| Showing all 29 reviews by pacerr | |
| Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 SP Mirror (55BB) 500mm F8 by pacerr on Fri June 25, 2021 | Rating: 0 | View more reviews | |
Views: 109329
Reviews: 32
|
Simply intended to note the versatility of the Adaptall design. Combined with the Q bodies this lens offers extreme close-up potential at a reasonable cost in a very small package. Small, dangerous or shy subjects are easily accessible.
   | |
| Review of: Movo TC 10, 16, 25mm extension tubes for Pentax Q series. by pacerr on Tue July 28, 2015 | Rating: 7 | View more reviews | |
Views: 3556
Reviews: 1
|
Having an inveterate interest in close-focus and strange DIY gear combinations it was only a matter of time before I acquired a set of the Movo auto-focus extension tubes.
http://www.movophoto.com/Movo-Extension-Pentax-Mirrorless-Camera/dp/B00R8K5GAO
Yes, they are well made and achieve the AF and AE data flow as advertised, and they DO act as extension tubes are supposed to – but too much so. Before you decide you need these give long thought to how you expect to use them. The 'crop factor' pretty much precludes using them with any of the existing Q lenses except the 06 tele beyond 40mm. Otherwise you simply can't get close enough to the subject to focus – auto or not. The efficiency and efficacy of AF for macro work is also arguable.
This isn't to say these tubes may not be just the thing for some special purpose use. Just don't expect to find the AF feature useful with the AF Q lenses -- although the AE data feature may be helpful in some circumstances.
The tubes themselves may be quite useful however if you combine them with an appropriate adapter and longer FL, non-Q lenses. Initial messing about with the Pentax A110 50 and 70mm lenses has shown promise. I suspect M42 and PK lenses in the 50-135mm range, a 70-200mm zoom and the longer DA*-200 & 300mm lenses may be quite interesting as well.
I wouldn't condemn the AF tubes as useless since the AE function may be just what you need with the 06 lens. But I'd certainly be just as happy with the home built adapter-extension tubes I posted here previously. Just 2 to 5 MM of extension is about all that's useful with the mid-range Q lenses IMO and that leaves too little depth to the barrel to easily include a lens release latch.
I wouldn't hesitate to acquire a $15 set of manual extension rings in the 5-25mm range for the Q as I believe they could be very useful.
| |
| Review of: 2x Macro Focusing Teleconverter: Vivitar, KAX, Telemore...et al by pacerr on Sat November 22, 2014 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 61187
Reviews: 21
|
This Vivitar device is a lot of fun to play with and quite effective when used as a close-up/macro tool with fast primes.
A coupl'a things to keep in mind though when considering its use and the monetary value of this device.
- It was designed and marketed in an era when the target consumers didn't have a lot of lens choices and carried a small kit. Long FL lenses were rare and rather expensive. A multi-function "lens enhancer" was a useful tool.
- Pixel-peeping wasn't common to the film era and absolute resolution was a laboratory issue, not a common amateur topic of conversation and comparison.
- A variable magnification close-up/macro capability actually has very limited application, especially in this age of digital post-processing software. Compare the options today with the needs of scientific and forensic photography when using slide film for publishing where comparative scale images on film were needed.
Like zoom lenses, you'll fare better if you think of it as a collection of discrete fixed extension tubes rather than a variable zoom device.
At current used prices, it offers a useful and economical tutorial experience with older lenses. Get one if you're so inclined, play with it and re-sell it later for about what you'll pay for it. What you'll learn using it will more than pay for any lose when you sell it - if you sell it. I've had one since the '70's. The deliberate nature of close-up shooting (and instant review histograms) makes the PK version only very slightly less desirable than the PK/A type.
It's average at best when used as a tele-extender and many economical consumer grade long zooms produce equal or better results than the 2X converters with mid-range teles and without the lose of 2-stops of exposure.
| |
| Review of: Tamron AF LD Tele-Macro [1:2] (772D) 70-300mm F4-5.6 by pacerr on Thu May 16, 2013 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 28453
Reviews: 5
|
(Note: for those considering this lens, it's the same as the re-badged Promaster 70-300/4-5.6 LD AF and owing to unfamiliarity with the brand it's often less expensive.)
For casual family snaps and use as "training wheels" in the 200mm-plus range either one is a useful lens at the used price often asked.
Like most consumer zooms this will give satisfactory service for non-critical, outdoor, daylight shots. Purple fringing is a given at this level of quality but PP correction makes this easily corrected if you're addicted to shooting bare branches in bright sunlight.
The low resale value of the generic 70-300 zooms makes it very easy to hold on to them for high risk situations where snapshot quality is good enough. A fun choice for a day at the zoo or beach.
H2
| |
| Review of: Tamron Adaptall ( Chinon ) ( CT-300) 300mm F5.6 by pacerr on Sun November 11, 2012 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 39610
Reviews: 8
|
Many older technology lenses deliver performance well beyond their expectations when used with respect for their era. The CT-300 gives away very little to its newer sibling, the SP 300/5.6 (54B) or the popular consumer 70-300 zooms. I have two of 'em, one converted from an Olympus CF 300 and a CT-300.
As an F5.6, manual focus lens it isn't a great choice for BIF or late day wildlife shots, however, used as a close-up/macro-substitute in the field in normal daylight this lens simply delivers images that are very hard to tell from equivalent images made with my 90mm macros 52B/BB).
CF is minimal and generally limited to narrow easily corrected green/blue margins in over saturated situations from F8 - F16. (See the discussion of this effect in the AD-2 200-500 (06A) review here: http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/06A.html ).
I have the 90mm macros and the 180mm macro Adaptalls. These CF/CT 300s fill the desire for a LONG close-up lens far better than the very heavy SP 300/2.8 (360B) and used at F-stops appropriate for close-up DoF serve very well in the field. It's a satisfying and economical substitute for the expensive and hard to find 180mm (63B).
