too, but are structurally distinct, focus/zoom rings rotate in opposite directions, the manual focus ring is at the mount end on the DA, at the front on the Sigma. For MF both had a better, but still rather light, feel in comparison to the rattly kit lens focus (and I thought the long throw on the DA18-135 much the better). The variable aperture on both lenses changed similarly, both already to f4 at 24mm, f4.5 at 50mm (low light? bring out the "nifty-fifty"!), f4.5 (DA) vs f5.6 (Sigma) at 70mm, f5.6 all the way thereafter. One extra feature on the Sigma is a "zoomlock switch", as far as I can tell this seems to be for storing/carrying the lens, locking it unextended at 18mm. 18mm, architecture Neither lens for me was particularly great at 18mm, particularly wide open. Both showed pronounced vignetting at f3.5, the Sigma more so, decreasing stopping down but still present. The DA had noticeably better contrast, and for me, centre frame was a wee bit sharper. Both lenses were softer at one side, the DA at the left frame, the Sigma, more markedly, at the right frame. The improvement in IQ stopping down to f5.6 on the Sigma was significant, and the right edge, though not the centre, continued to improve to f11, which tends to be indicative of some decentering. I looked for CA at >100% at edges and contrast transitions but both lenses did pretty well on that. By f8 images from both were pretty good. Well f3.5 is usable I suppose, but the desireability of stopping down at 18mm to improve the IQ is clear. Additionally, I noticed that when I tried AF, and then checked the focus in Live View, it wasn't necessarily, to my eyes, spot on. However I haven't fine tuned the AF for this lens so that could be the problem rather than the camera inherently struggling with the lower contrast and larger wide angle DoF at 18mm, although that wouldn't surprise me, and I note that the photozone reviewer describes the AF accuracy sub-50mm as abysmal, using a canon 350D! You have been warned, however the 350D came out in ~2005 and AF has improved a lot since then. Another technical point to note: both lenses are distinctly varifocal so focussing at a longer focal length and then zooming out doesn't work. crops: 24mm, architecture Both lenses showed well at 24mm, the vignetting was mostly gone, contrast and resolution up. Little to choose between them, both were already good at f4. 28mm, architecture I used AF and oops! at f4 the Sigma was out of focus. However by f8 the image was in focus - in retrospect I noticed a slight refocus by the K5 - sharp and equal in every noticeable respect to the DA. No issues with focus with the DA. One small techie point of interest: the Sigma, reported as 30mm focal length, was showing a slightly wider field of view than the DA, reported as 28mm. Go figure. 50mm, close focus. The sigma is reckoned to be at its best at around 50mm according to the photozone review. For me there was nothing between the shots taken by both lenses - pretty much indistinguishable. 70mm, portrait range My first sets of the sign at ~ portrait range showed up what seems to be a major distinction between the lenses however when I redid the shots most of the difference disappeared. Operator error! More specifically, the manual focus on the sigma is only ~ 60deg rotation: much more sensitive and much twitchier than the DA, which for me has precise MF. Should've just used AF! Pic wise for me the DA still showed slightly better contrast and resolution in spite of the flatter, duller light second time round. Both were good in respect of colour rendition and no fringing or halo on the lettering. crops: 100mm, portrait Also at portrait range, this shot also showed the Sigma lagging. I also reshot these to check, using AF second time round, but in this case there was no change. Wide open the sigmas' rendering of the owl is significantly softer. The resolution from the two lenses converged stopping down to f11. Bokeh: nothing to choose between the lenses for me, both pretty good, smooth, no CA fringing of background highlights. crops: 125mm/135mm, not quite infinity focus Side by side the images from the DA were slightly sharper, but it was only a slight difference. One point the sigma scored on: the DA was clearly showing more red-green fringing on shadow lines. crops: The last "test" was shooting some jpg's in auto mode to compare out of camera images. The outdoor shots on a bright sunny day proved to be very similar. Mostly the K5 used the same settings with both lenses, though there were a few discrepancies. One difference was the Sigma pics were slightly underexposed (~ 1/2 stop) relative to the DA pics, and the histograms of the latter were usually displaying higher luminance values across the graph. jpg sizes were mostly the same. Overall between the two: the DA18-135mm tends to be slightly better wide open at all times with distinctly better contrast and has much better manual focus (if you use it). However the Sigma more than keeps up at most focal lengths, certainly with resized images I would say the the results from the two lenses are mostly equal. It has comfortably met my "good enough" benchmark. The DA18-135mm is given a rating of 8.5/10 in the full PF review, which I would not presume to argue with, indeed it seems pretty spot on to me. I would give the Sigma overeall just a slightly less 8/10. It was pretty much equal through the wide angle to standard range, and only most noticeably inferior with closer focus as the focal length increased. If you are looking for a kit lens replacement and can acquire the Sigma for the sort of price I did, you can be happy. UPDATE 2021. I have now been using this lens with my more recent camera bodies: K3-ii; KS2. The continued good performance of this lens with these higher pixel count sensors has prompted me to upgrade my overall rating one notch. TEST PICS sigma DC 18-125mm vs Sigma DC 17-70mm posted here in the sigma lens club.

Review of: Tamron 880 ( soligor ) preset t-mount 450mm F8 by marcusBMG on Sun April 5, 2015 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 11069 Reviews: 1 I was hopeful that this vintage tamron (but soligor badged) lens might be of similar quality to my Nestar 400mm f6.9 and I have not been disappointed. With a lens this slow good performance wide open is the requirement and this lens has good sharpness from f8 with only a bit of improvement stopping down to f11. Typically dull contrast mind you, however also impressive is the relative lack of fringing/CA. As per the Nestar, I can suggest "as good as it gets" with the same caveat "for a lens of this age and type". All good news, but the technical limitations have to be borne in mind, not least the close focus of ~ 20'/6.5m (it's better than the stated 8m, the focus travels well past the 8m mark). To get eg small birds to fill a major part of the frame you may well want to be closer than that. An extension tube is the recommended solution, a 12mm one reduced the CFD to 4.9m/16' (measured using my Lumix G1 + adapter). but the lens will of course no longer focus to infinity - I estimated the distant focus limit at around 20m with the 12mm extension. And the focussing at f8 is inherently ticklish, with a necessarily dull viewfinder, focus confirm might be more often off than on (my K5 did well actually) and, since 99% of shots shall be at f8-11, little DoF improvement from stopping down. I have a notion however that this lens shall work well with mirrorless cameras like my newly acquired upgrade to the Lumix G1, a samsung NX20, the EVF automatically compensating for low ambient light and/or slow lenses, and powerful magnification available to assist the focus (pics now below). The lens showed equal resolution on the G1 btw, it can clearly handle more pixels/pixel density, unlike others I have tried. Also like my Nestar I ended up relubing the helicoid (easy enough to do, this lens easily separates into 4 sections, like the 350mm f5.6 t-mount), but hey its 50+ years old. On balance I think I prefer my Nestar, the half a stop f6.9 vs f8 more useful than the extra 50mm 400mm vs 450mm and it can fit in my pocket/camera bag. But certainly recommended. Refer to my reviews of the Nestar and the 400mm 6.3's for more general comments re t-mount, preset apertures. Now let some test pics do the talking. My usual test shot of the castle tower. crops: f8, f11, default pp from raw. Sample bird pics, from RAW, pp in LR3.6, cropped and resized. With Samsung NX20, jpg's, buffed some more in LR and resized. More pics in 300mm lens club - posts: #16269; #16284.

Review of: Sigma ( Upsilon, Prakticar ) super-tele multi coat 400mm F5.6 by marcusBMG on Wed March 25, 2015 | Rating: 0 View more reviews

Views: 10886 Reviews: 1 I believe this sigma 400mm f5.6 to be an early model - 1970's. It has some good features: nice flock lined hood; tripod mount collar; internal focussing. But don't be fooled, it's a cheap 4 element lens, optical kin to the common 400mm f6.3's. Like the t-mount 6.3's its close focus is a distant 6m, it's prone to fringing, and it's prone to a progressive chalky haze on the rear element. My example is a case in point. I have tried some restoration, a neighbour worked in the optical industry for most of his working life and so we tried a bit of polishing using his gem wheel and jewellers rouge. An experiment; trading haze removal for loss of coating (although his opinion was that small rear elements by and large weren't coated) and a degree of optical inaccuracy and consequent IQ degradation. In practice the lens showed OK sharpness but terrible flare: any pic with backlighting was foggy (residual haze might well have also been a factor). I note in passing that a Photax 400mm 6.3 I had that also had significant haze on the rear element was only minimally effected. Although it's clear that the lens is of cheap construction it did not feel particularly so, just a slightly lightweight, tinny feel, particularly in comparison to eg the Tokina 400mm's. It's focus is approx 180deg throw and was smooth even though it's just a plastic cam not a precision helicoid and the lens handled pretty well. I am not so enamoured of the tripod mount - the pressed metal collar is sturdy enough and operates smoothly but the mounting is a button - less surface area and not as stable as a foot IMO. It's position is good for balance however. So because this lens is flawed I am not really able to give an accurate assessment of how this lens might compare optically to those 400 6'3's or the later Sigma versions. If you don't want/need a swappable t-mount then the internal focus and normal PK mount might prompt you towards this. And of course it's slightly faster. A cheaper alternative to the more sophisticated later Sigma 400mm lenses.

Review of: Promura C. P. Hi-Lux 80-200mm F3.9-4.9 by marcusBMG on Wed March 11, 2015 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 7570 Reviews: 1 Any number of consumer lenses within the 70-210mm bracket out there under any number of different names. This was part of a job lot. Uncommon brand and unusual spec caught my eye. Nice handing metal 'n glass lens has a more up market character to it. Didn't shoot with it much but the pics I did take were generally of a pleasing character and decently sharp. My impression is that it was better at 80mm than at 200mm, and overall of an above average lens. This was at ~120mm, f4, fill flash.

Review of: Tokyo Koki tele-Tokina Minetar, Mamiya, Prinz- Ha 400mm F6.3 by marcusBMG on Tue March 3, 2015 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 17093 Reviews: 2 My first one is the one in pic 2 above, prinzgalaxy nameplate. Obviously another tokina the features are quite distinctive. I had quite high hopes for this. Hypothesis: these early 400mm 6.3's were made in the days when they were relatively premium items, the prosumer lenses of the moment. With a bit of luck the quality will reflect that. Mechanically and construction wise the lens didn't disappoint, a classic vintage lens. Optically it proved, however to be probably the worst vintage 400mm I have tried out. Soft at f6.3, barely Ok -ish when stopped down. I desultorily persevered trying to get better pics out of it for a while then sold it on. Hypothesis 2: with improved coatings and manufacturing techniques the later lenses may be better...? I suspect actually this is merely illustrating the variability of these lenses. And it's kid brother a Palinar branded 300mm f5.5 proved to be good. Oct 2015 My second example had a Hanimex nameplate and was much better, indeed one of the better 400mm f6.3's I have had. It had the edge, for example, on a chrome eared soligor (9xxxxx serial) I compared it to. These test crops illustrate its performance (samsung NX20): Good sharpness at f6.3, with discernable improvement at f8. Couple more sample pics: Crop of visitors on the castle: I can consider the first example to be a duff one. Ratings reflect the performance of the second example.

Review of: Pre-set (Quantaray, Kimunor, Five Star, etc.) 500mm F8 by marcusBMG on Thu December 11, 2014 | Rating: 6 View more reviews

Views: 47229 Reviews: 9 I acquired a Praotor II branded example very cheaply, with a view to making a comparison with my tamron 500mm mirror. It was suffering from the common complaint of haze on the rear element, note that this typically does not clean off. Fortunately a neighbour has a gem polishing set up so a few minutes buffing with some jewellers rouge did the trick.With these "moddings" it is difficult to say how representative the IQ of this lens is. I can say that it shows similar characteristics to the shorter focal length "wundertutes": decent sharpness, dull contrast, susceptible to PF. TBH I am more enamoured both with the tamron 500mm mirrors and the 400mm f6.3's. I find this long tube (max length of this one 44cm/17.3" - an early one, later and current models are shorter) to be particularly user unfriendly, very difficult to eliminate shake without a high shutter and a good solid tripod set up, unlike the tamrons where I can often make do with a fence post, bean bag etc etc (and even hand hold if the light is good enough to get 1/500th, 1/1000 +). This observation is also commented upon in the video review linked to above in the description. I would advise users serious about trying to get the best out of these to consider the sort of mounting set up I use with my tamron 31A: macro rail with two solid points of contact supporting the lens to damp the "bendy ruler/seesaw" oscillation tendencies. OTOH maybe you gun happy Americans are more used than I am to hold long thin objects steady... Focusing at f8 through an optical VF is a hit and miss affair IME, and although this does have the advantage of a variable aperture, in practice in use it's f8 and sometimes f11, rarely any higher (diffraction reducing IQ) so the priority is on decent IQ at open or near open apertures. And although I have struggled to get decent comparison pics during these dull winter days my clear impression is that the tamron 500mm has comfortably better IQ f8 vs f8. In fact, more test shots at f8 post haze cleaning have been disappointing. This test pic of the castle was taken before I refurbished the rear element. f8, 800asa, 1/1600. Doesn't look too bad resized but the 100% crop was not as good as the tammy, or as good as I think it should be, which I attribute at least partly to the haze. UPDATE. I have had the opportunity to check out a couple of better examples of these 500mm lenses, including an almost LNIB Prinz-galaxy. Performance was distinctly better but without altering my overall assessment which is that overall I don't recommend these. Reasons: 1. Upscaled pics from the better 400mm 5.6's/6.3's typically match or better pics from these so 500mm is no advantage. 2. Tamron (and ?tokina) mirrors better resolution. 3. f8 is too slow, too dim with OVF. 3. CFD 10-12m is too long. 6-8m for 400mm lenses much better, and focus to just a couple of m with the mirrors. 4. Propensity to haze on the rear element (early models). You should be discriminating and prefer one of the better 400mm lenses, or a tamron/tokina mirror (but not the shabbily performing opteka/samyang etc etc 500mm mirrors available new off Amazon/ebay etc).

Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 (09A) 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 by marcusBMG on Fri October 3, 2014 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 24752 Reviews: 3 I have now obtained a 09A in a job lot and can make the comparison with its successor the constant aperture 17A. In my review of that lens I have commented on their similarity and derivation from the vaunted 01A. The assessment emphasises those similarities, in fact IMO you can regard these adaptall 35-70mm's as optically of similar quality. A couple of sample test pic crops from both lenses at 70mm (Pentax K-r, jpg's, 09A top): f4.5/f3.5 f11 Similar resolution, similar rendering, similar colours! Similar mechanics, handling, similar size and weight! Distinctions? Well I agree the constant aperture of 17A is desireable - but it's only barely half a stop, shouldn't put you off. I also prefer the larger grips on the zoom of 17A. And there was one other aspect that adds to a vote for 17A: an impression of more inconsistent exposures with 09A. Normally with adaptall-2's the compensation I am dialling in in Av with PKA mount follows a pretty consistent pattern: approx +1 wide open, dropping 2 clicks ie 2/3 stop at f5.6, another click at f8. After a while of applying this and often finding it wasn't right I got worried and scrutinised 09A's mechanisms for any problem, and swapped mounts. Couldn't see any mechanical issue, and swapping mounts made no difference. And a test run at 35mm (to avoid any confusion with the variable aperture) gave the lie to my impressions with consistency between the two lenses. Looking at the exposures, and depth of field, at increasing f stop in Av between the two lenses at 70mm leads me to conclude that the wide open discrepancy between the two lenses at 70mm (f3.5 vs f4.5) continues as the f-stop is increased. F8 on the camera with 09A, for example, is more like f9+ in reality. Normally one expects this to result in an extra quota of + exposure compensation being required. So why was I needing less, even on occasion negative compensation? Some combination of user/lighting/lens/camera/mount... go figure! So is this lens recommendable? Certainly, why not? I can say that it is just a bit less desireable than the more common 17A, but if you come across one then be happy.

Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 (58A/158A) 70-210mm F4-5.6 by marcusBMG on Fri August 22, 2014 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 48203 Reviews: 5 One may be inclined to deride the 58A, not because of its plastic nature, but because, with its equally plastic sibling the 28-70mm 59A, these were the cheapest adaptall zooms ever made. Price does usually correlate pretty well with quality. However as the other reviews have remarked this lens has a USP - its remarkably small size and low weight. I have actually had a couple of these pass through my hands, each time I have compared a few pics with primes and other zooms and sold them on, plugging that "travel lens" character. This time I actually worked up to a more considered scrutiny, and you know what? it's not so bad! First off although it's plastic its mechanics are good, all movements nice and smooth, no slack, but I note tendency of the zoom to creep if held vertically. On my K-r IQ plus points are consistency/trueness of colours; relatively consistent (albeit average) sharpness from wide open; less coma/CA/fringing compared to older adaptall lenses like 103A. For example, the Degannwy Castle info sign is a bit of a litmus test that often shows up purpling and fringing with older lenses. 58A produced pics relatively free of purpling and fringing at all f stops. Contrast noticeably improved from f4 to f11, but was never great however. The cockerel on the spire at 210mm was pretty good, detail on the stone cat at 135mm (cf same pic with 135mm primes here) not to complain about. So far so good. I was not so impressed with distant subjects like boats out in the estuary however. And overall I would say images pretty consistently tended to show an inherent lack of contrast (and I didn't find focusing as clear as more contrasty and faster lenses either). 100% crops, Pentax K-r: 210mm, i. f11; ii.f5.6 135mm, f5.6 100mm f5.6, resized, levels adjusted in faststone. Any inherent weakness of optics tends to be shown up more readily by the higher crop factor and pixel density of my Lumix G1. And for me the lens was shown up: softness wide open more evident, contrast and colour suffering. Have to careful mind you, how much is that due to the lens and how much to the camera? But real, I think. Also, magnified focus assist on the G1 highlighted this lens is not parfocal, focus varies with zoom. If you try the trick of focusing at 210mm then zooming out, you lose accurate focus. This was clear with both near and far focus. Pic illustrates the approx discrepancy between 210mm and 70mm using the cockerel on the church spire as example. f8, 100% crop, lumix G1 I tried a few close up flower pics but wasn't impressed. 59A's close focus at 70mm is comfortably better! So really I'm back to where I started. For best IQ look elsewhere. For a cheap travel lens to chuck in the bag to snap away with, and no great worry if it gets dropped/lost/stolen..., here it is. With a caveat. If you don't already have a PKA mount, you will get better value from the rather similar but slightly larger and heavier Tokina SD 70-210mm, which, in Pentax mount, comes as PKA already. And another price point comparison: it's not difficult to pick up a kit DAL 50-200mm for the price of 58A + PKA mount, and have AF.

Review of: Tokina ( soligor vivitar etc) RMC tele auto 400mm F6.3 by marcusBMG on Fri July 11, 2014 | Rating: 9 View more reviews

Views: 29657 Reviews: 3 Made a wee mistake with this, I thought it was a t-mount - it isn't. So I was restricted to using my Lumix with M4/3-CFD adapter. Impressed with this lens. A class above the "cheapo" ones in quality of construction though there is a weight penalty, it's quite a bit heavier. Posesses the usual tripod collar, and also a good hood - often lacking on the others. And most importantly the optical performance measures up: sharp from f6.3, fringing/CA/halo sometimes evident on high contrast edges (see bottom test pic) but really not bad at all, contrast pretty good for a lens of this era ("RMC" coatings). I compared particularly to my Tamron Nestar. Not a lot in it sharpness wise - I am inclined to favour the Nestar by a short head. 100% sample crops at f6.3, f8, f11, f16 illustrate the consistent quality (developed from RAW, mostly default settings, some sharpening and noise - a Lumix weak point - reduction). The figure shows slight signs of shake when viewed full size in faststone actually, he was moving around, but the detail the lens extracts from the tower stonework is good (and bear in mind this is 800mm equivalent). I did try some flower shots at cfd (such as it is) but was not so impressed. But recommended. Bird pic here. Chapter 2 [SIZE=2]7/15[/SIZE] I acquired two more incarnations of this lens, the soligor fixed mount and the vivitar T4 mount versions pictured above. Differences are only cosmetic, specifically the design of the focus ring. Performance wise these lenses were very similar and reinforced my impressions from the cfd mount tokina rmc. Good sharpness straight from f6.3, not much fringing. If you're interested in a 400mm f6.3 one of these tokinas is an upmarket choice, particularly the vivitar, which is the only lens of this type I have encountered with a flock lined hood! Test pic of the castle again, and 100% crop, taken on my 20MPx apsc samsung NX20, f6.3, with the soligor 400mm.

Review of: Soligor 350mm F5.6 by marcusBMG on Mon June 16, 2014 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 15291 Reviews: 1 Interesting focal length, trade 50mm for a third of a stop in comparison to the common 400mm 6.3's. Sibling to the Soligor 400mm I had: same looks, 9xxxx serial, chrome ears... except where it counts - IQ. This lens disappointed, dull and soft wide open, didn't improve sufficiently stopped down. Maybe it was a bad one. But on this evidence not recommended relative to the 400's. Update - 9/18. I have now picked up another one and this one is much better, very much in the right ballpark IQ-wise for one of these t-mount preset lenses. These are my standard test pics of one of the castle turrets. Samsung NX20, f5.6, f8, f11. These results are good actually, pretty much as good as the results with both the tamron and tokina made ones. However closer focus pics of seagulls etc. have so far been less impressive, suggesting the IQ tends to ease off with closer focus. More sample pics here. Ratings amended anyway, now a recommend. I would still rate the tamron made 350mm best. Between the tokina made 350mm and this one I think the tokina edges it on IQ but this one has the advantage re focusing closer. This lens might be a preferred choice over it's sibling the chrome eared 400mm f6.3, also because of its closer focusing capability - ~ 4m (3.65m/12' measured to front of lens) as opposed to 6m.

Review of: Vivitar t-mount preset 35mm F3.5 by marcusBMG on Sun June 15, 2014 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 8642 Reviews: 1 Tidy, petite wide angle, 35mm on APSC is the nearest approximation to trad 50mm on film, so is a focal length of interest to pentax users. Nice mechanics except for one thing: the preset aperture rings are quite small and are difficult to manipulate butting against the t-mount as they do. Optically quite decent: sample pic at f9 bears comparison with eg my sigma miniwide II for sharpness. But IQ drops off as the lens is opened up, even though its not as fast its IQ was poorer wide open then the sigma. Close focus is poor, only to 0.8m (cf 0.45m for a tak, 0.27m for a flek), and I didn't try it with an extension ring. But t-mount makes it camera-versatile. If you like t-mount presets, this is worth a look. Otherwise this lens comes a looong way second to a Tak 35mm f3.5!

Review of: Tamron Adaptall ( Chinon, Alpa ) (Z-210, CZ/QZ-210 85-210mm F4.5 by marcusBMG on Fri June 6, 2014 | Rating: 6 View more reviews

Views: 25190 Reviews: 3 This lens is kid brother to the 80-250mm QZ-825M adaptall-1 zoom - smaller, lighter but identical construction style and features. One technical difference: this is constant aperture unlike the QZ825-M. A tad slow actually, at f4.5. I had little inclination to acquire this lens, but, prompted by a couple of quite decent looking close focus pics taken with it posted on a forum, I tossed in a bid and it's now mine. These early adaptall lenses were relatively premium items in their era and the construction and mechanics reflects that - fine pieces of kit. However one of my criticisms of these 2-ring adaptall-1 zooms is that the parfocality is imprecise: there is drift off focus while zooming. With this lens this was most specifically noticeable zooming ~150mm to/from 210mm when focussing on distant objects. This does militate against the effectiveness of its two ring design. My other main criticism is poor contrast, and walk around jpg's are pretty much what I expected and not very inspiring. IMO this adaptall has absolutely the dullest contrast of all off the card. Against that, this did surprisingly well for an old zoom re CA/PF - just a distinct but slight tinge on the backlit castle turrets. These two aspects in combination enough, however, for test pics of a noticeboard to really disappoint, the lettering soft, indistinct and rather purple, edges not sharp, showing a bit of coma/halo, and not much improvement stopping down. Crop: f5.6, 210mm, off the card jpg. To try to see the most that the lens can do I developed most test pics from RAW in LR3.6. This first strip is crops of the estuary marker at 210mm, Pentax K-r, second crop at f5.6 is an off-the-card jpg for comparison. TBH I thought this lens resolved the writing and other features pretty well - better than my 103A, for example. Distinctly softer at f4.5 but about as much as one expects. Incipient signs of PF on the cables, decreasing with aperture. It was the macro mode that I was interested to check out. Like its big brother this is fairly unique: a press button allows the zoom ring to rotate beyond the 85mm point, which then moves the variator group in relation to the other lens groups (the internal mechanics are thus quite complex, I'd think twice about trying to take this one apart). This allows the lens to attain 1:3 magnification, CWD is around 20cm. Results... well I have to say I haven't been blown away, slightly better than its big brother IMO, and not too bad, but if you're serious about some close up work you'll look for better. But it does significantly add to the versatility of the lens, and the bokeh is good ... in fact really good. Sample flower pic, RAW, f18, resized. You can compare these 100% crops of the stone cat taken at 135mm with same shots taken with 135mm primes here. Focus was on the cats' whiskers. The second pic is off-the-card jpg at f5.6. Warm colour, smooth bokeh. Combination of low contrast and lower resolution wide open makes a pretty soft image, and there is a distinct fringe around the ears. LR has ameliorated the distinctly flat character of the off the card jpg's, I bumped up blacks and contrast a fair amount, but overall I wasn't too impressed with these results. f4.5, f5.6, f5.6, f8, f11. My shots of the castle were more pleasing, suggesting this lens does better at longer range. Between this and its 80-250mm big brother I recommend big brother, which for me has the advantage of a bigger focal range and performance at middling f's competitive with eg my Vivitar series 1. Between this and the rated adaptall-2 TP's: given that eg the 103A/46A can be obtained for equally little, they are overall to be much preferred, optically. If you're into interesting and somewhat classic older lenses like this and work with RAW this lens has some good resolution, but, re recommendation, I would suggest it's more collectible than usable.

Review of: Mir-1 (Mir-1A, Mir-1B, Mir 1V) 37mm F2.8 by marcusBMG on Mon May 19, 2014 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 181093 Reviews: 11 I was particularly interested to check out a "flektogon" to get a 50mm-equivalent focal length prime for my K-r so was pleased to pick up my early version silver Mir-1 (pic above) in M39 mount in a job lot. Although shabby it was optically OK, and I took it apart to replace the sticky old soviet "cowsnot" (a perrenial complaint with old east bloc lenses) with some modern lithium grease (link above). I found this to be a rather less than user friendly lens. As well as all the usual inconveniences of K-r + M42- fiddling with the M42 adapter; silly exposure compensation; the dull contrast of this lens meant focus was consistently a struggle, even with my split prism. And I am more prepared to be diligent with preset aperture with tp's, wide angle lenses are for more spontaneous photography and this suffered in comparison with my PKA mount 28mm's. I can also mention that the narrow mount of this lens meant its mounting on the camera was inherently a bit wobbly and because the mount contacts are not covered tricks with foil to address the exposure compensation issues aren't really on (I can make the same points re my helios 44). Overall though I was pleased with IQ, this lens is sharp and once contrast has been buffed rendering/colours are good. I was quite happy with this composed shot (RAW, f8) of the site of old Deganwy Castle (also on 500px). And also with it's close up pics (though I was relying on LV for focus), and the bokeh from that nice 10 blade iris. jpg, buffed and resized in faststone. But 0.7m is not very close, any of my 28's does better, Sigma Miniwide II does a lot better, and eg a Vivitar 35mm (T4/TX tokina made) gets twice as close at 37cm. But at the end of the day, I didn't feel that this lens offered me anything in particular to offset the convenience of my PK/PKA primes, or indeed lenses like my adaptall 35-80mm 01A. I felt there was no noticeable difference in resolution between the first pic above and the same pic taken with the 01A. So now you know why I sold it, and I have to say my interest in flektogons has diminished accordingly. The CZJ 35mm f2.4 consistently sells for £100+, I would be interested to hear someone make the case to spend that much on a vintage flektogon when the DA 35mm 2.4 can be acquired for almost the same (update - for less! I acquired my DA35 for £80). There is a good comparison of a black Mir-1 and the early CZJ 35mm f2.8 (zebra) here (negligible difference between the two on this evidence): http://m42lens.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/mir-1b-37mm-f28-vs-carl-zeiss-jena.html

Review of: Tamron Adaptall T-200/870 Auto Tamron 200mm F3.5 by marcusBMG on Fri May 16, 2014 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 17215 Reviews: 2 Having acquired all the adaptall 200mm variants I did a bit of a comparison here. To summarise, I found this to be a good sharp lens. It's distinctly clunky at 2lbs weight however, and it was noticeably less contrasty than both the CT200 and (best) the 04B. It did well re CA however. There are more pics at the link above and also on the adaptall lens club thread. Also Piledon's review on the CT200 page is actually of this lens and he has lots of pics on Flickr. This is indicative (long range, f5.6, crops are this lens top, CT200 middle, 04B bottom): This pic of a duck was with the silver version in the pic above. Pentax K5, from RAW, cropped, resized.

