This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Adaptall thread
p.2 #1Adaptall thread
90/2.5 (@ 1:2 ratio without 1:1 adapter)
ISO 800, f5.6, 1/320 (handheld)
5 MP jpg
100% crop ... Is that 'saliva' or 'nectar' on the tongue.
I could probably learn to like this lens
Edited on Sep 19, 2010 at 10:53 AM · View previous versions
ISO 800, f5.6, 1/320 (handheld)
5 MP jpg
100% crop ... Is that 'saliva' or 'nectar' on the tongue.
I could probably learn to like this lens
Edited on Sep 19, 2010 at 10:53 AM · View previous versions
Sep 18, 2010 at 11:06 PM
p.2 #2Adaptall thread
I have this lens with an OM mount, but have yet to try it, I'm waiting for an OM to EOS adapter.
I'll post my findings and some pics when I get a chance.
http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/02B.html
I'll post my findings and some pics when I get a chance.
http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/02B.html
Sep 19, 2010 at 12:32 AM
p.2 #3Adaptall thread
What do folks here think of the SP 90mm Macro? Any good? Any example images from it in the "lens test" genera?
Specifically talking about this one:
http://img337.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/users/7/0/7/6/kk0101march-img600x450-1284714868apgzqb31702.jpg
As there seems to be more than one version of this puppy. Right? Is this the same one shown on the previous page?
Specifically talking about this one:
http://img337.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/users/7/0/7/6/kk0101march-img600x450-1284714868apgzqb31702.jpg
As there seems to be more than one version of this puppy. Right? Is this the same one shown on the previous page?
Sep 19, 2010 at 02:21 AM
p.2 #4Adaptall thread
Bif,
That's version 1 of the SP 90/2.8 AF. The discussion (and photos) pertain to the SP 90/2.5 manual focus Adaptall. There was also a manual focus version of the 90/2.8.
As I said in on page 1:
I just bought a used copy of the AF version (90/2.8) and I have owned the 90/2.5 in the past. Very similar rendering. Equally good at portrait and macro.
The main advantages of the AF version are 1:1 and auto aperture. Of course AF does come in handy once in a blue moon too. I also think the AF version is a bit sharper wide open (although slower).
For more opinions on the 90/2.8: https://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=249&sort=7&cat=44&page=1
That's version 1 of the SP 90/2.8 AF. The discussion (and photos) pertain to the SP 90/2.5 manual focus Adaptall. There was also a manual focus version of the 90/2.8.
As I said in on page 1:
I just bought a used copy of the AF version (90/2.8) and I have owned the 90/2.5 in the past. Very similar rendering. Equally good at portrait and macro.
The main advantages of the AF version are 1:1 and auto aperture. Of course AF does come in handy once in a blue moon too. I also think the AF version is a bit sharper wide open (although slower).
For more opinions on the 90/2.8: https://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=249&sort=7&cat=44&page=1
Sep 19, 2010 at 06:50 AM
p.2 #5Adaptall thread
Ah, OK. Thanks cogitech! Yeah, I just wanted to try an SP of some sort. That 90 looked nice and figured the image above might be that same design - revised. I went to the shop looking for one and ended up coming home with five new lenses. Luckily I'm not not so fickle that at least one wasn't a TamronSP. 
It's the 60mm~300 I showed here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/825660/14#8885324 and you guys are right, this thing is uber-sharp with excellent bokeh throughout it's range! Between about 280mm and 300mm it's a little soft wide open but a single aperture ring click clears all of that up. I'm impressed! Seriously! It's nearly a match for my Nikkor 55 Macro AiS - which is the sharpest lens I've ever owned - ever! Looks like I've been missing out all these years thinking Tamron's were crap. 
Oh well, live and learn. It sure is a heavy bugger - but I like that about a lens - as long as it's under 5lbs. I'm good - assuming the camera is OK with it. The 60-300mm I got weighs 990g which is 2.18lbs or about 35 ounces.
Here's some shots with it - with no sharpening applied:
Camera: GH1, 1/400s, ISO100, F/5.6, 300mm, Subject Distance: 2 meters.
Camera: GH1, 1/125s, ISO100, F/8, 300mm Macro, Subject Distance: 32cm film plane - 3cm from front element.
100% Crop from above.
The bush I was shooting for image #2 and it's 100% crop.
