TWoK wrote:
None of the Tamron's have filter thread. The filter thread is in the hood.
Thats not true...The SP 90mm f2.5 macro has a 49mm filter thread and it has a screw on lenshood. The 70-210mm f3.8 macro has a 58mm filter thread and the SP 300mm f2.8 (60b) has a 105mm filter thread...Presumably there are other adaptall lenses that filter threads too.
Alf Beharie wrote:
Thats not true...The SP 90mm f2.5 macro has a 49mm filter thread and it has a screw on lenshood. The 70-210mm f3.8 macro has a 58mm filter thread and the SP 300mm f2.8 (60b) has a 105mm filter thread...Presumably there are other adaptall lenses that filter threads too.
I'm pretty sure he meant "none of the Tamron 17/3.5s have filter threads", but I could be wrong.
Thank you, Jim.
That is surprising because they still sell at (comparatively) high prices. Seldomly that one goes for under 150 EUR. I wanted to expand my FD line.
Congratulations for the Minolta. Do you keep it?
Best regards, Alex
JimBuchanan wrote:
Can't speak for the Tamron, as I've never used it, but I was not impressed with the FD 17mm. I recall CA in the corners.
I just finished a Minolta 17mm and am very impressed by its corner performance. Hardly any CA at all.
cogitech wrote:
I'm pretty sure he meant "none of the Tamron 17/3.5s have filter threads", but I could be wrong.
That is what I meant. Sorry for the omission and thanks for clearing it up Paul.
Alf Beharie wrote:
I have the early version, with built in filters, which has no filter thread...Does your later version also have no filter thread? I got around the problem by fitting my own filter thread by gluing on a 67mm skylight filter, with the glass removed.
The best solution would be a Lee filter-holder system.
I have a Tammy 17mm (series 2) on the way, and even though it has the factory hood, I plan on using a Lee P105. That's their wide-angle hood with integral 105mm CPL holder. These hold TWO filters, and are supposedly good down to 16mm.
Alf Beharie wrote:
You know when I said that the poor results I was getting seemed to be down to infinity focus not being spot on?
I was using a cheap Chinese-made M42-Adaptall adapter at the time so last night I took my genuine Tamron-made M42-Adaptall adapter off my 300mm/f2.8 and fitted it to the 17mm/3.5...Its now works ok!
Seems the cheap one is slightly thicker, not allowing the rear element to come back far enough for spot on infinity.
I'm looking for an adapter right now. The original ones are pretty rare & expensive. Can anyone recommend a Chinese-Taiwanese one that is known to be good?
Kiron Kid wrote:
I only have and use the first version. But from what others have said, is that they both perform pretty much the same. It's a very good lens. I highly recommend it.
Kiron Kid
FWIW, I have read several threads elsewhere which indicate STRONGLY that the type-2 is far superior in the corners. I have no personal experience comparing them, but it would probably be silly for someone to purposely seek-out a type-1 at this point.
-no offense to type-1 owners, who may still have very nice copies.
I would be very interested to know which version (s) pdm-Paul tested.
Cableaddict wrote:
helimat, you are happy with your Chinese adapter. Which seller did you buy it from?
Is it chipped?
Mine is the adplo one, and it seems fine, no issues with infinity or decentering anyways. I didn't bother with the AF confirm chip, however. Having used the cheapie, I cannot imagine how the authentic ones would be better, but YMMV.
I recently bought one of these (version 2) based on all the great comments in this thread. The lens is nice and has excellent distortion charactoristics.
Unfortunately, the color and contrast do not compare favorably to the ZE 21mm. I had hoped this would be my "small and low cost" travel lens when I didn't want to carry the zeiss. Sadly I guess I have been spoiled by the ZE
I will probaly be listing a mint copy with an original Nikon mount on the Buy/sell in the next week or so if someone is interested.
billsnature wrote:
Nice lens. but don't expect it to be a Zeiss
I think you had your hopes too high.
On the other hand, I'm a big fan of the C/Y 21/2.8 and I still find the SP 17/3.5 to be a very solid performer, particularly when it comes to colour and contrast. These are two of its strengths, IMO, so I find it odd that you were disappointed in those particular aspects of its performance. I think the shots in this thread (particularly Nate's) showcase the colour and contrast well.
Oddly enough, it is the distortion that I find least appealing (waveform). Luckily, I don't shoot architecture, so the lens is perfect for me.
Have you used a bright flashlight or laser to check your copy for haze?
cogitech wrote:
True. It is basically the same. The 17 might be a bit worse simply due to the fact that it is wider...
Nate, do you too find Bill's comments about contrast and colour to be a bit of a surprise? These are two of the lens's best assets, IMO.
Yeah, something sounds fishy to me. All 4 copies I've tried were superb with sharpness, color and contrast, but then I've never tried the $2000 Zeiss 21/2.8 nor would I expect a $200 or less lens to best it, although for me it does what I need much better.
billsnature wrote:
I recently bought one of these (version 2) based on all the great comments in this thread. The lens is nice and has excellent distortion charactoristics.
Unfortunately, the color and contrast do not compare favorably to the ZE 21mm. I had hoped this would be my "small and low cost" travel lens when I didn't want to carry the zeiss. Sadly I guess I have been spoiled by the ZE
I will probaly be listing a mint copy with an original Nikon mount on the Buy/sell in the next week or so if someone is interested.
I'm with you Bill. I've owned three (or four?) copies of the Tamron 17/3.5. They were all in very good to mint condition, and I used them with the original Tamron Adaptall-->EOS converter (I have two), None of them impressed compared to the Zeiss 21/2.8 (currently on the B&S) or the Zuiko 18/3.5. Those lenses have qualities/charachteristics (including good old plain resolving power) that just make the Tamron 17 look flat. The 21mm and 18mm are also have better corner performance.
I know Cogitech is using a 5D instead of the more demanding 5DII.
Cableaddict wrote:
Off topic, but how do you use a laser to check for haze?
This, I gotta' know.
Simply direct the beam through the lens at close proximity. The lazer (or flashlight) will create a very obvious glow on dusty, hazy or cloudy glass surfaces. Angle the beam around and it is easy to see patterns, etc. in the glow (if the haze is caused by fungus, for example). Shine the light or laser from both the front and the back of the lens, to search different angles/aspects for dust or haze.
Note: Obviously, always look at the lens from an angle when doing this. Do not position it such that the laser goes directly through the lens into your eye