Review of: Tamron Adaptall ( Chinon ) ( CT-300) 300mm F5.6 by marcusBMG on Thu May 8, 2014 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 39649 Reviews: 8 The Adaptall f5.6 300's have a particular USP for pentax users: there is no direct equivalent in the Pentax legacy lens lineup. The SMC-M and SMC-A 300*'s are much higher end high spec beasts: f4, larger, ~ twice the weight and up to 10 times the price on the occasions they crop up. The closest equivalents in price are the M42 takumars, again f4 (the 300mm f5.6 tak is the ultra rare "ultra achromat"). This CT300 is actually the second adaptall 300, not the first, the very first version was derived directly from the earlier adaptamatic mount lens, and is readily distinguishable from the CT300 by size, looks and built in tripod mount (and given the performance of the adaptamatic 300mm I have reviewed, might be the preferred version for many... if you can find one!). But anyway from this standpoint the CT300 is an immediate recommend: its a relatively readily available and great value lens, with the versatility of an M42 style A-M switch, choice of M42, P-KM, or P-KA mount to suit your preferences, pocket and camera. More discriminatingly, how does this lens compare with the later, well regarded and usually more than twice the price, SP 54B? These are my impressions. Specification, size and looks wise the lenses are pretty similar, 54B has two more elements and a CFD of 1.4m as opposed to 2.5m. Neither has a tripod mount, both easily fit one round the barrel in front of the aperture ring. There is a legacy tamron TM, that fits the 54B (and other lenses like the 52A) perfectly, but the CT300 needs some packing because the mount is designed for the smooth barrel (focus flush) of the 54B, the focus on the CT300 catches on the foot. I use a cheap one from China modded to fit. The focus travel is a bit longer on CT300, which TBH I find beneficial. But overall construction, mechanics, weight etc. are equal/ equally good. As far as image sharpness went I felt that my CT300 yielded little to 54B stopped down, they were in the same ballpark for resolution, but was noticeably softer wide open. CT300 has a distinctly cooler colour tone than 54B, and 54B also scores with stronger contrast. Both suffer from fringing/CA under unhelpful conditions, this is reduced by stopping down - typical longitudinal (or bokeh) chromatic aberrations, as you focus fringing changes from green (back focussed) to red (front focussed). 54B did distinctly better for me when used with 014F and 01F TC's (but I wouldn't really recommend the use of tc's with these f5.6 lenses in any case - too slow and base lens resolution isn't quite up to it). As my remarks suggest, for me this lens was third in line of my tamron 300 f5.6's, behind 54B and my adaptamatic, however I should emphasise only marginally so. Provided your expectations are not unrealistic for a £30/$50 (average ebay UK price) or so lens, I can suggest you will not be disappointed. This 300mm is optically OK, relatively light, portable and user friendly, just the job for covering some TP photo opportunities. Test pic crops, samsung NX20 (20MPx apsc): crops f5.6, f8, f11.

Review of: Soligor 400mm F6.3 by marcusBMG on Thu May 1, 2014 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 91545 Reviews: 8 Mine is the 9xx.. version pic above, reckoned to be of Kino Optical manufacture. Its a classier and weightier construction than the typical offbrand 400/6.3, and, IME on average, a bit better optically, specifically wide open. (update) However comparisons with both the tokina rmc 400mm and the earlier Tokyo Koki 400mm suggest that both of those models have superior resolution and are better for fringing too. Marked down a notch. But apart from that I don't really have much more to say about this above what I have already said about 400/6.3's here. And not as good as my Nestar so didn't keep it. Sample pic of mansion from across the estuary (f11, buffed in Faststone, pentax K-r): 100% crop. Detail is good. PF was particularly evident on edges against sky, and is clear on the tree in this crop. UPDATE: chapter 2 Identical looking chrome eared model but with KA.1xxxx serial. KA.zxxx serials have been attributed to KA. = Kyoei Acall. Distinctly softer, especially wide open.

Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 (104A) 75-250mm F3.8-4.5 by marcusBMG on Sat April 19, 2014 | Rating: 9 View more reviews

Views: 31987 Reviews: 6 This is 103A/46A's big brother, same looks and style, just a larger 3.3x zoom. The earlier 04A looks almost the same, slight differences in the focus/zoom sleeve, and although adaptall-2.org cites a "heavily revised design" it is the similarities of the 13 element design that are more in evidence to me....but in any case this one is supposed to be an improvement. Pretty much as fast as the 2.6/3x zooms, only dropping down to f4.5 extending to 250mm. I think most readers know what one is getting with adaptalls re mechanics etc so nuff said its all good. Optically I think this is a sleeper, overlooked in favour of the ubiquitous 103A (an overrated lens IMO - perhaps my copy is a sub par one), or the rep of 19AH. It is significantly better, specifically in terms of contrast and consistency across the zoom and focal range, than the early adaptall 80-250's (thought the later QZ250-M is equal in resolution stopped down). Perhaps a bit soft wide open, but it's fast enough to comfortably go down a half or whole stop. Quite frankly I would be reluctant to necessarily plump 19AH a jump ahead of this. I'll let a few pics make the case...(Samsung GX20, jpg's, tweaked/cropped/resized in Faststone) crop: you can see a bit of PF down the rhs of the tower. crop And for this quality this lens is relatively speaking absurdly cheap, price cited reflects typical auction price on ebay. Though I have to admit, as the first reviewer comments, that between this lens and the 60-300mm 23A, I would probably prefer 23A. And for pure IQ definitely 19AH. But of itself - grab one!:)

Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 (01B) 24mm F2.5 by marcusBMG on Sat April 12, 2014 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 100666 Reviews: 21 I took this lens and my Superwide II PKA out and about and came back with a suite of pics to look at side by side. Conclusion: simply that my K-r was not able to resolve (literally and figuratively) between the lenses! Example pic (f10, identical amounts of light contrast boost and sharpening in Faststone): For what its worth the first pic and crop were taken on the Sigma. I can remark: the Sigma seemed to have the edge wide open The Sigma has the edge for close up work, focussing down to 1:4, ~15cm CWD. I preferred the handling of the Sigma, and of course you don't have to faff with a mount. The flat "beercan" design of the tamrons doesn't really help feeling for the rings by touch. I felt that I was more often noticing some CA with the Sigma. On other occasions I have had some pronounced blue fringing in backlit situations. Both lenses are very good IMO - read 8.5/10. Between the two, I can remark that Sigma Superwides are common and relatively cheap per se, but Superwides in P-KA mount are not so. Prices head up to ~£100+ though you can get lucky if you bide your time. The 01B sells consistently for around £40-70 and crops up regularly. If you already have an interest in adaptall and a PKA mount then thats the cheaper and more practical option. Otherwise the Sigma overall is perhaps to be preferred over 01B+PKA. UPDATE I did a landscape comparison with the 01B, 24-48mm 13A and the superwide II and posted the results in the adaptall club thread here. Scrutiny of the crops clearly shows the superwides superiority wide open. IQ's converged stopping down however the test tends to corroborate SunValley's comments above re 01B's edge IQ. However I have left the scores the same.

Review of: Prinzflex 2x TC, P-KM mount by marcusBMG on Sun March 16, 2014 | Rating: 5 View more reviews

Views: 3854 Reviews: 1 Looks similar to Kenko, Tokina models, (also to a Jessop TC) also in reviews, but not PKA. Unimpressed with this in combination with my tamron 04B 200mm. Images not sharp enough and poor contrast. But I must say its performance re fringing was better than Tokina RMC 7 element TC, and the Jessop, with this lens.

Review of: Tamron (adaptamatic/fixed mount) 300mm F5.6 by marcusBMG on Sun March 9, 2014 | Rating: 9 View more reviews

Views: 26763 Reviews: 4 Of the handful of bargain basement 300's I have had a look at this lens, IMO, is the nicest. I have primarily compared with some of those (eg Photax 300mm f5 I have also reviewed) and with my SP 300mm adaptall 54B. Mechanically this lens really is a lovely piece of kit. Focus is super smooth (but a touch light, creeps if lens is held vertically), one up on the focus on my 54B, which I find twitchy and too short in its throw. Hood is nice and snug and a good size, tripod mount is solid. More user friendly and half the weight of my Tair 3, I have no problem carrying it around and had decent success hand held or on a monopod. Optically the lens yields little in sharpness to the 54B, putting similar pics side by side. However the 54B is better wide open, has slightly better contrast, and a better (warmer) colour balance, the adaptamatic being distinctly cool/blue. I would like to be able to add that the 6 element SP 54B was superior in terms of CA - purple fringing - but I can't, because it isn't. PF is a weak point for that lens. The adaptamatic showed significant PF eg on some shots of the backlit castle towers, high contrast road sign: a longitudinal CA susceptibility - the fringing changing colour with slight front/back focus. These simpler optical constructions will, I think, always tend to be prone to some fringing. Stopping down helped. 54B is also designed for good close focus performance. Distant CFD's is a feature of the older lenses, 4-5m is typical, this does much better than that at 2.5m but still short of 54B's 1.4m. It's not a lens I've looked at for close focus really. Compared to the generic brand and preset 300's, most specifically wide open, this was consistently sharper, less prone to coma/halo. Indeed I found this example very usable at f5.6 unlike the generics which really needed to be stopped down - better than indicated by the review below. sample pic - Samsung GX20 jpg, contrast buffed, sharpened to compensate for resizing. There is no PK mount in an adaptamatic fitting, the most common mount that these come with is M42. Nikonistas can search for the F mount, good luck cos they're a bit scarce, but worth the effort to avoid Nikons' infinity focus issues with M42. This lens crops up fairly regularly but is roughly half as common as the adaptall-1 300mm's, whose average price I would put at ~50% more (and 54B is typically 3x-4x the price). The argument between this lens and the adaptall mount 300's probably depends on overall cost, size and weight (795g vs 580g for the CT300, 20cm vs 16cm), and how you like working with M42 mount lenses, which will probably depend on your camera model. On my K-r I habitually work with Av mode, stop down metering. In principle this is fine, in practice the K-r, demands levels of exposure compensation that verge on impractical: I am routinely maxed out at +3eV* (the K5 that replaced the K-r is much better in this respect). I do much better with a PK/PKA mount on an adaptall lens. And in respect of the latter, unlike the consumer zooms where the cost of a PKA means that the value equation can be unfavourable in comparison to a readily available fixed PKA mount equivalent (eg the compact Tokina SD 70-210mm, versus the compact adaptall 70-210mm 58A), in the 300mm prime lens arena there are hardly any 300mm f5.6 PKA mount alternates (the only one I can think of is the uncommon late model tokina SL300) at an equivalent price. In any case once you've got one adaptall lens you're very likely to be interested in getting some more so the PKA mount becomes a more worthwhile investment. However that still leaves a big difference between the cited average price for this and ballpark estimate ~$100-150 for P-KA + CT300/54B. This Adaptamatic is the bargain basement choice. *See my thread on "painted vs Plated mounts". For more on this lens I refer you to Luis Alegria review on mflenses. More pics here; here. UPDATE I have now acquired a nice example of the adaptall version 1 300mm f5.6, which is basically this lens with an adaptall mount, so reluctantly decided to move on the adaptamatic.

Review of: Tamron Adaptall 2x teleconverter 01F by marcusBMG on Thu February 6, 2014 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 43554 Reviews: 9 My impressions of the 01F are similar to the other reviewers, its a good TC, subject to the usual tc limitations. Results from using with several lenses (54B, 104A, 04B...) generally indicate an equal or better resolution of the subject than cropping and enlarging. However as others have remarked it is a bit of a faff swapping around both mounts and TC and in practice I use my "MC7" type macro TC (PKA) more. I have an impression that its results when used for macro eg with the 35-80mm 01A are particularly good, example here. One thing I have encountered with a couple of examples of these is a haze/deterioration on the surface of the element comprising the second group from the back end. This has proved difficult to remove/clean - in fact on one I tried to clean the glass scratched up, must be very soft. It has the appearance of a haze on the surface of the element. This post on mflenses describes the problem with pics. It is something to be aware of if you are shopping for an 01F. Prompted by this, one possibility I have been exploring is using the afflicted 01F as an 18F (1:1 macro extension tube for 90mm 52B/52BB) substitute by removing the optical assembly. The 18F is 45mm extension as opposed to the approx 41mm body of the 01F - almost the same. The assembly can be unscrewed with varying degrees of difficulty depending on how tight the locking sleeve at the lens end has been stuck with thread locker. This seems very feasible, no vignetting, however initial results have suffered from internal reflections/flare. Looking to acquire some flat black paint, will keep you posted... These are common, price indicated is approx typical evilbay (UK) price for a good example, no need to pay more.

Review of: Samyang (Hanimex, Kalimar, Sirius...) macro focuss 28-200mm F4-5.6 by marcusBMG on Wed January 15, 2014 | Rating: 4 View more reviews

Views: 12259 Reviews: 2 Unimpressed with this lens. I thought the IQ at 200mm was acceptable(ish) particularly at middling f's, but at 28mm I can only describe the images as "mushy". So mushy that I was attempting to focus in magnified live view and laughing at the lack of a recognisable in focus position. The lack of resolution rendered the macro mode completely worthless. Oh well;).

Review of: Paragon preset ( no tripod mount ) 300mm F5.6 by marcusBMG on Fri January 3, 2014 | Rating: 6 View more reviews

Views: 5247 Reviews: 1 Tidy, simple, preset tp. It's compactness and light weight are a contrast to many of the other 300's of the same era - why exactly are they built like tanks - a kilo+? Swappable T-mount can be considered a plus, particularly for Nikon users. Nice mechanics, and very round aperture created by 14 blade iris makes nice bokeh, but I have been disappointed with the pics, soft at 5.6, sharpens up steadily at f8, f11. Distinctly the weakest of the various 300's I have had a look at. On the plus side however this lens did not seem particularly prone to fringing, in spite of the simple optical design. The church spire at f11 100% Pentax K-r. NB it was a very windy day. If you see this going for pennies and fancy a play with it well, why not? But overall I think this was a cheap and cheerful option even in its day - the 62mm filter 300mm f5.6's listed here are I think generally better - and better optics are readily available.