It's the 60mm~300 I showed here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/825660/14#8885324 and you guys are right, this thing is uber-sharp with excellent bokeh throughout it's range! Between about 280mm and 300mm it's a little soft wide open but a single aperture ring click clears all of that up. I'm impressed! Seriously! It's nearly a match for my Nikkor 55 Macro AiS - which is the sharpest lens I've ever owned - ever! Looks like I've been missing out all these years thinking Tamron's were crap. Oh well, live and learn. It sure is a heavy bugger - but I like that about a lens - as long as it's under 5lbs. I'm good - assuming the camera is OK with it. The 60-300mm I got weighs 990g which is 2.18lbs or about 35 ounces. Here's some shots with it - with no sharpening applied:
Camera: GH1, 1/400s, ISO100, F/5.6, 300mm, Subject Distance: 2 meters.
Camera: GH1, 1/125s, ISO100, F/8, 300mm Macro, Subject Distance: 32cm film plane - 3cm from front element.
100% Crop from above.
The bush I was shooting for image #2 and it's 100% crop.
Sep 27, 2010 at 07:31 AM
p.2 #6Adaptall thread
Very nice, Bifurcator. I remember mine had some CA wide open but a nice one indeed.
Very affordable too.
Very affordable too.
Sep 27, 2010 at 07:52 AM
p.2 #7Adaptall thread
I've posted these elsewhere before:
300/2.8 60B - Love this lens, but I'd drop it in a heartbeat if I could afford the Canon. Sharper with the drop-in filter, possibly with the front 112mm filter as well according to an old thread on a 4/3 forum. I haven't seen this well-tested otherwise.
http://www.mikedeep.com/Space-Shuttle/STS-128/2009082823593930D10092/746041849_ajWgp-M.jpg
http://www.mikedeep.com/Animals/Wildlife/2010042017345230D12250/945914266_gFcYh-M.jpg
http://www.mikedeep.com/Animals/Wildlife/2009122216054130D13551/751010647_Xq3oB-L.jpg
http://www.mikedeep.com/Animals/Wildlife/2009102816170130D19826/699557241_9bqNW-M.jpg
90/2.5 52B - I have more shots with this lens but I honestly can't tell them apart from those taken with the Bokina, which should tell you something. Only significant weakness is a sensor flare that gets progressively worse as you stop down.
http://www.mikedeep.com/Insects-and-Spiders/Lepidoptera/2009062720131130D15278/575781303_Knrua-L-6.jpg
300/2.8 60B - Love this lens, but I'd drop it in a heartbeat if I could afford the Canon. Sharper with the drop-in filter, possibly with the front 112mm filter as well according to an old thread on a 4/3 forum. I haven't seen this well-tested otherwise.
http://www.mikedeep.com/Space-Shuttle/STS-128/2009082823593930D10092/746041849_ajWgp-M.jpg
http://www.mikedeep.com/Animals/Wildlife/2010042017345230D12250/945914266_gFcYh-M.jpg
http://www.mikedeep.com/Animals/Wildlife/2009122216054130D13551/751010647_Xq3oB-L.jpg
http://www.mikedeep.com/Animals/Wildlife/2009102816170130D19826/699557241_9bqNW-M.jpg
90/2.5 52B - I have more shots with this lens but I honestly can't tell them apart from those taken with the Bokina, which should tell you something. Only significant weakness is a sensor flare that gets progressively worse as you stop down.
http://www.mikedeep.com/Insects-and-Spiders/Lepidoptera/2009062720131130D15278/575781303_Knrua-L-6.jpg
Sep 27, 2010 at 11:28 AM
p.2 #8Adaptall thread
Bif,
Congrats on the 60-300 SP. I've always wanted to try one!
Congrats on the 60-300 SP. I've always wanted to try one!
Sep 27, 2010 at 01:18 PM
p.2 #9Adaptall thread
Does anyone have anything to say about the Tamron 24mm 2.5?
It's caught my eye recently - but reviews seem to be mixed. I can't tell if it's an issue between the 2 different versions that were made 30+ years ago.
Older version (01B):
http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/images/Adaptall-2/24F2dot5_01B.jpg
Newer version (CW-24):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/images345x345/53223.jpg
All I know is that, most have compared the lens to the Nikon 24mm (2.8) - stating that the Nikon is better but that doesn't really help me much.