The lens works quite satisfactorily with either a converted AD-2 (25mm) TC or a Pz-AF 1.4x TC when closer distances are in order. Works great with Green Button metering IME.
Note: Failure to use good technique for manual focusing and adequate shutter speed for a 300mm lens can produce disappointing results that have nothing to do with the inherent capability of the lens.
Resale value is low but at the typical cost you can find these today you can afford to keep this one around -- and if LBA isn't too demanding it may even save you from purchasing some much more expensive glass you wouldn't use often anyway!
H2
10" statue shot at 8 ft, K200D, ISO 200, F8. Cropped to format, re-sized 600x800, very light sharpening to compensate.
 | |
| Review of: Tamron-F 1.4X Pz-AF MC4 by pacerr on Sun October 7, 2012 | Rating: 10 | View more reviews | |
Views: 66717
Reviews: 26
|
In addition to the fact that it's hard to fault the results obtained with this TC when used intelligently, in my opinion it's simply the best TC out there and warrants a top score.
Of particular note for users of the Tamron Adaptall lenses, this APPEARS to have the same optical formula as the 140F 1.4x converter and in any case it certainly produces results that are equal in IQ. Neither has the modern Dii coatings and being the glass surface closest to the digital sensor may occasionally exhibit flare from internal reflection.
More importantly, you don't have to disassemble the lens/adapter pair to use this TC as it attaches to the PK/PKA adapter as it would to any bayonet mount.
Used with discretion, I find no difference in images made with this TC compared to those cropped to the same magnification when used with these Adaptall SP lenses (52BB, 63B, 30A, 19AH and 360B) and many of the popular AD-2 lenses perform satisfactorily with it also.
I acquired a Pentax AF 1.7x converter to determine if it would add useful AF functionality to the Adaptalls and concluded that the Pz-AF and 140F offered noticeably better IQ for my purposes.
I have two of these and have used others and found them to be consistently excellent with no noticeable variation in IQ between lenses.
Both of my items were acquired some time ago before they became hard to find so I won't skew the current average price with unrealistic two-digit values. If I needed to replace mine for use with my Adaptall lenses I'd consider $200-240 a reasonable price and a good value today considering the versatility they add to both the tele- and macro capabilities of these lenses.
H2
| |
| Review of: Tamron AF (IF) 79D/179D 28-105mm F4-5.6 by pacerr on Fri July 13, 2012 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 74114
Reviews: 15
|
There is an ongoing discussion about the pedigrees of the Pentax FA 28-105/4-5.6 IF and the Tamron AF 28-105/4-5.6 IF (179D). I finally had the opportunity to compare the two side-by-side.
Short story: exact same optics and body design with differences in zoom grip pattern, style of lettering and, apparently, some difference in coatings. Subjective results are nearly identical. -- well within my tolerance for lens-to-lens variation.
Focusing: This Tamron had a very slight tendency to front focus in all situations compared to the Pentax. Range and feel of the focusing mechanism and AF speed are identical.
Rendering: The Pentax seemed to consistently expose about a 1/3 stop lighter with slightly more saturated colors with EXIF data recording identical numbers. The Tamron was slightly cooler. The Tamron was prone to slight purple fringing but not as prominent as the typical 70-300 zoom lens.
IMO, any differences in the rendering of the two lenses may very well be attributed to the presumed use of SMC or BBAR coating. Surface reflections off the objective lenses do have different characteristics. I could observe no difference in flare sensitivity but the light available wasn't conducive to flare.
Cosmetics: The Pentax looks somewhat more refined and its lettering is easier to read. It can also be found in the silver finish if desired and looks equally attractive on the black bodies. Build quality is essentially identical and common to the better poly-carbonate materials of the era.
Category: In terms of general satisfaction, both lenses fall between the DA 18-55's and the DA 16-45. Used with the same care as the kit lenses, they produce similar quality images. Paired as the long-normal choice of FL with the DA 16-45, either lens would produce comparable results for light-weight, outdoor trail use. They work acceptably well with the Tamron Pz-AF 1.4X TC for occasional shots into the 150mm range but the DA 50-200 or one of the economy 70-300 zooms would better serve the long shots with similar IQ.
I'd value either lens at about the same used price as the DA 18-55 AL ll. Perhaps a bit more for the silver FA.
 | |
| Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 (20A) 70-150mm F3.5 by pacerr on Thu March 1, 2012 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 52787
Reviews: 6
|
If you have reason to use the Adaptall mount's flexibility and don't mind manual focus lenses, this is a good choice for a field lens in the moderate FL range.
I'd add the following to the comments above:
A pleasure to use as a utility nature-walk lens. Compact in size, reasonably fast when used with DSLR ISOs, and works well with the Tamron 140 or Pz-AF 1.4x converter.
Minor PF in high contrast situations but it's easily corrected and unlikely to be used in those circumstances anyway -it's not a "birding" lens.
I have a feeling this would be an excellent substitute for the rare Soft SP 70-150 version if used with a mild soft-effect filter for medium long portraits and it seems more available and cheaper on the used market.
Used with due consideration for lighting and with a 20-24mm extension ring, it comes close to the 90mm macro lenses for nature close-ups.
It makes a compact kit when paired with the SP 35-80, lacking only a UWA lens for all around utility, and it's nearly half the bulk of the SP 70-210 (19AH) or other 70-300 mm lenses. This lens plus a 1.4X TC, the SP 35-80 and a *istDS or DL are about as tidy a kit as you can carry for the FL coverage and it's a pleasure to use. Has an integral hood.
IMO, optically it gives up nothing (except AF) to all but one of the DA 50-200's I've used, however, I do tend to up the contrast and saturation a bit when using it.
H2
Edit: I recently had the opportunity to compare shots between the 20A and 19AH.
Used as a nature walk lens there was no practical difference in the results. Focusing precision and exposure judgement was the deciding factor in preferring one image over another.
What WAS very noticeable was convenience and handling. The 20A is half the weight, 2/3 the length, has an integral hood and uses 49mm filters versus the 62mm filters of the 19AH. A real pleasure to carry and use when directly compared to the larger lenses.