Review of: T-mount, preset (Prinz-galaxy) 200mm F4.5 by marcusBMG on Fri January 3, 2014 | Rating: 6 View more reviews

Views: 12355 Reviews: 1 Tidy, simple, preset tp. It's compactness and light weight are a contrast to many of the other tp's of the same era. Swappable T-mount, as I have remarked elsewhere, can be considered a plus, particularly for Nikon users. Good mechanics, and very round aperture created by 13 blade iris makes nice bokeh. More consistent IQ across its aperture range than the 300mm preset I have also reviewed, but still distinctly soft at 4.5, and persistently very dull contrast. On the plus side this lens did not seem particularly prone to fringing, in spite of the simple optical design. Overall I would say not too bad, but I can't see myself using this ahead of my other 200's, particularly my adaptall 04B. If you see this going cheap and fancy a play with it well, why not, in itself it's user friendly. But I wouldn't pay much more than a tenner and you might prefer to go up a price range and get st like a Tamron, Meyer Optic/Pentacon ... sample 100% crops at f4.5, f8, pentax K-r

Review of: Tamron preset, T-mount ( Nestar ) 400mm F6.9. by marcusBMG on Wed January 1, 2014 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 15322 Reviews: 2 Review for tamron Nestar. This is cute: a classic long-barrel telescope type TP that cuts down its clumsy proportions for storage and carrying by unscrewing and packing into itself. It's a preset, T-mount lens just like many of its contemporaries, but a bit slower than the common f6.3 400's at f6.9. Optically it is comfortably superior to the [s]couple of[/s] numerous examples of those f6.3 400's that have passed through my hands. I am particularly impressed with the wide open performance. I was unenamoured of the f6.3's in spite of some good sharpness because of the desireability of stopping down, making them effectively even slower, but this Tamron is eminently usable at f6.9. In fact I can suggest this is as good as it gets for lenses of this type and era which is why I offer a 10 for sharpness. My test shots of the channel marker on my G1 show at best only slight improvement f6.9-f8-f11. I was also impressed with the relative lack of fringing - just a thin smidgen of LoCA on the backlit castle turrets (my test for CA). Some fringing is persistent, however, and OOF point highlights show purple. Contrast is dull, but that's normal for lenses and coatings of this era. Preset aperture works well, two easily graspable wide collars. These multibladed iris's (12 in this case) normally give a very round aperture and good bokeh. No hood or tripod mount, just an inset bush** that is an obsolete non-standard 5/16th UNF thread (update:some at least of these nestars were supplied with a 5/16"UNF to 1/4" UNC button adapter) which doesn't accept normal tripod threads and which is too close to the lens end to conveniently allow mounting on any of my quick release plates. I am going to have to DIY something (UPDATE see pic 5 above). I note that even when screwed tight, there is still a miniscule but real bit of play in the joint between the front and back sections of the lens. And like most lenses of this type the CFD is a distant 9m / 30', although I have managed to improve that to 6.9m by loosening the 3 grub screws on the focus ring and unscrewing the distance scale ring a few mm to extend the focus throw. I find I am using this lens more on my mirrorless bodies. It is sharp enough to cope well with the 2x crop factor of my G1, and the 20Mpx of my NX20. Easy to use the rotating lcd while perched on a wall or low tripod, accurate focus using lcd/evf magnification. The split prism in my K-r is usable but tends to be on the edge of blanking, I was resorting to live view but it's not as user friendly (half a dozen button pushes vs one or two) . And to cap it all, infinity focus isn't quite there on my K-r (but OK on the G1 - just due to the MFT-PK adapter). Not sure why - possibly wear at the joint causing the lens sections to gain a fraction of a mm more than they should. My only (but effective) solution* so far has been to loosen (screw in) about half a turn at the joint, thus regaining that few tenths of a mm or so. UPDATE second and third examples of this lens had no looseness or focus problem. For more on this lens I recommend Luis Alegrias review, on mflenses, in fact it was his assessment and pics that prompted my purchase. He does mention that stiff focus can cause the lens to unscrew - I had the same complaint actually, but a determined cleaning of the focusing helicoid fixed things. Marked down overall by handling niggles, weak contrast and technical limitations especially that CFD of 9m. There are many situations where you would want to be closer than that, photographing small birds at a feeder for example. An extension tube would fix the latter situation - with an ~18mm tube the focus extended from ~4.5m to just under 10m measured with my G1. But in any case this is a keeper. If you see one at the price cited, snap it up. I didn't know these existed until by happenstance two cropped up on fleabay in the same week. Not seen any before, and only very occasionally since. Pentax K-r Pentax K5, bean bag in hide: 1:1 pixel peep crops f6.9, f8, f11. More pics posted in 300mm+ lens club - posts `12286; 12313 *Infinity focus on this structurally simple lens is adjusted by loosening the grub screws on the front end and rotating this on its thread. The helicoid can be separated without concern. ** I have now seen examples of the nestar with an adaptor button to 1/4" UNC thread that screws into this bush for tripod mounting. Probably this was a normal accessory supplied with the lens. However it is too small to make a very good tripod mounting, albeit better than nothing. Minor updates 4/15. Review of Tamron FO-69 400mm f6.9 I have now had an opportunity to check out the normal version. Optically it looks identical and has same dimensions at same focus etc. My impression is that this lens is slightly softer than the nestar but has better contrast. The former impression is probably merely sample variation, the latter may be attributable to this being a later one with better coatings. Between the two, this lens is easier to mount on a tripod because of the built in TM, but otherwise has rigid dimensions inconvenient for carrying, and inferior handling - I prefer the larger rings on the nestar. Like the nestar this lens has a "cheat" to improve the CFD - you can unscrew the front end a few mm to reduce it to around 6.5m. Equal recommendation. Couple of sample pics, probably f8/f11, K5 top (crop), samsung NX20 below.

Review of: Jupiter 11A 4/135 135mm F4 by marcusBMG on Wed December 25, 2013 | Rating: 9 View more reviews

Views: 97078 Reviews: 14 My Jupiter 11A was a fortuitous purchase, the item described as merely "camera lens". Recognising the lens for what it is, I put in a modest bid and won. Not so pleased on arrival, a mystery rainbow (visible in my pic above) under the objective proved to be possible incipient separation of the second/third elements, not something that could be cleaned off. However I cannot detect any effect on IQ, so .:). Arrived with original caps and custom screw-on hood. I provided the updated description and pics above based on this example. I can mention that although I stated infinity focus was fine after swapping the M42 for PK, with more use I think am very slightly short of infinity focus - fixable in 20 mins in the garage but in practice it's not really a problem. With some pics in hand I am obliged to join this little chorus of appreciation. The lens seems to have an affinity actually for the light during these dull winter days. Particularly impressed with this wide open - only marginally softer, lovely bokeh from the very round aperture produced by the 12 blade iris, very good contrast. You can compare the first pic with pics taken with Panagor and CZJ 135's on my review of the Panagor. In any case there are really detailed comparisons of sonnars and 135's elsewhere see for example: 135mm sonnar lenses tested (including 11A) East bloc 135mm Sonnars comparison The noticeable thing for me is the Jupiters' slightly warmer/greener tone, all else is pretty equal between the CZJ and the Jupiter. Particularly recommended for Nikonistas who would otherwise be stuck either short of infinity focus or with an optical adapter with a fixed mount M42 like the CZJ. I was going to offer an 8 just to leaven the ten-parade with a bit more objectivity... but 9 will do. f4, Pentax K-r, 100% crop. http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3340crop.jpg" alt=" http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3340crop.jpg" class="bb-image" /> Mostly f4, resized jpg's http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3586-800.JPG" alt=" http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3586-800.JPG" class="bb-image" /> crop http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3604-800.JPG" alt=" http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3604-800.JPG" class="bb-image" /> http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3555-800.JPG" alt=" http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3555-800.JPG" class="bb-image" /> http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3357-800.JPG" alt=" http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3357-800.JPG" class="bb-image" />

Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 CF Macro (17A) 35-70mm F3.5 by marcusBMG on Mon December 2, 2013 | Rating: 9 View more reviews

Views: 71080 Reviews: 8 This lens replaced its predecessor, the non-constant aperture f3.5-4.5 09A, in 1982-3. The two lenses are very similar and looking at the optical diagrams their derivation from the vaunted 35-80mm f2.8 01A is pretty clear. I have compared mine primarily to the 01A and to a tokina RMC 35-70mm that I have also reviewed. Off the card I have to say that most of the time I can look at pics of the same subject side by side and struggle to distinguish the 17A from the 01A. Their rendition is strikingly similar, particularly in colour and tone, and I find little discrepancy in sharpness and contrast. Both tamrons rather showed up the tokina, and I prefer their warm tone to the tokinas' cooler tone. Additionally I have to say that I would give the 17A the edge in ergonomics/mechanics. I like the raised knobs on the zoom ring, very easy to feel for, and I suspect 17A might be less prone to some of my 01A's faults: play in the mechanisms, tendency for the zoom-macro linkage to be sticky (on both these tamron lenses there is a connection between the zoom and focus. As you focus into macro, the zoom is automatically shifted from 35mm to 70/80mm to match: "There is no push button or macro ring which must be turned to enter the macro mode. The user merely has to continuously turn the focus ring in order to focus from infinity to the minimum focus distance for macro work. Tamron calls this feature "continuous focusing" or CF. While turning the focus ring, the zoom ring will automatically turn as necessary until the zoom ring is at the 80mm zoom setting." adaptall-2.com) It is happenstance, however, that my 17A is virtually mint while a couple of my 01A's are showing their age and wear and tear. 17A is is pretty common, more so than 01A (and 09A), and can nominally be obtained for, say, half the price of 01A (both lenses vary quite a lot in price and can be acquired pretty cheaply with a bit of hunting - tenner or so in the case of 17A!). For me, since I already have PKA mounts, this lens was rock-bottom dollar. Sample pics: scsambrook took this. Close focus pics with 01F 2x TC here. sample landscape pic at 70mm here. Test pics at 70mm: MF supertest - Castle. I don't think I am demeaning the lens by referring to it as "01A-lite". The SP 01A is a bit larger and heavier, has f2.8 (at 35mm...), an extra 10mm zoom and 1:2.5 macro vs 1:2.8 and probably does have an edge in quality. But given the quality, availability and usual price of 17A - recommended!

Review of: Photax-Paragon/Promura/Kaligar/Hanimar... 300mm F5 by marcusBMG on Thu October 10, 2013 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 16163 Reviews: 1 Chunky M42 TP, classic and classy metal 'n glass construction - even the focus sleeve is milled aluminium, faster than the average at f5. I browsed the net to try to get a handle on who might have made it but without success. I did notice a 200mm f3.5and a 135 f2.8 that were clearly of the same model range - same shape/look, markings and focus sleeve. Larger and heavier than my Tamron 54B (300mm f5.6), but smaller and much lighter than eg a Tair or the Pentacon/Meyer 300mm f4. Mechanically good, I am enamoured of the smooth focus whose throw is for me is a good balance, short enough to get there, large enough to fine tune comfortably. One up on the Tamron for that. It operates like a preset lens on DSLR with the two collars, the second collar being the A-M switch. Personally I prefer a button/slider switch, I was fumbling a bit with this.... practice makes perfect I guess. Nice hood, but another gripe is the lack of a tripod mount. I was finagling a 72mm collar to fit just in front of the focus sleeve with a bunch of packing. Initial sharpness impressions quite favourable, contrast however definitely benefitting from a good boost in PP, see pic. Aimed at one of usual subjects with my K-r, the channel marker in the estuary, this lens returned images as sharp or sharper than my zoom TP's and equal to my 54B. More careful comparison against 54B on my Lumix G1 started to show up the lens limitations, starting with that CFD of 4.5m as against 1.5m. I did try 60mm of extension tubes, that reduced the cfd to ~ 2m; and infinity focus to around 3m! Scrutinising the picsof the spire at eg 50% there was nothing much between this and 54B, but at 100% (and 12Mpx) 54B is distinctly better: this M42 lens showing that lack of fine definition and a bit of fuzziness or "glow" of a lens just not quite as well optically balanced/coated, particularly at f5. There was a clear improvement in IQ from f5 to 5.6, and again to f8; between choosing a faster shutter or stoppping down I felt the balance lay with stopping down. I did notice significant CA too, bit of PF on a couple of pics, and a significant red fringe on a castle turret that was persistent in spite of closing the aperture down: R-G complementary fringing. No major fringing on the cockerel on the church spire though, and it should be mentioned my 54B is not great re CA either. Lumix G1 Overall I can say this is not top IQ, being distinctly exposed by the demands of a MFT sensor, and showing its age re fringing and contrast, but it's inherently pretty sharp, bokeh is nice and smooth, its contrast is readily buffed and it did better than OK on APS-C. If you are looking for an old style TP for eg a bit of birding/wildlife/ etc and spot this at the price quoted, IMO it's well worth a look. Can I have some chips please? Young herring gull learning to ply the tourist trade. Pentax K-r f8. Crop, contrast buffed, resize and sharpening. UPDATE: Hanimar and Promura have similar performance characteristics. Marked aberrations rating down a notch - persistent LoCA. Between the three I can suggest that the Photax was the best and the Promura the weakest performer but that can be taken with a pinch of salt - may just reflect the better light and faster shutter speeds earlier in the year.

Review of: Preset Tele-Astranar, Spiratone, Photax, Prinz-gal 400mm F6.3 by marcusBMG on Thu October 3, 2013 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 48419 Reviews: 10 UPDATE 1/16. I have changed my recommendation to no due to the prevalence of hazed rear elements in the examples of these I have seen. Look for superior Soligor, Tokina RMC/renames or Tele-tokina/renames 400mm 6.3's instead. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My example of a 400mm/f6.3 preset is labelled Impakt (no I'd never heard of it either). It is 12.5"/31cm long, front and mount sections conveniently unscrew if eg cleaning is required. Pic above shows it next to a TX mount tokina made Vivitar 400mm f5.6 (top). I find myself echoing the other reviews: relatively light (0.7kg vs 1.4kg for the Viv), good TM (but no hood on this one), surprisingly good sharpness specifically when stopped down, preset works well, focus throw about 300 deg, the whole front end rotates. The iris has lots of blades ( I counted 13) and forms a very round aperture. 72mm filter. The CFD is a minus, too large - a tad under 8m. Performance wise there appears to be a noticeable gain in sharpness from f6.3 to f8 and again to f11. I was checking the focus on the rose with live view: DoF at 8m is 10cm at f6.3, 17cm at f11. It was in the evening shutter speeds were slow. Resized crops f6.3 f8 f11, Samsung GX20 14MPx - just an indication. I like this, 400mm has really isolated the rose. As is common with lenses (coatings) of this era contrast benefits from a good boost on the pc. This lens does not seem to have the CA problems described by ProfHankD with his Astranar. However with simple old optical designs like this there is always going to be an expectation of some. This was at f11 on a cloudy day. But the resolution is pretty good and this clearcut purple fringe is more readily PP'ed away. I have to say that pretty much I don't have a lens that isn't showing at least a smidgen of fringing when pixel-peeping pics of the castle backlit like this (I think with focus on the person and front of the tower the edges of the tower tend to be just back of the focus point and this is particulary unhelpful in terms of CA). I can add that even without a hood flare did not appear to be a problem in this pic. However we shall see when the sun comes out.... The essentially slow nature of the lens means it starts running into its limitations when the light is less than bright. One for snapping the birdlife/spying on the kids while relaxing on the verandah on a summer afternoon...? But a worthwhile lens at the price IMO if you can find a good, unhazed one. Versions can on occasion be picked up very cheaply but the price cited is probably par - typical auction (UK) bid is around £30, tends to be bumped up by resellers assiduously trying to corner the market. Don't pay the 70-80-more they try to charge! [SIZE=3]update: Chapter 2. This one was labelled D&N. slightly different barrel but basically the same, certainly optically. Pic above. Performance wise I have nothing to add from checking out his one, it showed similar characteristics, decent sharpness, benefitted from stopping down. Took a nice sharp image of the estuary marker (1/2 km out) at f11 on my K-r. [/SIZE][SIZE=1][SIZE=3]update 2: Chapter 3. Photax branded. If anything slightly sharper than the previous two. But this one suffered from what I think is a not uncommon fault with these: a whitening/haze on the rear element. This does not come off! Difficult to determine precisely how much effect on performance this was having. I would say negligibly so in bright conditions. But something to watch out for. Sample pic posted here [/SIZE] [/SIZE]

Review of: Tokina RMC (aka Bushnell. Spiratone, Soligor) Macr 70-220mm F3.5 by marcusBMG on Mon September 23, 2013 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 16262 Reviews: 2 What I picked up on online in the forums* is that Tokina produced this lens in the late1970's as a riposte to the arrival on the market of the first Vivitar Series one telephotos. But there wasn't much info to be had, just an intimation that it's a good lens. Its certainly imposing on first look (I use french for greater emphasis): construction imp-ec-able!! Looks and feels like a premium lens, down to the sensuous fit of the metal push on cap (though I prefer a clip-on that doesn't knock off!), particularly given the mint condition of my example. The built in hood and tripod bush are plusses, the latter more of a necessity, but I am obliged to note a slight tendency to zoom creep. It is indeed a large and weighty old beast even amongst vintage telephotos at 1.4kg/3lb. The pic above shows it lined up against my Komine VS1 and a Tamron 19AH, lenses which can be considered the competition in this particular genre. Optically, I'm afraid the lens didn't quite measure up to the first impressions - lacking contrast and prone to fringing/flare/halos wide open, which was not what I was looking for from this large constant f3.5 lens. There is a big jump in IQ in one click of the aperture ring: f3.5 to f5.6 (why no half click?), one-and-a-third stops, and I was noticing the lack of definition and contrast at f3.5 while focussing with magnified focus assist on my Lumix G1. Contrast overall is a bit weak, though easily bumped in PP. But colours are good, tending to blue tone off the card, and at f8 I would say this lens is not far off matching the VS1 and the Tamron in resolution. Note that because my example came in MD mount I have been limited to using my G1, 2x crop factor (140-440mm equiv) with mft-md adapter. church: 70mm; boat: 135mm; turret: 220mm. crops: f3.5 f5.6 f8. focal length: 70mm crops: f3.5 f5.6 f8. 135mm crops: f3.5 f5.6 f8. 220mm This lens' USP is its macro mode. This is a bit reminiscent of a couple of Tamrons (40A, 28A). The second collar in front of the aperture collar is rotated and you can see the lens visibly extending. However, unlike the tamrons, this is not merely a macro extension of the lens body to move the whole optical assemblage further away. The rear group in the tokina is unaffected. The only other lens that I have seen changing the relationship of the main optical groups to achieve macro is the early adaptall Tamron QZ250-M 80-250mm telephoto. In use I have to say the mode is not the easiest to wield, full macro requiring near enough 360 deg rotation of the distinctly stiff collar, but achieving focus with this ring was pretty precise (the focus sleeve has no real effect). The result is a powerful macro mode that can achieve relatively high magnification. At 220mm the closest working distance was around 40cm/16" giving a ratio probably a bit better than the usual 1:4. However at 70mm the CWD is ...near enough zero! This is clearly the intended mode, and with the zoom ring at its extended position there is no possibility of (downward) creep to ruin focus. This is therefore a better than 1:2 capable lens though there is no formal indication of the macro ratios. I took these test shots at ~8cm working distance, which is getting pretty much as close as is practical for most circumstances. Given the length of the lens this equates to a focus distance from the sensor of about 35cm, and a ratio I estimate at 1:2 - image almost identical in magnification to the comparison shots with Tamron 90mm macro 52B at 1:2 (which is, for comparison, CFD ~ 40cm, CWD ~ 23cm). The images weren't identical in IQ though, wide open IQ from the tok was again poor, at f8 -11 decent. 100% crops of 10 euro note, f11 (lumix G1 at 5mpx). An interesting lens then, distinctive macro mode, good enough at middling f's to be considered against 19AH, and VS1's, uncommon and distinctive enough to be a collectable item. Resolution rating: 5/10 at f3.5, 8/10 middling f's. At some point I'll try to do a mount swap, cannabilising a PK off another RMC lens, and check it out on my pentax. I have a notion larger sensors will suit this lens better.... I took a sequence of pics of a local mussel fisherman washing his catch. 120mm f8 30% crop 220mm f8 100% crop More pics of the lens on allphotolenses.com (unrated). More example pics here. *poster pbfacts on manual focus forum: "This lens was mde by Tokina to be THE competitor of the vivitar (kiron) S1 70/210. There were 3 versions of the lens BEWARE : The tokina and the soligor versions are different -Tokina : 16 elements / mat finish -Soligor CD : 15 elements / glossy finish -Soligor MC (or cd depends) : 15 elements / mat finish ..." Another poster has a Spiratone branded version, and there are Bushnell and, as mentioned above, Soligor branded versions.

Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 SP (27A) 28-80mm F3.5-4.2 by marcusBMG on Mon September 16, 2013 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 73441 Reviews: 15 I didn't get on with my first 27A and sold it. I have now acquired another one for the collection and had a second look. Pic shows it lined up with some of the other mid range adaptall zooms - L to R: 01A (35-80mm); 27A (28-80mm); 17A (35-70mm); 44A (28-70mm); 59A (28-70mm). It's the largest and weightiest of them, and the only one besides 01A with the SP designation. First thing I can say is that with split prism VF screen and a 1.36x VF magnifier, focussing issues have mostly alleviated. I am not the only one reporting finding this lens to be not the easiest one to focus first time round so I think that aspect is real. Second thing is that in unfavourable circumstances this lens is susceptible to flare. 55mm, wide open, with a basic 67mm rubber hood giving an inch+ of shade (cropped and resized but illustrates the case). Sun was up above my left shoulder, a bit in front. Stopping down to f5.6 produced considerable improvement. However I was even noticing significant difference in contrast with the sun behind - 100% crops from jpg, 50mm: I would definitely be inclined to associate lack of focussing definition with lack of contrast, which goes hand in hand with flare. So I tried to get a look-see by using my M42 mount with PK adapter thus giving full manual aperture control. I have to say that I couldn't really see it by eye. There are three clicks to f5.6 and the most obvious change was the natural dimming due to closing the iris. But for a more general assessment I should swap back in the original VF screen and take off the Tenpa 1.36x.... If you examine the aperture ring you will notice there is actually an extra click below f3.5. F3.5 is marked with a dot, the ring can be moved one more notch adjacent to "3.5" and if you inspect the iris it is opening up a bit more. However testing for change in exposure at 28mm produced no change. It is common for an iris to open up bit more as a zoom is extended to higher focal lengths to reduce the variation in f-stop. When zoomed with wide open aperture, the shutter speed was only significantly dropping at around 60mm. The f stop on this lens is probably constant up to around 50mm+. Third, that this lens is impressive at 28mm. Sharp from the off, test pics shot at f3.5 - f11 showed consistently good resolution. At f3.5 this lens comfortably bested my Tokina RMC and Sigma Miniwide II 28mm primes at f2.8, and yielded little in IQ at equal f stops. At the wide end this lens deserves its "SP". Fourth is that it's not quite so good at the longer focal lengths. Softness creeps in at the wide open apertures and even down a stop, I thought that eg the cheapo plastic late adaptall 28-70mm 59A was edging it in some comparison shots. But IQ continues to improve down to f11. The test crops in the linked review in the description above are, IMO, very representative. These crops f5.6 OtC jpg's (80mm and 70mm). Fifth I wasn't overly impressed with 27A close up. It was decent but in a comparison I did it didn't keep up with 01A or 17A, or (again) even 59A. However it does have the advantage of close focus capability over just about all of its focal range, unlike 01A and 17A whose mechanisms will push the focal length towards the long end as you focus into macro. It's a bit odd, though, the stop at ~33mm, have to get used to it and remember to move off 28mm to get the CF ability. And I did like the colours - lots of brightness off the card, very true. It's actually a pretty good lens IMO, with wide angle performance a notable highlight (sharpness ratings: 9 at wide angle, 7 at long end, average 8). Also better than many adaptalls IME re fringing/CA. I think it's just a bit disappointing that as the successor to the vaunted 01A, it is in many respects a bit of a backward step, not an advance. Certainly not to be preferred to 01A, but in some respects it can complement it. Price cited reflects typical ebay price UK (in fact if you bide your time there's plenty of these around and one can be picked up for peanuts) - you get more than enough lens and overall, I think, more than a sufficiency of performance for that money.

Review of: Soligor CD4 / Vivitar P/KA + R/XR 2x Auto Teleconverter by marcusBMG on Fri September 13, 2013 | Rating: 6 View more reviews

Views: 17343 Reviews: 3 Mine is branded vivitar, pretty sure its the same, looks identical. Its a 4 element design, and I would say the black painted mount is indicative of an early PKA TC. The ricoh pin is very rounded - no problem. Only tried this so far wth a tamron 104A 75-250mm on my samsung GX20 (=K20D). Didn't manage to get A mode working with any lens, wondered if the black paint might be a factor*. Disassembled but couldn't see any problem with the contacts. Interesting how strongly the tc affected the colour tone. Difficult to avoid softening due to shake at infinity and 750mm equiv (250 x 2 x 1.5 crop factor) - I was using the tripod unextended on a wall with a macro rail to stabilise and balance lens + camera. TC's do have a bit of a mix'n match character, working better with some lenses than others. These two crops are respectively the clock tower at 250mm/f5.6 and then at 125mm approx +TC. The tone again is the most noticeable difference, a marked loss of contrast, sharpness holding up quite well. Noted some PF (evident in crop of channel marker) with the tc but not bad...and could be due to the lens. If I play with this some more I may offer a rating.. *UPDATE I subsequently acquired a set of Jessups PKA extension tubes which also have a black anodised flange - same problem not registering aperture on the Samsung. However on my K-r - no problem and in fact the issue has already been recognised in the reviews for the Jessups tubes. The solution is indeed to scrape off the paint opposite the 7th (data) pin on the camera mount. This problem seems to be specific to K10D, K20D and the Samsung equivalents (and possibly other models). Tried it with a Vivitar series 1 70-210mm; for me results were only acceptable when well stopped down. Not recommended - get a "MC7".

Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 SP (28A) 28-135mm F4-4.5 by marcusBMG on Thu July 25, 2013 | Rating: 9 View more reviews