As for 'macro' capability the 20A offers 1:1.3 at 27" vs the 19AH's 1:1.26 at 33" - a negligible difference in practice and easily fixed with a 12mm extension ring if needed.
With either of the Tamron 1.4x TCs to push the FL or tighten the close-up range I feel the 20A is a competitive alternative to the 70-210 class zooms for a mid-range tele lens and nicely covers the common 90-135mm FL range of primes for nature walks.
The 20A is one of those Adaptall-2 lenses that lacks only the ED glass elements and F 2.8 used in many SP lenses (but not the 19AH) to warrant the upgraded SP classification.
H2
| |
| Review of: Tamron SP AF Di LD Aspherical [IF] 17-35mm F2.8-4 by pacerr on Thu October 27, 2011 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 41861
Reviews: 9
|
I picked this up used on e-Bay at such a bargain price I won't skew the numbers by entering the price ($122) as typical current used prices are at least 2 1/2 times that number.
This lens renders like an extension of my SP AF 28-75/2.8 for color and sharpness which is exactly what I was hoping for -- an SP AF 28-75 and a SP AF 24-135 stretched to 17mm at F 2.8. If you like the 28-75, I'm sure you'll find this a perfect WA partner.
I concur that the sharpness falls off somewhat above 28mm, but only in comparison to other excellent WA lenses, and that accounts for my lowered score in that category.
I'd note that there's no AF/MF switch on this lens and that effective manual focus over-ride requires that the body auto-focus switch be OFF. The manual focus ring is optimized for auto-focus and isn't well damped. No zoom lock is required.
This is a large lens, about 20-percent larger than the DA 16-45, and the hood can be inconvenient to pack at 77mm but results are noticeably improved when using it under conditions conducive to ambient flare off of the lens axis. Direct flare is no worse than any other WA lens of this type with modern coatings. Auto-focus speed and accuracy is similar to the DA 16-45.
I'm seriously considering replacing a very good copy of the DA 16-45 with this lens as results are excellent and I'd use the extra speed for ambient/low light interior shots.
(I'd add that I recently sold a Tamron SP AF 10-24 because I wasn't using the range wider than about 16mm, but that lens also fit well for color and rendering with other Tamron zooms and adds a very satisfactory and versatile extension into the UWA range.)
H2
Later -- I've never used the Adaptall 17mm lens but I've always been interested in 'em. They seem to be going for around $250 today -- about what I paid for this lens. Unless size was a VERY critical item, I wouldn't trade this for the 17mm prime based on the many images I've studied.
And if FF ever returns to PK/A . . .
   | |
| Review of: Tamron Adaptall Z500/CZ500 200-500mm F6.9 by pacerr on Sat August 20, 2011 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 15661
Reviews: 2
| [NOTE: This is NOT an 06A review; it's a misplaced Adaptall CZ-class lens awaiting a proper review section of it's own. It IS an immediate predecessor to the 06A, however, and the 06A review on the Adaptall-2.org site will give it meaning.]
This is a looong lens and for a good reason. Without LD/ED glass available for this design, a long barrel with minimal refraction over the focal length contributed to enhanced optical performance as best explained in the info for the 06A.
Like all super-tele lenses, this takes a bit of thought and good technique to get results expected from today's DSLR sensors and the crop factor makes a steady camera and fast shutter speed even more critical but with practice this lens can provide excellent service in daylight conditions.
I don't recommend a TC with this mostly because the slow aperture makes focusing difficult at best. Using the matt portion of the viewfinder to pre-focus on the immediate surroundings (grass, tree trunks, etc) works well.
As an Adaptall mount lens you have complete versatility with many bodies and media including the older film cameras.
Image results will vary greatly depending on many factors, not the least of which include skill in post processing and experience with super-tele photography.
My results are at least the equal of what I get with the Super Takumar, and SMC-M and -A class 300-400mm lenses. The design concept does a good job of minimizing PF and CA in general.
As economical 'training wheels' for the person new to super-teles or just for the guy that wants a Bigma on a beer-budget, this would be a very capable lens.
---------
I recently tried this lens with the Q7 and had surprisingly good results -- better IMO than on my APS-C bodies. The FL range on the 1/1.7" sensors is about equivalent to 900-2300mm on a 35mm body. CA was minimal and easily corrected. It wasn't particularly difficult to focus on the LCD screen, especially considering that this definitely ISN'T a hand-held proposition!
One noteworthy point in favor of economy is that any shooting you do will be very deliberate with lots of time to pre-calculate and/or chimp exposure so there's no benefit to adding the more expensive PK/A adapter - the PK works well in Manual, Av and TAV exposure modes.
This lens can produce excellent results in decent light with thoughtful shot setup. Perhaps not best for BIF but BOAP (birds-on-a-perch) can be mastered with basic technique and patience without spending a fortune.
  | |
| Review of: Sigma DL AF 35-80mm F4-5.6 by pacerr on Tue June 28, 2011 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 43929
Reviews: 5
|
A mid-range lens in all respects - typical of the better build quality Sigma used to pursue after market sales to replace the economy, kit lenses a few years ago. Operation is smooth and positive and auto focus is quick in good light. Color rendering is typical of the Sigmas.
Overall results are comparable to the best of the DA 18-55 (Type 2) or a DA 16-45 within the overlapping FL range and apertures and quite up to portrait work in the 50-80mm range. It has a seven leaf aperture ring and the wide open f-stop is limited by a circular disk giving unusually smooth bokeh for a lens of this price range. It has sharp focus across the aperture settings and the glass quality is excellent.
It has a continuouse-focus "macro" mode to about .4M/19" and seems to work OK with a 1.4x TC for occasional longer shots.
The hood revolves with the focus ring making a tulip hood unusable but since tulip hoods are optimum only at the widest FL anyway, a collapsible rubber hood is an excellent alternative and very effective.
Price new in 1997 was around $175. Typical used prices today are from $40-90 (depending on condition). A reasonable bargain-price entry into the present 28-80mm range for someone wanting a low cost opportunity to explore that FL package without spending $400+. Score relative to others in this class.
This would make a very satisfactory bargain upgrade for someone wanting to extend the Pentax kit lens into the slightly longer focal length range. It would also be a good alternative to something like the Tamron Adaptall SP 35-80/2.8-3.8 (01A) for someone wanting AF at the cost of about one stop of lens speed.
H2
| |
| Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 SP (01A) 35-80mm F2.8-3.8 by pacerr on Sun May 22, 2011 | Rating: 0 | View more reviews | |
Views: 95279
Reviews: 20
|
I've accumulated two of these over the years. A good description would be 'consistently above average to excellent in all respects'.
Just for fun, I ran both lenses through the full range of apertures at 35, 40, 60, 70 and 80 mm and at three distances. (Thanks to digital photography this becomes both practicable and economically feasible today.)
From f 5.6 to f 11 and 40~70mm about the only practical variation in the image is what's dependent on the general optical laws for aperture and focal length. There's noticeable fall-off in sharpness and contrast at the extremes but no more than expected and often less. At 35mm/f 2.8 the lens still appears relatively sharp but there is a noticeable luminous 'bloom' that softens the overall image.
IMO, this is one of the very best Adaptall SP lenses and equally suitable for both film and digital bodies. With 10 - 36mm of extension tubes it serves quite well for close-up and near macro photography in the field but isn't quite up to the standard of the various Tamron90mm macro lenses as an all around macro solution.
I use the O-ME 53 optical viewfinder and a micro-prism split image screen and never miss auto-focus with this lens.
H2
| |
| Review of: Tamron SP AF Di II 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 by pacerr on Tue February 8, 2011 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 107337
Reviews: 18
|
I've never been a UWA sort and until a having good experience with the DA 16-45 I didn't expect to even own a UWA lens. (I always considered an 85/1.8 to be the perfect 'normal' lens for 135 film!)
I actually had both the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 and this Tamron in hand for a few weeks and used them for about 200 shoots each in typical field conditions. As do most reviews, I'd give the Sigma a slight edge in pure sharpness, but overall the Tamron produced the images that appealed most to me.
Flare control and color saturation, especially under high contrast conditions, suited me better and the lens paired up very well with my Tamron 28-75/2.8 in both handling and for common post-processing techniques.
I generally prefer my DA 16-45 between 16 and 24mm, but this lens satisfies the urge to explore the UWA range quite nicely -- enough so that I haven't been tempted to splurge on the DA 12-24 which is also benefit.
H2
Tam 10-24 @ f8 & ISO 400 - flare control example.
I've recently had the opportunity to do direct comparisons with the DA 12-24. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that although the DA 12-24 is slightly sharper and more saturated OOC, it took very little simple PP (levels/curves and sharpening) to bring the Tammy JPGs to the point there was negligible difference in images for typical outdoor UWA applications. The extra 2mm can be useful, especially when there's detail in the foreground. Still a fine value at present used prices.
Comparisons  at 12 and 24mm:
| |
| Review of: Sigma UC 24-70mm F3.5-5.6 by pacerr on Sat October 16, 2010 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 41762
Reviews: 6
|
I differ with the previous review in some regards.
I compared one copy of this lens with eight other similar mid-level 24-to-80mm zooms and found it to be quite satisfactory as an economical alternative to the $500+ 28-70/F2.8 lenses in this range and recommend it as such.
At 70mm/F3.5 it has a tendency to bleed high contrast white edges by about 1-3 pixels and this can be seen at normal zoom ratios but it clears up to average standards by F5.6 or better in my estimation. Like most second-tier zooms, there are compromises and this one seems a little sharper at the shorter FL's but many users that upgrade to this level will also have some sort of coverage above 50mm anyway -- say, one of the 70-300 zooms or a 50+mm prime -- and won't have to rely on this for quality over convenience near the top end.
In typical, day-light, walk-about service or augmented with flash indoors this seem to offer average or slightly better image quality. In most applications I found it the equal of the DA 18-55 AL when used in similar situations with additional FL coverage.
As for hoods, the tulip-shaped hood can't be expected to cover anything but the wide end of a zoom lens without vignetting. I find a collapsible rubber hood to be far more effective and wouldn't downgrade a lens for that reason at all. Understanding the flare resistance and hood requirements of a lens is simply one of the basics.
I believe this lens is a viable alternative for someone wanting to explore this FL range on a limited budget and the 24-28mm region is definitely a useful addition, especially for someone seeking hands-on experience in wider FL's.
I'd consider this lens as a companion to the Sigma or Tamron 70-300's in an economical package deal and price it used at about the same cost as one of those tele's ($60-90). Its utility would best be found when desiring to extend the DA 18-55 into the 60-70mm range without giving up a WA capability.
H2
(bumped the price simply to reflect a better used bargain price -- you may find real bargains.)
| |
| Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 (07A) 28-50mm F3.5-4.5 by pacerr on Sat September 4, 2010 | Rating: 7 | View more reviews | |
Views: 27511
Reviews: 3
| NOT A DIGITAL REVIEW
This was one of the first non-telephoto zooms I encountered (around 1985-86). I had the opportunity to borrow this lens (w/ M42 adapter) for an afternoon family outing paired with Ektachrome film, a Spotmatic and Super Tak 35 & 55 lenses.
I don't recall the resulting slides being significantly different than what I was accustomed to with the Super Tak primes but the "exotic" nature of such a lens and its relative impression were quite a novelty. The 'dinner plate sized', 58mm polarizing filter was awesome to me at the time.
The focal length range was convenient but I wasn't accustomed to using zooms and didn't use it well. It looked and handled good on the Spotmatic/K1000 sized body but that "fat-glass" really called attention to itself in those days. It was sort'a like having the opportunity to drive a really cool car I'd never be able, or at least choose, to afford.