Views: 36917 Reviews: 2 Update 6/15. with further use I have upgraded this lens. In particular some comparison pics I did against the DA 18-135mm with my K5 showed this lens performs very well. This lens was only made through the mid-eighties and isn't very common. According to a forum posting I noticed it retailed for £239, so it wasn't cheap. It offers a wider focal range than the 35-135mm 22A and 40A, though on APS-C the wide angle benefit is not great (~42mm vs ~50mm), and is similar to these in many respects. I have compared mainly to the 22A (not having the 40A), and also to my tokina ATX 28-135mm, and referenced against SMC-M primes. 28A and 22A have similar looks and feel, both with 67mm filter and a "stovepipe" shape, hefty metal 'n glass character, single ring focus and zoom. 28A is more compact at 28mm, but extends further when zoomed. Focus throw on both is around a quarter turn, on both I found focus to lack "snap", particularly at the shorter focal lengths, and would lean on my split prism, etc. One thing to bear in mind: the lenses are not accurately parfocal. Using 5x magnification on my Samsung NX20 best focus (on the castle at about 100mm distance) moved from infinity at 135mm to ~5m on the distance scale while zooming to 28mm. on the 28A Both have larger close focus distances (CFD) than many lenses of the era including the Tokina (2m/1.8m vs 0.5-1.5m). Mechanics and construction are up to Tamrons typical high standards. 28A's zoom had no tendency to creep, but was occasionally a tad stiff to zoom in. With both lenses I was pretty diligent about using a hood, however in spite of the large objective glass I didn't notice any unwarranted proneness to flare. As walkarounds I like both lenses and felt that image results were broadly comparable, particularly in terms of sharpness. The most noticeable distinction is 28A's slightly cool tone compared with 22A's determinedly warm colour bias. This gave 28A more consistent colour saturation. Both lenses were softer in terms of sharpness wide open, but better I would say than many, certainly better than the kit lens in this respect. Both lenses were well controlled in terms of CA (unlike the Tokina) , but 28A did show slight complementary fringing on the backlit turrets of the castle at f4 while 22A showed none. At middling focal lengths and f8 28A compared well side by side with a SMC-M 50mm. At 28mm f8, side by side with SMC-M 28mm at f4, there was a clearer, but small, discrepancy in favour of the prime. Side by side with a kit lens at 28mm f5.6, 28A was clearly sharper. Test shots taken on my pentax k-r with P-KA mounts. NB while I have tried to be methodical to get worthwhile comparisons, I am not claiming scientific rigour here - just an indication. Apart from the wider focal range 28A's USP is its distinctive macro mode. Unlike 22A (and other adaptalls), but like 40A this is not at the longest but the shortest focal length 28mm. According to Adaptall-2.org this was a late design addition and inspection confimed the mode is a helicoid that moves the whole lens body forward. In practice the mode is not limited to 28mm, but no magnification advantage is gained from zooming: the CFD rapidly increasing (see below). However the very different perspective gives a very a different look as the sample pics illustrate, and although in principle the DoF is independent of the focal length at a particular ratio, in practice the background definition is far greater. Crops below for comparison. Performance wise I was expecting 28A to show better than 22A from such a significantly closer macro distance and this proved to be the case with the flower shots I took, consistently better resolution and contrast, and also stronger colours, specifically blues and greens (but 28A not as good, on first comparison, as my just acquired Sigma 24mm Super Wide II, which also offers 1:4 ratio from similar working distances). I was not expecting 28A to compare as favourably as it did with the 90mm 52B, and it also did well with my 2x macro TC thus giving 1:2. 20% crops illustrate the[S] field of view[/S] perspective (see here for detailed tech discussion) comparison between 28A and 22A at the same magnification (and also the colour bias). Example 100% flower crop at f16, 1:4. Levels adjusted. Compare with similar crop for 22A on its review. And with KAF (= vivitar) 2x macro TC Be good if one of you macro veterans could offer an assessment.... Since the macro mode merely moves the lens body I checked how the working distance changes. I measured the CWD at about 175cm (this was consistent) in normal mode. With the macro extension engaged all the way this reduced to ~110cm at 135mm, ~62cm at 80mm, ~32cm at 50mm and ~9cm (= 1:4 macro) at 28mm. So there is no difficulty in using this to improve the CFD eg at those portrait (on APS-C) focal lengths 50-80mm but it does seem a bit of a contrivance, and the focussing zone at 1:4, 135mm reduces to only a few meters. However there is no such option on the 22A, 1.8m CFD is your lot except at 135mm. The bokeh sample pic below was taken at 135mm f8 using the macro mode to improve the CFD. I thought the bokeh on both similar and OK, no more. My overall impression of 28A is of a solidly, but perhaps unexceptionally, performing lens. Between 28A and 22A, I thought that 28A was a bit better from 28mm through the middle of its focal range but that 22A was actually a tad sharper at 135mm. On average it had better balanced colours, and its macro was, for me, more capable and adds versatility. It also outperformed the Tokina ATX. I would rate it a worthy member of the Tamron SP range and recommendable. I suggest 8/10. Californian blogger and pentax user Hin Man has also posted on this lens: http://www.techtheman.com/2009/03/hiking-with-tamron-sp-28-135mm-adaptall.html 135mm f8, OtC resized 50%, K-r. Same gull imaged with 22A see review to compare.

Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 SP (13A) 24-48mm F3.5-3.8 by marcusBMG on Sun June 30, 2013 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 40336 Reviews: 3 Bit surprised there isn't already a review of this lens but its not that common - I see examples crop up on ebay (UK) fairly regularly but infrequently, say once a quarter on average. According to this list it was made from 1980-87 and was one of the more expensive SP lenses. I only had this example in my hands for a short while but here are my impressions. It's a sleekly compact (significantly smaller than eg the Kiron/Vivitar Series 1 24-48mm) wide angle zoom, similar dimensions but longer than the 01B 24mm (pic). 2 ring zoom, the rings have different rubber but I think I might have found it easier to operate by touch if the rings were a little more prominent/raised. Otherwise its handling, and mechanics, are typically tamron excellent. It comes with a bayonet fitting cap and normally a hood too I think. If you are lacking this cap then the end thread size is 58mm, and at this point I have a gripe about the petal shaped front end. I spent a good 20 minutes trying to screw on a 58-62mm step up ring without crossing the threads (I did eventually get this on sufficiently to stay put) but the gaps in the circumference due to the petal shape defeated me. (update: a second example of this lens was not threaded internally at the front end so no possibility of attaching screw on hood or ring). It's not clear to me why it was made like this, its 24mm not a fisheye, I really can't see that there might be vignetting issues (but I could be wrong). My walkaround snaps were pleasing: sharp, strong colours, good contrast. Not as sharp, IME, as my recently acquired Sigma Superwide II 24mm buts thats really sharp. I did experience flare and reading online I think thats an issue, which makes my gripe above, given the desirability of attaching a hood, a bit more pertinent. Perhaps a bit of modding of a 62mm petal hood from China would do the trick, the specific hood is pretty wide (pic above pulled off ebay) but designed for FF, vignetting probably not a problem on crop factor dslr's. Abberrations wise I didn't suffer any purple fringing but did notice a smidgen of complementary fringing (pic) on a couple of shots of the castle (whose turrets are always backlit in the middle of the day). 100% crop, a rear turret slightly OoF Its CFD of 60cm is a lot larger than the Sigma, or the 01B, so close focus isn't a forte of this lens. I took quite a few pics with catch-in focus, with slightly mixed results. But my impression is that CIF works best with fast primes like my SMC fifties. With zooms the slower apertures and corespondingly larger DoF wide open means its not too surprising, I think, that I get some OoF results, with significant discrepancy between focusing in and focusing out. Also significant; this lens is not accurately parfocal so focus can't be set more accurately at 48mm, and then zoom out. I tend to think that 2 ring zooms work better if they are parfocal. Although my usage was limited, I saw enough to say this lens made a strongly favourable impression: a worthy member of the Tamron SP pantheon. Although you might think it's "only" a 2x zoom, in terms of field of view this still covers a very useful approx 28deg of zoom span on APSC. For comparison a 3x 70-210m covers just 15deg of zoom span (nice demo and slider calculator here). I'll pencil in a 8/10 and refer you to these other assessments/pics: (Hin Man, pentax user and blogger in California). http://www.techtheman.com/2010/06/tamron-sp-24-48mm-f35-38-adaptall-2-13a.html http://forum.mflenses.com/tamron-sp-13a-24-48mm-t57895.html http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrlkres/6235074211/ Note: the price cited is not an actual one but reflects my impression of average ebay price FYI. UPDATES 4/15. 9/15 I have acquired another example of this lens and have been using it on my K5 and most recently on a Samsung NX20. General usage has reinforced the quality impression at 24mm end. However it came up a bit short when I compared it at 48mm to my SMC-A 50mm f1.7. Outdoors I haven't really suffered from flare, though it is nice to have the EW-63II hood see above. However I used this to take some pics of lenses for sale indoors and the bounced flash was producing significant flare. Handling wise I do find I am fumbling a bit feeling for the zoom ring and, on the mirrorless cameras, the aperture ring. Latterly I have done a more considered 24mm comparison between this lens, the 24mm 01B and a 24mm Sigma Superwide II. In summary: the superwide was comfortably the best of these, sharpest wide open, most consistent across the frame. 13A was about the weakest wide open, particularly off centre frame, and had more CA. 13A showed the most improvement stopping down, almost matching the Superwide at f8 and had distinctive, high contrast and warmer rendering - contrast is a strength of the lens. 13A wasn't quite 24mm - slightly less field of view in comparison to the 24's. More like 25mm! Red outline shows crop, red dot is focus point (in practice the lenses were at infinity). Click on the test strips to see full sized 4928 x 2310px (~2MB). Marked down a notch. Sharpness pushing 9/10 stopped down at 24mm end, 7.5/10 48mm end, CA alleviates stopped down, bokeh ok, and the richness of the colour and contrast is what makes the lens IMO. The rarity of full frame zooms that go to 24mm gives this lens a certain cachet and it has real quality to go with. Update 2. another example of this lens had similar performance. Test crops at 28mm, f3.5, f5.6, f8, f11 click on the composite image to pull up the full size - 3.4MB (actually I suspect focus is slightly off for the 13A in the first 24mm test crop above).

Review of: Kiron Matchmate MC 2x by marcusBMG on Fri June 21, 2013 | Rating: 6 View more reviews

Views: 8483 Reviews: 1 To TC or not to TC, that is the question?? A question I try to apply to a couple of Kiron Matchmates, 2x and 1.5x, and a Tokina RMC x2 doubler. One point of view is that the goalposts have moved since vintage TC's like these were made. Back then they were competing with an enlarger, these days the benchmark is the quality obtained from resizing the image by resampling on the PC. Enlarging is the equivalent of clicking the zoom-in icon. Resampling uses mathematical algorithms to create new closely matching pixels to make the image larger. If the TC doesn't make that cut (of at least matching the IQ of a resampled image) there isn't really much point to it. Another point of view is that the previous point of view ignores practical considerations of utility, circumstance and cost. The most subjective POV says that the only POV that matters is whether the photographer is happy with the results. I'm not playing advocate, I have merely been playing with these TC's myself and felt it would be useful to put these notions and some links in one place. If you are less familiar with the pros and cons of using a TC, there is plenty on the web including (recommended): http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/tc3.html http://www.gyes.eu/photo/photostart.htm (click Tips 'n Tricks - teleconverters) and a bit of googling will take you to numerous other informative pages. One I found was this thread: http://forum.mflenses.com/teleconverter-comparison-tamron-01f-vs-vivitar-macro-t38993.html which was interesting because the contributors tried to make some reasonably objective assessments of what some vintage TC's can and can't do, as well as debating "POV1" . So how does this Kiron x2 matchmate do? Well it seemed to make sense to try it with a kiron lens - a decent 80-200mm f4. And with some primes including my 300mm f2.8. And I made comparisons between the TC's (and with tamrons' 01F). My experience: very mixed results. I got some terrible pics with the 80-200mm Kiron - flare and PF where circumstances were conducive to these problems. None of my shots of Conwy Castle met the objective benchmark of matching an enlarged image, though a number didn't look too bad, particularly once PP had buffed up the contrast. Best results were of subjects where the main measure was of the sharpness of the result as in the crop of the estuary marker below, and when well stopped down (f8 on lens = f16: really slow!). And close up work showed a bit of promise but I am a macro neophyte and not set up to properly evaluate that aspect.... . Overall I can say the TC held sharpness pretty well, particularly with the primes, but loss of contrast, colour and overall IQ was too often too great. It was clearly inferior in these respects to the RMC x2 and tamron 01F x2, where I was able to make a comparison with the same lens. A couple of example crops...off the card jpg. Both Kiron 80-200mm on my G1 200mm f8 (=800mm with x2 crop factor) As good as it got. I have a notion that the dullish evening light and atmospherics agreed with the lens+tc combo and came out OK in spite of the slow shutter (1/40th at f5.6) Objective criteria sugest that tc's have only three ratings: pass, fail and a borderline rating squeezed in between. At best I can only put this TC, based on my experience, into the borderline category. I shall tentatively translate that into a 6/10 rating solely to benefit those browsing the TC's listing. My impression is that the 7 element designs like the Tokina RMC are the ones to go for rather than this (and other) 4 element TC's, and since availability and price are similar, for me that's a not-recommended.

Review of: Kiron Zoomlock Macro 70-210mm F4 by marcusBMG on Thu May 23, 2013 | Rating: 10 View more reviews

Views: 50516 Reviews: 4 UPDATE 8/17. I did a comparison between the VS1 70-210mm lenses and the tamron adaptall SP 70-210mm lenses and included this lens. Overall I can say the kiron was one of the most consistent performers - best or near best on every test pic. Add in that it can still be acquired for a negligible price and I have upprated to a classic MF maximum. I have now been able to gain an impression of this lens in comparison with my Tamron 19AH, and the VS1 (komine) I had for a while. The Vivitar S1 wins on handling, a nicely compact lens. The zoomlock is TBH front heavy, particularly if you have the focus limiter version. The Tamron wins on contrast, particularly wide open vs wide open. Is this lens as sharp as the other two? Not a lot in it IMO, though I can say for me this has consistent performance, better than average wide open (read 8.5/10). No, where this lens scores for me is colours. if you want some really blue skies, and colours with a bit of pop, between these meritworthy tp's this is the lens. These sample pics offer a bit of an example, the lower pic is taken with actually the tamron adaptall 70-210mm 46A, both on my lumix G1. jpg, lighting/shadows tweaked, crop and resize in faststone.

Review of: Vivitar MC Teleconverter 3x -22 by marcusBMG on Sat April 20, 2013 | Rating: 5 View more reviews

Views: 14478 Reviews: 3 Acquired this to take the innards out for (50mm) macro extension. Thought I should check it out first. With my tamron 54B results were poor. IQ simply insufficient for me. Couldn't see a thing through my split prism (surprise! Need a lens a bit faster than f5.6 to start with a x3). Better with 135/2.8 giving approx 400mm. But still not good enough. Most potential with close up work, couple of flower shots were beginning to look OK-ish. 3x TC's have a bad rep for good reasons! UPDATE tried a few macro shots in conjunction with my tamron 90mm: better than expected! A TC can be poor with one lens, much better with another. TP shot: 90mm tamron on G1 = 540mm equiv f4

Review of: Tokina RMC Doubler by marcusBMG on Mon April 15, 2013 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 23356 Reviews: 5 [update 6/19] 2x Tc's make a big hit of two stops on exposure (meaning that if you are looking for a lot of reach with a telephoto, unless you have something like a 300mm f2.8 you are going to be already at f8 or slower), and will ruthlessly expose any optical shortcomings in the lens you use it with. These days I just about never use one for these reasons. However they can be useful in certain circumstances. One point to appreciate is that they do better with certain subjects - airplanes for example. Less well with subjects with lots of fine detail like birds. They can work quite well with fast standard lenses like the 50mm if you don't have a 100mm lens. I think this is one of the better 2x tc's. I took some shots with my Tamron 60B 300mm 2.8 with this and with my 01F adaptall 2x tc. Looking at the results side by side I couldn't really tell the difference - essentially equal IMO, though more scientific scrutiny with a lens chart etc might have distinguished the two. I can say that by the time you have cropped processed and resized images, then comparing with images taken without a tc and processed to a similar result the gain you might get with the tc can be as much as 1.5x, or as little as no gain from using the tc, you will never realise 2x. I didn't notice CA issues like the first reviewer. This seems like one of the better vintage doublers - certainly better than the kiron matchmate I also have. Reading on the forums this is apparently the same as Kiron (and Vivitar) MC7, and was also sold as a NIkon. And I now have a KAF (also = vivitar) Macro MC7 and this also looks the same optically.