Today, if I saw one for sale for the price of a decent dinner out I'd snap it up but I know it would be based on nostalgia rather than potential results versus today's lens options. Just a way to pay respect to the older gear. (Yeah, I've got a few livin' out their (or my?) days in retirement.)
A large part of my pleasure in photography is in appreciating the marvelous workmanship that went into the equipment of the 1960-1980 era. This one would be nice to have on the shelf even if it never saw a DSLR body -- and it might well be thankful for that too. The 7-rating is simply to make it 'invisible' as a user lens. I haven't seen one to price it in a quarter century.
H2
| |
| Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 (40A) 35-135mm F3.5-4.5 by pacerr on Wed September 1, 2010 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 58406
Reviews: 7
|
This lens is a direct replacement for the Model 22A . As much as I appreciate the build quality of the older lenses, this newer version has it beat in every way. Physically, it’s smaller, lighter and uses smaller filters. Optically it’s been reported to have better contrast and sharpness at all f-stops and focal lengths.
One operational difference, where the 22A was continuous focus into the 1:4 macro range at 135mm, this one does 1:4 macro at 35mm with the same minimum distance of 31.5” (0.8 M) using a macro switch on the lens. Focusing and zoom are buttery smooth.
This is another of the economy zooms produced in the mid 1980s to compete in the market against the new auto focus consumer bodies and lenses. The compromises were in the use of more economical mechanical assemblies and the use of molded rather than machined parts. In my experience, the optical qualities of this lens could well be considered SP-quality. Compared to an FA 28-105/4.0-5.6 (Tamron design) or the Tamron SP AF 24-135 (190A) I prefer this lens for crisp, saturated color and general sharpness in normal outdoor use.
In a choice between the two, I ultimately kept this lens over the convenience of the much larger, auto focus 190A. In many respects, I feel it gives results similar to the Pentax 105/2.8, 135/3.5 and 200/4 at the long end.
If you already have a PK/A adapter, or want to invest $20 in a PK version, the $20-30 you’ll pay for this on eBay is a real bargain and if you can forgo auto focus for a day this one will delight you in the field as a poor man’s DA* 55-135. I compare mine with the acclaimed SP 35-80 (01A) and find little practical difference at one fourth the going price.
I'm giving this a 9-rating to reflect it's excellent value at the going eBay prices as well as it's image quality potential.
It pairs very well with the AD-2 28-70 (40A) and with a 25mm extension ring these two lenses make a very versatile outdoor/nature kit that can be put together for less than $60 today.
H2
 | |
| Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 (59A and 159A) 28-70mm F3.5-4.5 by pacerr on Mon August 30, 2010 | Rating: 7 | View more reviews | |
Views: 35282
Reviews: 8
|
This lens doesn't appear on the Adaptall-2 site. It was reported discontinued in 1991 and an unverified report states there were 27,000 of these produced. My guess is this was produced during the 1988-1991 period when Tamron was producing plastic body Adaptall zooms at a price point that would make them attractive as "step-up kit lenses" before the market for consumer auto-focus SLR bodies fully developed. It seems more common in the European used market and forum talk than in North America although it isn't uncommon on eBay.
Its compact size, light weight, Adaptall versatility and low cost make it a good companion lens for a light P3n, ZX-M or istDS/DL as a casual, day-time, MF snap-shooter. Build quality is typical of the early econ plastic bodies but it does have rubber zoom and focus rings. The aperture ring is "notchy" but would most likely be used in the AE mode as a P&S substitute anyway. Uses 52mm filters.
Image quality is mediocre below F8 with some flare and lack of contrast wide open but results are "kit lens" quality in the daylight, snapshot mode. The lack of AF probably won't attract the P&S shooters. It has a slight macro/close-up capability at the 70mm end of the zoom range that's adequate for the typical flower shot.
Given the need to also have a relatively expensive PK/A adapter to make it a P&S substitute it doesn't seem to be particularly useful today although I do leave it in the bag with non-AF film bodies if there's an adapter along anyway in case I need an "expendable" lens for some risky but irresistible shot.
It used to live on a P3n until I found a more useful application for its PK/A adapter. I played with it for a day on an istDS and it was a convenient package to carry around. It's too light to feel balanced on a heavier MX or K1000.
I wouldn't go out of my way to buy this, but if it came with a older body at a bargain price I wouldn't discard it either and it looks better than a body cap on the MX sitting on the shelf.
H2
| |
| Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 (44A) 28-70mm F3.5-4.5 by pacerr on Fri August 27, 2010 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 73179
Reviews: 10
|
This is a bargain lens that doesn't get the respect it warrants.
In the mid-'80's Tamron was faced with competing against OEM lenses with auto-focus systems that couldn't be economically incorporated into the Adaptall mounts. Marketing strategy was to continue to provide excellent optics while using cost-saving polycarbonate bodies to offer manual focus lenses at lower prices. Aside from the use of "plastics", the molded in knurling on the focus and aperture rings looked and felt "cheap". Today, this class of economical, non-SP lenses often sells used for less than $30 but offers optical quality on par with the SP-class Adaptall-2 lenses.
I've owned this lens since 1991 and also have the respected Adaptall-2 SP 35-80. I recently had the opportunity to compare them with an SP 28-80 in casual outdoor use.
Beginning at f 5.6 there wasn't 2-cents worth of difference among the three lenses. The SP 28-80 has the advantage at 28mm wide open but IQ is very even beginning about 50mm and the 28-70 may even have a little better contrast in the higher FL's. The SP 35-80, with the additional optical element, is noticeably sharper and more contrasty in the close-focus role but the 28-70 does incorporate the MOD continuous focusing arrangement and is easy to use for casual close-ups.
I was always pleased with this len's performance and versatility on film and its light weight was a perfect fit on a P3n or ZX-M for travel and walk-abouts. The smaller filter size compared to the SP's is welcome as well.
Available for as little as $20 (plus a PK or PK/A adapter) on eBay today, this is a perfect answer for someone wanting to try out manual focus Adaptall lenses on a DSLR and/or explore the 28-75mm focal length range before moving up to a Tamron or Sigma 28-75/2.8.
The price listed is intended to reflect the present day used prices on common re-sale sites.
H2
| |
| Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 SP LD IF - 360B 300mm F2.8 by pacerr on Tue August 17, 2010 | Rating: 10 | View more reviews | |
Views: 38917
Reviews: 6
|
Given that weight and bulk go with fast 300mm lenses, and accepting the lack of auto-focus, I'm completely satisfied with this lens. The 360B is a noticeable step above the 60B in every respect - well worth the additional cost if this is going to be a lens used often.
CA in the OoF areas can sometimes be "interesting" but is comparable to other lenses in this class at worse and generally fixable in post processing.
This lens works surprisingly well with both of the matched Adaptall TCs and the PZ-AF 1.4 MC4 as well.* With 12-36mm of extension tube help, close-focus capability offers about all the close-up quality you can use at this focal length. A "gutted" (glass-less) TC has a more confidence inspiring feel than the economy extension rings and at about 25mm it knocks a few feet off the minimum focus distance.
Here's an example of the 360B plus the 1.4X (140F) TC at f4 at about 100 yds. The image sharpens up nicely between f2.8 and f3.5. (K200D, ISO 400 with my Super Sophisticated Lens Test Target)
 
H2
* Edit: Two notes that contradict or modify the comments about TC use in the next review:
1. The Tamron Pz-AF 1.4x TC works quite well optically with this lens and since it fits between the lens/adapter and the camera mount it avoids the sometimes awkward installation associated with the Adaptall TC's. There is a re-branded ProMaster 1.4x or Kenko 1.5x TC that's identical to the Tamron Pz-AF TC.
2. The protective collar extending beyond the rear lens element can be carefully shortened to .22" / 5.5mm beyond the base of the bare lens which clears the optics in the 140F TC enough to allow its use. That has been done to this lens.
And another sample image without the 1.4x TC used above. Image is cropped to about 25-percent of the original image size. ISO 400 at 80 yds. No CA reduction was applied in PP in this sample.
H2
Edit 2:
A palm rest similar to those shown here is very helpful when handholding this lens. It allows the weight of the lens to be supported in the palm of the hand leaving the fingers free to manipulate the focus ring.
 | |
| Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 SP LD BBAR MC (30A) 80-200mm F2.8 by pacerr on Thu July 29, 2010 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 52656
Reviews: 14
|
Would you rather have the Tamron AF 70-200 f/2.8 Di LD for $700-800 or this Adaptall-2 SP 80-200/2.8 at 1/3 the cost used?* But you'll just have to live with the fact that there'll be no AF issues and this lens is 1/4 pound lighter than its newer AF sibling and it can be used on most any SLR body you happen to have.
With a little planning this lens will produce images that match the SP 90/2.5 and the SP 180/2.5 and exceed the SP 70-210/3.5 (19AH) in practical application. The down side? Like any long, fast zoom it's big and heavy - 2.6 lbs - and benefits greatly from a steady support.
The real comparison comes with the SP 70-210/3.5 (19AH) which is 1/3 lighter and uses 62mm filters rather than the 77mm required by the 30A at a lose of only 1/2 an f-stop. Results with both lenses are comparable but the 19AH close-focuses to 34" versus 59" for the 30A.
IME, the 30A does tend to somewhat over saturate and blossom in very high contrast conditions below f 4. Given that this is a manual focus lens, the fast f 2.8 aperture serves well with a split-image VF.
I'm still getting the feel of the 19AH lens; first impressions are very good but I'm not tempted to favor either the 19AH or the 30A over the other for image quality. There's a definite sense of deliberate purpose and solidity in the feel of the 30A lens - sort of like the SP300/2.8 - you know it's there and it ain't goin' anywhere.
If shooting only in the 80-100mm or 160-200mm ranges in the field I'd certainly prefer to carry the smaller and lighter SP 90 or SP 180, but in a dynamic situation such as a race track or athletic event I'd prefer this lens to the 19AH if I planned to be stationary.
Used with a 'gutted', 25mm AE-type TC or either of the Adaptall tele-extenders the useful range extends from less than 3 feet covering an area about the size of a deck of cards to an AFS-C equivalent 600mm/5.6 lens. Any degradation in quality with the 140F converter is really only noticeable with side-by-side comparison although focusing can become critical when DoF is important.
With a little thought and practice, a split-image VF, and catch-in-focus I don't miss AF at all - and I've better things to spend $600 on than AF!
If you don't have a Tamron tripod mount, the aftermarket mount sold for the Canon L7E EF 80-200mm 300 400 mm F2.8 works great ($10, barrel diameter is 66mm) and it can be used as a FL stop ring as well - I limit the zoom range to 180mm when used with the 140F TC.
H2
Adding a palm-rest type support that extends somewhat forward significantly facilitates hand held shooting. The weight is both better balanced and it frees the fingers to focus and zoom without using the lens rings for support.
Edit: Just acquired an SP AF 70-200/2.8 and compared the two lenses. The 30A and the A001 are almost indistinguishable in practical results IMO. The 30A seems to be about a 1/3 stop brighter, very slightly less 'vivid', and 'busy' backgrounds can be slightly harsher. But sharpness, color and lack of fringing are identical to the point I have to refer to EXIF to identify the lens for sure. The family heritage of these two lenses is very apparent and totally satisfying. If your eyes and manual focusing technique are up to par, you'll find little or no difference between them -- except for size, weight and price. The 30A is impressive enough that I chose to keep it for its additional versatility and sell the excellent SP 180/2.5 (63B). I can now sell the 30A and let older eyes enjoy the AF assist for a while.
Comparison with A001 at 200mm/f8
H2
This is a very versatile 'garden and flower' lens. Useable at F2.8-3.5 to take advantage of available light and it's sharp throughout the FL range offering a variety of options for subject perspective, standoff distance and composition. Equally effective and much more versatile than the 52B macro in the garden.