Review of: Panagor PMC AUTO TELE 135mm F2.8 by marcusBMG on Fri April 12, 2013 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 45818 Reviews: 4 I tried a 2.8/135 before, but that hanimar didn't impress - inherently sharp particularly at middle f numbers but I was disappointed with it wide open and with strong persistent CA. My feeling was that the 135's, like the 50mm tessar, is a known formula since forever and proven IQ is out there... So prompted by the good review below I have acquired the Panagor*. And so far I am pleased. Its a beautiful example of a classic metal'n glass lens (10 for handling). This was in immaculate condition. Taking it out on bright cloudy = max CA type of day only suffered a distinct purpling of backlit branches at 2.8. Distinctly softer wide open see sample pic but not too bad (miles better than the hanimar mentioned above). At f8 this lens is sharp. It would be interesting to compare with eg CZJ ..(UPDATE: see below) One minor gripe. My lens has a silver trim at the top end of the focus ring . This came loose. Lens in pic above also seems to have a hood - not mine. BTW: 55mm filter, 8 blade iris. Kiron colour...:) f2.8 ~ 50% crop (slight sharpening to compensate, but otherwise off the card jpg) using monopod. f8 ~ 50% crop UPDATE. 12/13 I now have a CZJ 135 F3.5 sonnar to make a comparison with. f2.8 100% centre crop http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3349crop.jpg" alt=" http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3349crop.jpg" class="bb-image" /> f4 http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3350crop.jpg" alt=" http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3350crop.jpg" class="bb-image" /> f8 http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3351crop.jpg" alt=" http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3351crop.jpg" class="bb-image" /> Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f3.5 @ f3.5 http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3345crop.jpg" alt=" http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/IMGP3345crop.jpg" class="bb-image" /> At f4 the Panagor is a bit softer than the CZJ at f3.5 but at f8 the Panagor is distinctly better. The lack of contrast at f2.8 is very apparent with this subject and (dull winter) lighting conditions. At f8 the two lenses were pretty much equal IMO. The Panagor had a noticeably cooler tone. Overall the CZJ performs more consistently over its aperture range. I think 8/10 is about right for the Panagor, certainly I really like its performance at middling f's.

Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 Aspherical (71A/171A) 28-200mm F3.8-5.6 by marcusBMG on Tue April 9, 2013 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 34313 Reviews: 4 This is one of the late adaptalls. Although plastic construction it's a chunky, fairly weighty at just over a pound, and reassuringly solid feeling lens - particularly in comparison to a flimsy kit lens. Two ring zoom design. Its aperture ring is small and doesn't stand proud of the lens body, it's usable manually (probably not with gloves) but it's clear that the lens is primarily intended to be used in automatic modes. On a pentax with a PK-A adapter then is fairly ideal, but the adapter then needs to be factored in to the value equation. I have only a preliminary assessment at this point from a mornings snapping... Handles well, looks and feels good on the camera. Focus a bit "muddy" (the focus throw is only ~ a quarter rotation), I was leaning on focus confirm cues. Pics look decent, weaker at the long end IMO, softish wide open, decent sharpness at f8. Contrast quite good. I was exposure compensating by 1 2/3 stops (Av) this looked OK on the histogram but a bit overexposed on screen. Negligible CA - bit of purpling evident at ~200mm wide open on some backlit branches. An overall impression of a pretty capable superzoom. Some better pics than my snaps are posted here I find myself echoing comments by others online: good practical choice as a wide range travel/walkabout lens but your'e likely to be reaching for more modern upmarket zooms or primes if IQ is the priority. The 28-200mm seems to have been one of tamrons sales successes in AF versions. Ther are plenty on the s/h market and a lot of reviews of Tamron 28-200mm on eg photographyreview.com. The sprinkling of very poor reviews suggests inconsistent quality. My example is certainly decent: 8/10'ish?

Review of: Tamron Adaptall ( Chinon ) (CT-200) 200mm F3.5 by marcusBMG on Wed March 27, 2013 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 48617 Reviews: 4 Aquired this lens spares/repair and it ended up in a box for weeks until I finally figured out how to put it back together... slow learning curve..? Happy with it now. 6/14 UPDATE:. I wrote up a comparison of the three adaptall 200mm variants on mflenses forum: http://forum.mflenses.com/adaptall-200s-which-one-if-any-is-the-best-t66125.html In sum , I can say that the adaptall 200's had pretty similar resolution, but the 04B showed the best contrast. This was in the middle contrast wise. It also was distinctly the weakest wide open. Sample test crops of a castle turret f5.6 (version 1 top, CT200 middle, 04B bottom): This lens crops up quite often and can usually be obtained for around half the price of 04B - recommendable both for that and being pretty good.

Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 (59A and 159A) 28-70mm F3.5-4.5 by marcusBMG on Thu March 7, 2013 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 35330 Reviews: 8 pacerrr makes the points in regard of the desireability of a vintage mid range zoom: really it needs to offer something in comparison to your kit lens, which is already ahead with AF and genuine wide angle (I assume the typical 1.5 crop factor making 28mm only borderline WA 42mm equivalent). That something is hopefully higher IQ, though that is probably achieved best with primes. So here is my weighing up. Do I keep this one? Also the 28-70mm 44A that preceded this lens has acquired a good rep and provides another point of comparison. Comparing walkaround snaps on my K-r I did not find 59A to be obviously inferior to 44A, although it wasn't noticeably better either. I didn't find it to be mediocre below f8 at 70mm: in fact I thought its performance was rather consistent and actually quite good, with just a modest improvement in sharpness from f4.5 to f5.6 to f8. At 28mm however, I felt the lens really needed to be stopped down, and the performance even stopped down was a substantially below that at 70mm - 6/10 vs 8/10 at 70mm (=7/10 overall). Colours I thought were fine, contrast OK, bokeh really not to complain about. Like its plastic sibling the 58A, 59A seemed relatively well corrected for fringing/CA. Overall I would tend to echo pacerr: decent IQ (most specifically at 70mm) but not spectacular. Better than kit? Hmmm I think that's one you have to figure out for yourself by trying it out and seeing how you and your camera work with it, comparing the results and the look, and making your choice. These test pics are 100% crops at 70mm, f4.5, 5.6, 8, OtC jpg's. On my Lumix, IQ was of a similar nature, and comparing side by side walkaround snaps with a 28mm prime (Hexanon 28mm f3.5) 59A may have been consistently trumped but was not disgraced. However my G1 did highlight a couple of things: the longer CFD at 28mm (more like 1.1m than 0.7m, hopeless in comparison with the close focus on the hexanon), and the lens' vari-focus (ie focus changes with zoom) nature. By way of example, the change in focus from 70mm to 28mm using a wall poster approx 10m away was from midway between 6m and infinity on the distance scale at 70mm to between 1.2m and 1.5m on the distance scale at 28mm. The compact 70-210mm 58A also proved to be distinctly varifocal, however on a two ring zoom I am more critical of this technical point, and I have marked the lens down. I was quite enamoured of the macro mode. This offers quite close working distance- just over 6"/15cm, labelled up to 1:4 but with the focus rotated to cfd as well looked nearer 1:3 - a tad closer than 44A. It's rather crude (see pic), the focus group slides forward when the zoom is rotated to M, and in practical terms works best with a macro rail ie focussing by moving the camera position (44A also offers 1:3.15 macro at 70mm with extended focus throw - a classier solution). Certainly adds to the utility of the lens and compensates somewhat for the poor CFD at 28mm. Example crops at f5.6 and 1:4: I don't see 59A being inferior to 44A, and in fact with a later close focus test of several mid range zoom adaptalls, between 59A, 44A and even the SP 27A I thought 59A edged it.. Got a stamp collection to catalogue? Overall although of itself IMO this lens does offer enough to merit consideration - specifically at the sort of price I acquired mine for and with a PKA mount already in hand - unless you are specifically interested in an adaptall the alternatives include numerous lenses from tokina, sigma etc with PKA mounts already. For Pentax users the film era kit lenses SMC-F/FA/FAJ mid range zooms are cheap, of similar IQ, and have AF and one of those would be a preferred, practical choice. ADDENDUM. copy of original user manual (also for 70-210mm 58A) posted here PDF 7mb.

Review of: Tokina RMC constant aperture 35-70mm F4 by marcusBMG on Tue February 19, 2013 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 38167 Reviews: 3 Tok RMC's acquiring for me a good cachet, lately reinforced by a PKA mount RMC 28mm that I like a lot (and compares well to my sigma 28mm and my smc-m 28mm).. I have had more perspective on this lens, snapping some comparison pics against tamron's adaptall-2 35-70mm f3.5 #17A. When I first posted I said "lots of sharpness, snappy focus, and good consistency across zoom range and aperture range; better than average wide open. If you see one of these and pick it up you shouldn't be disappointed." Close up I think it does hold its own. My copy doesn't seem so good with with increasingly far focus; landscapes etc.. I have also noticed its more prone to CA/fringing than 17A. But its possible my tinkerings have affected it... Most noticeable difference is the cool tone in comparison to 17A's very warm (and 01A's even warmer) tone. Scrutiny of a variety of shots puts 17A as sharper, contrastier and more capable, and of course 17A goes to 1:2.8 macro as well. example 100% crops just to illustrate sharpness, contrast and colours. Tok RMC left, 17A right. both 50mm f8 Decent then but I prefer the tamron (which I would use more if I didn't have the well regarded 35-80mm 01A as well), and have downgraded a notch 7/10. Googling I find there is also a f3.5-4.5 version. CF review for Tokina MF 28-70mm f/3.9-4.8 same looks (and there is a constant aperture version).

Review of: Miranda MC Macro 24mm F2.8 by marcusBMG on Mon February 18, 2013 | Rating: 6 View more reviews

Views: 58944 Reviews: 8 I suspect mine was duff. :( As they say, pics are worth a thousand words. See the duffness for yourself. I was pleased to acquire the lens, prompted by the preceding reviews, and tried hard to find a sweet spot or a way or a reason: different f's checking and rechecking focus with live view. I failed. PS: ricoh pin problem solved by using a jewellers file to take the square edge off the AF depression on the camera mount. Pin simply doesn't catch but readily rides out. Miranda 24mm pentax k-r, jpg, no pp. Full size here Pentax SMC-M 28mm, k-r, no pp. Full size here.

Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 (03A) 80-210mm F3.8-4 by marcusBMG on Sat February 16, 2013 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 41514 Reviews: 6 I am a bit surprised there aren't more reviews on this lens, its pretty common, so since I acquired one as part of a job lot here are my thoughts. There question basically is: we know how readily available the 103A is; if instead you find yourself looking at a 03A should you walk away? Adaptall-2.org makes no bones that the later model is a revised and improved design. But does that mean forget it, or does it mean well actually if you have a choice then definitely go for the 103A, but otherwise don't worry about it, both reflect Tamron quality? So we are primarily comparing the two. In appearance and handling the two are almost identical, with similar markings. If you are looking at a tamron 80-210 and don't know which it is, 03A is the one with the built in hood, and the bigger aperture collar (that extends further along the barrel of the lens). Mechanics of both are great. One thing I noticed was a tendency to back focus at high zoom: since this was with both I am now inclined to blame the camera (user..?). Focus is millimetric at that end; with both I used live view. On the 03A focus is covered in half a rotation of the sleeve, on 103A in 2/3rds. Sharpness first and my impressions are that they are broadly equal. I did some comparisons of the same subject at f4, f5.6, f9 at different focal lengths and felt the differences were relatively insignificant. For what its worth I thought this lens was stronger at the long end, while I thought the opposite of the 103A. Both were softer wide open but not unacceptably so except below ~120mm - I would say avoid f3.8 at the short focal lengths. Contrast wise I have to say I preferred the contrast of 03A when scrutinising the slate roof but that could be more related with 03A's blue tone.. both were pretty good. Optically the lenses do offer a different look - bluer for 03A, yellower for 103A (unprocessed jpg's here). I checked both out with the 01F 2x TC. test subject: the estuary marker. Long distance (~500m) high mag shots like this are a bit pernickety, a passing draught can make a difference, but I tentatively offer a conclusion: 03A consistently showed a bit better (and that yellow sea looks a bit !*!*). This is representative (f5.6, 200mm x2, x1.5 crop = 600mm). Now I need to do the same with close up subjects (watch this space). Close up I seemed to get better results with the 103A. Both focus to 0.9m/3ft, 03A has an eight blade iris, 103A six blades. Bokeh was similar at wide apertures, stop down and 103A becomes spotty, but ok, while 03A becomes scratchy - ugh (looking through the lens while closing the iris the edges of the aperture at f4-f8 are not smooth!). I also noticed sensor reflections with both lenses. But overall 103A gets the vote on this one. Aberrations: here 03A almost lost its case. Tree against the sky shots exhibited pronounced CA and strong purpling that was still evident at f9; this was worst at 210mm. However this almost disappeared when the sun wasn't shining - RH crop. Only reason I don't cry bye bye 03A: 103A isn't great on this either. Not as bad, but I've had more than a few instances of PF and complementary R-G fringing. 50% crops Below are two shots of the quay, ~180mm, tripod mounted, f5.6, pentax k-r, click the links for full size. I'll leave it to you to evaluate them for yourself, and assign pic to lens. So whats the verdict? 03A almost lost it but I find myself somewhat in the middle. The CA was disappointing but the sharpness is good, and it does offer such a different look it really asks to be judged on its own merits. It seems the answer to the which one question is ....19AH! Trick question, see! But these are available for a tenner or less, and the last 19AH auction I watched went for over a hundred...:cool:. [SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Full size[SIZE=2] her[SIZE=2]e[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE] Full size[SIZE=2] here[/SIZE]

Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 (22A) 35-135mm F3.5-4.2 by marcusBMG on Fri February 8, 2013 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 41078 Reviews: 7 UPDATED REVIEW 7/13. This lens was only made through the early-mid eighties but is reasonably common. On APS-C it's effectively like a standard to telephoto 50-200mm zoom on full frame in its field of view range. I have compared mainly to the 28-135mm 28A, also my tokina ATX 28-135mm, and referenced against SMC-M primes. 22A and 28A have similar looks and feel, both with 67mm filter and a "stovepipe" shape, hefty metal 'n glass character, single ring focus and zoom. 22A is a little faster than 28A: f3.5 vs f4. 28A is more compact at 28mm, but extends further when zoomed. Focus throw on both is around a quarter turn, on both I found focus to lack "snap", particularly at the shorter focal lengths, and would lean on my split prism etc. In any case focussing at 135mm and zooming out works well - the lenses are parfocal. Both have larger close focus distances (CFD) than many lenses of the era including the Tokina (~2m vs 0.5-1m). Mechanics and construction are up to Tamrons typical high standards, though the zoom on this 22A had a slight tendency to creep. With both lenses I was pretty diligent about using a hood, however in spite of those large objective lenses I didn't notice any unwarranted proneness to flare. As walkarounds both lenses for me come back with pleasing pics, and I felt that image results overall were often similar, particularly in terms of sharpness and contrast (though 22A did show more of a tendency to lose contrast eg wide open, slight overexposure). Principle difference is 22A's strongly warm colour tone - strong reds - off the card (good for beaches and portrait). One side effect of this seemed to be some relatively insipid colour saturation off the card in images of eg shrubbery where the colours were predominantly blues/greens. Both lenses were softer in terms of sharpness wide open, but better I would say than many, certainly better than the kit lens in this respect. 22A certainly didn't suffer, IME, from that extra point five of a stop, just normal progression in sharpness 3.5 to 4 to 5.6 so thats a plus. Both lenses were well controlled in terms of CA, but 28A showed slight fringing on the backlit turrets of the Castle at f4 while 22A showed none (both tamrons being comfortably better than the tokina). Test shots taken on my pentax k-r with P-KA mounts. NB while I have tried to be methodical to get worthwhile comparisons, I am not claiming scientific rigour here - just an indication. Macro mode on the 22A is, like the 28-70mm 44A, extended focus throw at the longest focal length, in this case 135mm. The closest working distance is ~ 60cm, from which, IME, 22A did not manage to match the resolution and contrast of 28A from 9cm, at the same 1:4. It wasn't too bad, the lens did better with eg red flowers, images of which were quite pleasing. Some blue flowers looked a little anaemic/off-blue, reflecting the colour bias already noted (this can of course be readily corrected - I report OtC results). A brief test with my 2x macro TC was not encouraging: increased mag resulting in increased "mushiness". The pics posted on 28A's review illustrate the contrasting perpectives of the two lenses at 1:4. 22A at 135mm is much more isolating (which is often desireable); I thought the bokeh similar to 28A: OK but no more. Reviewer Jean Poitiers has comparison pics with 40A (the later version 35-135mm) and a more favourable impression. Example 100% flower crop at f16, 1:4. Levels adjusted a little. Compare with similar crop for 28A on its review. 22A is a quintessential example of a Tamron Adaptall-2 and well worthy, IMO, of consideration as a cheap* standard to telephoto complement to your kit lens. The SP 28A has as plusses over 22A its wider range, more consistent colours and saturation and better macro, but overall I found 22A to be not that significantly inferior to its SP brother, and in fact a bit better, if anything, at 135mm, and it's a bit faster. So I'm pencilling in the same 8/10. Its warm colours suggest portraiture. Perhaps if that is something you're into, you could acquire the lens and comment in more detail. *price quoted above reflects average auction price on eBay (UK) 135mm f8, 50%, k-r. Same gull imaged with 28A see review to compare.

Review of: Hanimar 135mm F2.8 by marcusBMG on Thu January 24, 2013 | Rating: 6 View more reviews

Views: 32742 Reviews: 3 This came with a tak 55mm - the main objective of my bid - and so I have checked it out. Indoors, tripod and flash, compared to a tammy 22A at 135mm and a tokina at 135mm - the prime, unsurpisingly, was better at providing a sharp image. Outdoors this lens proved distinctly ugly at f2.8, strong CA, very soft. Rather disappointing - one of the key points that distinguishes the good ones. Sharpened up at f4 and up, but, I would have to say, not really better than my best zooms eg Kiron 80-200 f4, also compared to the Kiron contrast isn't as good. Didn't seem prone to flare though. I ll get an impression of close up shots later. Its not that the lens doesn't have some decent IQ, but even at F8 CA is still evident see 100% crop below. [SIZE=2]Pentax k-r Hand held jpg, "auto-levels" adjust of exposure, no sharpening.[/SIZE] A very similar hanimar "Auto S" lens is mentioned here (M Pollet does a comparison of a number of 135's including this) http://oomz.net/135/ and here (Hanimar/Hanimex background) http://photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Wofz I can suggest this is an archetypical lens for the era: solid all metal construction, bright optics, (pretty) sharp, tendency to CA. I won't not recommend it, its worth checking out if one passes by, and judging from what the links say, might be good. There is a Hanimex 135/2.8, PK mount, reviewed separately.

Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 (103A) 80-210mm F3.8-4 by marcusBMG on Thu January 24, 2013 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 136330 Reviews: 20 My 103A is very much in the same ballpark to my Viv series 1 (tokina) and kiron 80-200 f4. Comparing some shots of the same subjects the VS1 is marginally the best IQ, the kiron softest wide open and slightly more prone to CA, but otherwise second in sharpness, while the 103A is close behind, particularly at the 80mm end. There is a distinct (but not great) drop in sharpness/contrast towards 200mm (aperture, focus and shake are normally more significant). I recall reading somewhere that this lens is more optimised for close up work WABOL I'll get more perspective withsome macro opportunities.. So I would say 8/10 compared to 8.5 for the kiron and 9 for the viv. A solid performer. For comparison with 03A see my review of that lens.

Review of: Kiron 80-200mm F4 by marcusBMG on Sun December 23, 2012 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 31514 Reviews: 4 This lens required remedial attention when I acquired it off the usual for a pittance. Not only was the objective fogged up with fungus but it had had a serious knock putting the bayonet out of alignment. Happily most of this proved to be rectifiable, though fungus spots still infest middling elements. There seems to be a bit of a family of lenses: this one, a zoomlock version, f4.5 versions with/without zoomlock, 70-210mm f4.5 versions also with/without zoomlock, and it is very similar - almost identical in looks -- to the vivitar 75-205mm (kiron made), and to the 70-210 f4 zoomlock which I think I can describe as having at least minor cult classic status. I compared results to: Tamron 103A, 19AH General snaps pleasing, good contrast, sharp, nice colours. Easier to work with straight off than 19AH, easier to focus, particularly at the long end, than 103A, with more immediately pleasing results, particularly better colours. Sharpness: bit soft at f4, sharpish at f5.6, sharp at f8. Strong purple fringing on backlit tree branches, worst at 200mm f4, stopping down produced swift progressive improvement. I tended to notice the 'glow' that I think tends to be associated with CA prone lenses in contrasty shots. I also noted some strong flare off centre, particularly 120mm-150mm wide open in certain backlit circumstances. A hood is therefore recommended.The Kiron clip on hood is particularly convenient. Overall, this lens gave pleasing results, fungus notwithstanding. No hesitation in labelling it a good 'un:), but avoid backlit/silhouettes/unhelpful lighting. UPDATE. I now have a fungus free copy of this lens. However the performance isn't that noticeably better. With a kiron matchmate TC the good and bad points of the lens are reinforced - I got good sharp images at 200mm (=600mm with x2 and 1.5 crop factor), but also some terrible PF and flare, especially wide open. Overall, I suggest, an 8/10 lens when you avoid the CA, pick it up for bargain bin £20/$30, be aware of its limitations and you are unlikely to be disappointed. There [s]is[/s] was another review of this lens here. An old review from Amateur Photographer is posted here - rates the lens well.

Review of: Tokina RMC / SZ820 80-200mm F4 by marcusBMG on Mon December 3, 2012 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 79670 Reviews: 9 UPDATED 4/14/13. My assessment similar to the others: a soundly performing lens, pretty consistent over its focal range. Similar overall performance to eg some kirons I have looked at, and also similar faults like strong purpling of OoF backlit branches, contrast a bit low (but I should have used a hood more). And I prefer the colour and general look of the Kirons. Because mine is MD mount I am limited to using it on my G1, and with my acquisition of adaptalls and other lenses its now rather neglected. Lens Porn! blogger has written a good assessment of this lens here, and I have to say there is nothing to choose between his pics and similar pics I have taken with my (well regarded) Kiron 70-210mm f4 Zoomlock. Like the Kirons there seems to be a bit of a family of variants: an f4.5 version (with macro mode), an f3.5-4.5 version, and a 70-210 f3.5 that is reckoned to be Tokinas own label of the Vivitar Series 1. Fairly readily available so if your looking for a good bargain basement TP to use on your dslr this is one of the ones you can bear in mind. If best quality is a priority then I think eg the VS1's, Tamron SP's etc offer (but cost) more. Minor practical point the focus is the opposite rotation to PK norm. UPDATE gave decent results with the 7 element RMC 2x TC.

Review of: Tamron Adaptall 1 (Z250) 80-250mm F3.8 by marcusBMG on Sat December 1, 2012 | Rating: 7 View more reviews

Views: 19939 Reviews: 2 (REVISED REVIEW 7/2013 Since I have found that these early adaptalls have similar character I have written a combo review. However all the pics are pertinent to the particular lens.) Trawling the info on adaptall-2.org the original Japanese blurb describes the Z250 80-250mm adaptall-1 zoom from the seventies as a "masterpiece". Well I'd better check it out then, I thought, and acquired it fo a price no-one could argue with. Later I acquired the QZ250-M, also 80-250mm, (the original case with this is embossed QZ825-M but I'll stick with the adaptall-2.org nomenclature) for a look at its macro capabilities, and the Z220 (?PZ370) 70-220mm prompted by some nice pics posted on mflenses forum. Since the trio share some similar characteristics I shall make some general remarks. They are all classically (very!) weighty metal'n glass 70's items with impeccable construction (I could say of a more soviet tank kind). All two ring zooms (which for me is a preference). Although I have found hand held use OK these are lenses that really ask for some support, particularly with small modern cameras like my Lumix G1. The tripod mount on the Z250 and Z220 is a plus, then, and I often use a monopod. tbc PS this lens looks very similar to the adaptamatic version PZ-20Au that also has a review posted. In fact I would guess they are the same optically, this lens being the adaptall continuation post 1973 when adaptamatic was discontinued. Of the two other 80-250's from the AD-1 range, the second (CZ[SIZE=2]825) is a variable aperture version, and the third QZ250-M has macro/close focus[/SIZE].

Review of: Vivitar (Komine 28xxxx) MC Wide Angle 28mm F2.8 by marcusBMG on Sun November 18, 2012 | Rating: 6 View more reviews

Views: 98214 Reviews: 11 Its worth consulting the "vivitar 28mm bestiary" given the multifarious plenitude of 28mm vivitars. I'm pretty sure mine is ~ K03 in the list: 28xxxxx. i've been distinctly disappointed with this. I ran a direct comparison with my pentax -M smc 28mm. I found this lens dull in look and nature: dull looking through the VF, dull in output colours and contrast. Sharpens up OK when stopped down but wide open on every count it was second best. Although it is of the "solid metal" era its construction is actually cheap and unsophisticated. I may have got a bad one. UPDATE comparison with tokina RMC 28mm and Sigma miniwide have reinforced this assessment.

Review of: Tokina ATX 28-135mm F4-4.6 by marcusBMG on Wed November 14, 2012 | Rating: 8 View more reviews

Views: 23802 Reviews: 1 UPDATED REVIEW 2/13. This is a weighty (800g) and apparently somewhat uncommon product of the 70's/early 80's. Tokina's ATX range were their best, and this lens feels like it: a focus/zoom sleeve that is smooth and creep free, clearly sophisticated optics and mechanisms. Its a classic "metal'n glass" product of the era. It was one of the first lenses I acquired so I have a certain feeling for it.. Although its weighty it feels good on the camera. I particularly like the grips (removable) on the aperture ring. One of the first things I noticed, specifically on my Lumix G1, is that it's not the easiest of lenses to catch focus. The focus covers its range in just a quarter of a turn of the barrel so every mm counts. But with the G1's EVF I found that just missing focus was rather too easy unless i resorted to focus assist magnification ... With my Pentax k-r later (live view, split prism screen) I had more tools to work with but in truth I never found the focus "snappy". In particular I found I was often back focusing. The first pic in an example of this (bit of shake too probably - handheld at ~100mm). When I did nail focus the lens is sharp. Not quite =prime, or my best lenses, but close, say 8.5. Slightly better IMO at the long end. Moderate/normal drop in IQ wide open. Contrast is good. Colours/contrast perhaps a little muddy at times - a characteristic I think of glass/coatings of the era. I took a number of pics of eg trees against sky and thought its chromatic performance strong, but then got undone on a cloudy day see my thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/digital-processing-software-printing/209547-chromatic-aberration-what-do.html I have also found that the light from certain angles can produce strong flare. Overall conclusion: a solid in all senses lens. Very recommendable of itself. Now that I have a much wider choice of lens: do I have a tendency to think "if i'd had my 28mm SMC on..." er yes. Do I find my tamron adaptall SP 28A as good if not better and easier to use with PK-A, longer focus throw and a more dedicated close focus/macro facility? Er yes.. But like I said I have a soft spot for this.:) Lumix G1 x2 crop factor, no PP but resized to 800px click links for full size http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/tok28-135/P1050564.JPG http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/tok28-135/P1050938.JPG http://www.tremyfoel.co.uk/photography/tok28-135/P1050940.JPG

Review of: Tokina SZ-X 270 SD MF 28-70mm F3.5-4.5 by marcusBMG on Sun November 4, 2012 | Rating: 6 View more reviews

Views: 81305 Reviews: 13 Recently acquired off flea-bay, prompted by preceding reviews, and can corroborate their findings. My example was boxed like new. I now know that "SZ-X" = amateur level lens, AT-X = pro, EMZ/EMF/ELF = consumer. So really shouldn't expect too much. I was using the lens on a Panasonic G1 with an adapter, giving a x2 crop factor. My first impressions were not too favourable, the lens seemed rather soft, but I persevered and got some decent results. I particularly compared with the Lumix 14-42 kit lens. With the right subject the tendency to softness is OK. I also like the macro, colours are good. Overall verdict: worthwhile. ADDENDUM now that I have had a greater range of lenses to try out and compare I am less enthused with this. Start comparing its results and it comes off badly. In a nutshell this in one of the worst lenses I picked up. I won't not recommend it, merely state that there's no point acquiring it when you can easily do better without going out of the bagain basement.