Or the DA 70-200 at $1700+ 02/2016?  | |
| Review of: Tokina 28-70mm F2.8-4.3 by pacerr on Thu March 11, 2010 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 55225
Reviews: 9
|
I threw this in a comparison among the DA 16-45, DA 28-105, and Tam 28-75 and 24-135 lenses and was surprised to discover that except for the lack of AF it was definitely a class contender.
Using a K200 @ ISO 200 and minimum aperture for all lenses there was very little to identify any given lens by sharpness alone. While this wasn't a thorough evaluation, my impression was that this lens is very comparable to the two DA's in IQ, noticeably faster and would easily substitute for any of the other lenses in day-to-day use.
This was acquired in a package-deal so I have no idea what its used cost was and I doubt I'd have gone looking specifically for this lens in any case. However, having sampled its potential, I'd definitely consider it a poor-man's substitute for the Tamron 28-75/2.8 in the $70-90 range and have valued it accordingly; it could probably be found for a lot less.
I'd place this in the present AT-X class as far as optics and with comparable build quality.
It certainly doesn't give away points as a general purpose lens on the older non-auto-focus M- and P-body cameras and may find a retirement home on a P3n.
H2
| |
| Review of: Tokina EL 2X by pacerr on Sun January 10, 2010 | Rating: 7 | View more reviews | |
Views: 12501
Reviews: 2
|
This TC has provided satisfactory results when matched with some, but not all, lenses I've tried it with. When it works, routine post processing techniques can closely match the results achieved with most economy, consumer zoom lenses in the 70-300 category.
At worst, you can remove (unscrew) the optic elements and use it as an AE-capable, 25mm extension tube with most all auto-exposure lenses and bodies.
H2
Edit 2/26/13
K5 + DA*300 + EL 2X at 134 yds. ISO 1600. Serious crop, minimal PP. Manual focus used but AF cues were available in contrasty sunrise light.
Essentially matched the results of a Tamron Pz-AF 1.4 MC4 in practical application. The consumer grade Tokina 2X CONVERTER was noticeably less capable.
  | |
| Review of: Tamron SP Adaptall 200F / SP-200 2x TC 2X by pacerr on Sun January 10, 2010 | Rating: 10 | View more reviews | |
Views: 39638
Reviews: 3
|
Of all the TC's, this one seems to provide the most benefit and is most consistent across the full range of apertures with the Adaptall SP lenses (that it fits).
Contrary to the description on the www.adaptall-2.com web site, this TC does fit and work well on my Adaptall SP 180/2.5 lens.
Well worth the effort of getting this if you make more than casual use of a TC with the SP 300/2.8.
H2
Note: this TC was optically designed for, and excels at, close-up, flat field copy work.
| |
| Review of: Tamron Adaptall 140F 1.4X TC by pacerr on Sun January 10, 2010 | Rating: 9 | View more reviews | |
Views: 24339
Reviews: 7
|
I've used this with SP 90/2.5, SP 35~80/2.8, SP 80-200/2.8, SP 180/2.5 and SP 300/2.8 Adaptall-2 lenses.
Keeping in mind that a tele-extender is an alternative to owning (or even just carrying!) a longer lens and that it will most likely be used at the longer end of the zoom lens range, one must admit that convenience is a positive factor that sometimes more than offsets any degradation in IQ.
The noticeable difference between this and the 1.4X Pz-AF's seems to be slightly better bokeh in OOF areas and more consistent sharpness and contrast across the full range of practical apertures. In practical use, there's very little difference between this TC and the Pentax AFA 1.7 unit.
Given the choice between this and any of the 2X TC's, I'd pick this one as it works well on all the SP lenses while the 2X SP200 seems to be a little beyond my own personal limits for consistent field work with the longer lenses like the SP 300-2.8 and CZ-500.
If you're serious about using TC's with Adaptall lenses, I believe the benefits are worth the relatively low cost of acquiring the AD-2 TC's.
H2
| |
| Review of: Tamron Adaptall-2 SP IF - 63B 180mm F2.5 by pacerr on Thu January 7, 2010 | Rating: 10 | View more reviews | |
Views: 54395
Reviews: 10
|
The image quality of this lens needs no further elaboration so I'll mention some aspects of its versatility.
With a nominal APS-C focal length equivalent of ~250mm it serves as an excellent alternative to larger. heaver and more expensive 200/2.8mm lenses. The F2.5 speed and compact size makes it very usable for action shots. IQ allows cropping for 300mm zoom lens results. Using the techniques of the pre-auto focus era, the lack of auto focus is a minor inconvenience and a satisfying challenge to master.
This lens also excels as a long-macro lens. The dedicated Adaptall 1.4 and 2x TC's impose almost undetectable degradation to IQ in any practical setting. A Tokina-brand 2x AE-capable TC with the optics element unscrewed makes a 26mm auto extension tube that covers approximately 2x2.5 inches at minimum focus distance of ~24 inches and 4x6 inches at a max distance of ~44 inches(lens to subject). The combination of TC's and extension rings and a fast F2.5 aperture makes greater than 1:1 macro feasible when necessary.
Another benefit is the nature of the Adaptall system itself - one lens can be used on many varieties of cameras. Not only your own cameras, but with the addition of relatively inexpensive adapters for other mounts, you can share the experience with others who might not otherwise discover the pleasure of excellent optics.
The Tamron Adaptall SP family of 90/2.5 (52B), 180/2.5 (63B), 70-210 (19AH) or SP 80-200/2.8(30A) and 300/2.8 (360B) with dedicated TC's is hard to beat for the price of a new DA*300 or Bigma and the versatility is extraordinary. If I could only have one it'd be a draw between this and the 80-200/2.8.
The SP 180 + 140F TC at f8. (disregard incorrect SR setting in EXIF)
H2
| |
| Review of: Tamron LD 75-300mm F4-5.6 by pacerr on Fri December 25, 2009 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 42490
Reviews: 11
|
This full-frame 75-300 macro zoom is often overlooked as it doesn't carry the Di label, but in my experience it's a far better choice than the Tamron 70-300 LD and generally at least the equal of the Tamron 70-300 LD Di and similar Sigma equivalents. It's still cataloged by Tamron along side the Di-rated Mdl A17.
I recently had the opportunity to do head-to-head comparisons with two Tamron 70-300 LD's, the Super Takumar 300/4, a Tamron 300/5.6, two DA 50-200's and three other 200mm primes. My copy of this lens matched or beat any of the other lenses in all practical situations including CA and PF. When present, PF cleaned up easily with simple post processing techniques.
Images and details of the Pentax 300/4 comparison can be seen here.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/60448-tamron-75-300-vs-supertakumar-300-4-part-1-a.html
None of the economy 7x-300's match my Tamron SP 300/2.8 or what I've seen of DA 55-300 results but for a consumer quality long tele zoom for less than $150 I can't fault this lens. With used versions regularly available for less than $75 I can easily recommend this lens as a kit-lens-quality long zoom that's easy to travel with and inexpensive enough to risk in hazardous places. If I lost this one I'd certainly plan to replace it.
I'd have rated this lens a 9 but for the availability of the DA 55-300 as a reasonable alternative at current prices.
Listed as Discontinued in 2005 but NIB stock is still seen in mid-2011.
H2
| |
| Review of: Tamron LD 75-300mm F4-5.6 by pacerr on Fri December 25, 2009 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 42490
Reviews: 11
|
Moved to AF 75-300 Mdl 676 review. Originally entered here by mistake.
| |
| Review of: Tamron SP AF AD Aspherical [IF] 24-135mm F3.5-5.6 by pacerr on Wed September 30, 2009 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 69422
Reviews: 14
|
I consider this my walk-around lens for when I'm in an auto - sort of a drive-around lens where you don't tend to get quite as close to things as when you're a-foot and don't mind a little more weight and bulk. I got this to extend the useful range of an FA 28-105 for shooting old barns and mid-range landscapes in daylight and in rural conditions and it serves quite nicely.
Overall image quality seems to be about the same as the Tamron 18-250 - not as tack-sharp as the 28-75/2.8 and about the same as my FA 28-105/4 - 5.6 (Tamron version) and certainly capable of sharp images. Slightly soft in the corners wide open and perhaps a little softer at the tele end as might be suspected of this type of zoom lens. Close-up results are quite satisfactory if 1:3.3 is OK. It goes to f5.6 at about the 75mm point. I find a -1.0 EV adjustment gives more pleasing color with normal exposure settings on a K200D.
No noticeable PF and CA is very well controlled and easy to clean up in PP if present.
Build quality is typical of modern Tamron SP lens - very good. Used as a landscape lens you'll want to note the 72mm filter size for a CPL or ND filter.
When there's no other better plan for an outing and a little extra weight isn't important , this tends to be a very utilitarian one-lens solution. Without it, I tend to drag along at least one or two more lenses. I'd bump it to 8.5 for that reason alone.
Edit 1: after 16 months I've come to appreciate the versatility of this lens. If I were going to build an economy 17- 300mm system with Tamron I'd consider this lens with the 17-35 and one of the 70-300 zooms and not feel my skills were being insulted by equipment and still only have about $600 invested in used lenses.
I'd also note that the size of this lens overwhelms the *istDS-class bodies and is a better fit for the larger K10/20's or the K200 with a grip.
I'd normally rather have images from the SP 28-75, but the convenience of the additional range from 24-28 and 75- to about 110 offsets the slight difference in IQ when used as a utility lens. Above about 90mm I've usually switched to a longer lens anyway if I have one.
Edit 2 - Aug 2011: Over a two year period I sold the original lens and recently replaced it at a bargain close-out price of $200 USD (NIB) since that FL works well for me. It could just be my imagination but this copy seems slightly sharper than the first copy. Not quite an AF 28-75 in overall sharpness and slightly cooler in color rendition.
I'd note that new these lenses were manufactured a while ago and when new may exhibit lubrication that's stiffened up after a long shelf life as this one has. That may lead to an early impression off poor build quality but use does improve the feel considerably. One effect I've noticed, and this would be true of ANY lens, is that auto-focus can be somewhat inconsistent until the lubrication smooths out from use. The Tamron six-year warranty should cover that situation if it doesn't clear up and needs to be re-lubricated.
Edit 3: Recently acquired a DA 18-135. It's smaller, lighter, WR, adds 12mm to the WA end and has become my carry lens - BUT, I'm keepin' the AF 24-135 and when I know I'll be intentionally using some part of that FL range it's often the lens of choice for color and confidence in its rendering.
| |
| Review of: Vivitar TX / fixed / t-mount 400mm F5.6 by pacerr on Mon March 30, 2009 | Rating: 8 | View more reviews | |
Views: 84108
Reviews: 7
|
This review for the original preset t-mount version. This is a very capable 400mm lens for someone with a limited budget and who is accustomed to working with manual focus and exposure - or willing to learn.
PF is very noticeable in highlights and high contrast conditions but cleans up very well with minimal post processing. Color saturation is satisfactory and quite normal for this type of lens and coating from the '70s. Results are very similar to the Pentax Super-Takumar 300mm - f 4.0 and generally equivalent to the ubiquitous Tamron/Sigma 70-300 zooms at 200mm and up. P/K-M mount.
Long lenses of this type and age have reached a stable price point in the market and seem to trade in the $140-200 range so long as they're in good condition. Someone wanting to explore telephoto lenses beyond the -300mm zooms could do a lot worse than to learn/experiment with such a lens before committing to a lens in the $600-1200 range.
Sample photo from K200D at F8 - 1/350 with simple clean-up of PF and light sharpening at in SPix 3:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/index.php?n=10965
Added: Also note that this is a T-mount lens so you could easily play with other bodies/mounts.
H2
Picture of lens sent - should show up soon.
| |