It's caught my eye recently - but reviews seem to be mixed. I can't tell if it's an issue between the 2 different versions that were made 30+ years ago.
Older version (01B):
http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/images/Adaptall-2/24F2dot5_01B.jpg
Newer version (CW-24):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/images345x345/53223.jpg
All I know is that, most have compared the lens to the Nikon 24mm (2.8) - stating that the Nikon is better but that doesn't really help me much.
Sep 27, 2010 at 04:09 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #10Adaptall thread
Bought one last week! It's ok, one corner is unsharp, perhaps just my copy? Go for the OM if you can. Tamron is usable,though, just not that hot imo. Mine is 01B, check out adaptall-2.org although they don't seem to mention cw-24 http://adaptall-2.org/lenses/01B.html
Tamron 60-300 is the best I've found in the xx-300 zooms at 300 for sharpness. 672D AF is really good from 75-200, some may be film only, watch out.
On the 60B the filter needs to be installed correctly, seems to affect focus. Looks upside down to me when correctly installed. Seems to be part of the optical formula. Wish I could afford the Canon too! Tamron seems to be lighter at under 5 lbs, though.
Tamron 60-300 is the best I've found in the xx-300 zooms at 300 for sharpness. 672D AF is really good from 75-200, some may be film only, watch out.
On the 60B the filter needs to be installed correctly, seems to affect focus. Looks upside down to me when correctly installed. Seems to be part of the optical formula. Wish I could afford the Canon too! Tamron seems to be lighter at under 5 lbs, though.
Sep 27, 2010 at 07:10 PM
p.2 #11Adaptall thread
The other 24mm = http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/old-lens/cw24.htm
gathering more info... the 01b is the one to go with, if one is to go after it at all...
i'm thinking i'd be wise to pass on this one.
gathering more info... the 01b is the one to go with, if one is to go after it at all...
i'm thinking i'd be wise to pass on this one.
Sep 27, 2010 at 08:23 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #12Adaptall thread
Yeah, It's not that bad, may keep mine, but have to wonder if the nikkor isn't better. See kenrockwell.com, he compared all nikkor 24's pretty much and says old beaten 1976 still good. And old ones about $100 at keh. Om better. Also wonder if something happened to mine, weird with that one corner. So the 01b is the better of the two?
Sep 27, 2010 at 08:32 PM
p.2 #13Adaptall thread
Anybody here tried SP 200-500 (31A)? If it's decent it should answer my posted thread on easily adaptable massive telezooms..
Sep 29, 2010 at 09:05 AM
p.2 #16Adaptall thread
I really like the 90/2.5 (52B). Sharp and lovely blur. This one on an IR converted GF-1
http://ic2.pbase.com/o6/63/551663/1/128852962.1YG7FT1a.Ptown_1030137.jpg
Same again on 1ds3
http://i.pbase.com/o4/63/551663/1/91013603.dom5T8GZ._M8K0182jpg.JPG
http://i.pbase.com/o4/63/551663/1/91027441.6RIEC5kC._M8K1110jpg.JPG
http://ic2.pbase.com/o4/63/551663/1/91027428.2fBCgHfl._M8K0938jpg.JPG
http://i.pbase.com/o4/63/551663/1/91027326.tMuwfvkK._M8K0919jpg.JPG
This 24/2.5 (01B) used to be my favorite landscape lens on my OM1 and OM2....I completely forgot that I still had it until a few months ago.....
http://i.pbase.com/o6/63/551663/1/129098595.F9oXW6hY.Ptown_M7K3986_7_8_tonemapped.jpg
Mike
http://ic2.pbase.com/o6/63/551663/1/128852962.1YG7FT1a.Ptown_1030137.jpg
Same again on 1ds3
http://i.pbase.com/o4/63/551663/1/91013603.dom5T8GZ._M8K0182jpg.JPG
http://i.pbase.com/o4/63/551663/1/91027441.6RIEC5kC._M8K1110jpg.JPG
http://ic2.pbase.com/o4/63/551663/1/91027428.2fBCgHfl._M8K0938jpg.JPG
http://i.pbase.com/o4/63/551663/1/91027326.tMuwfvkK._M8K0919jpg.JPG
This 24/2.5 (01B) used to be my favorite landscape lens on my OM1 and OM2....I completely forgot that I still had it until a few months ago.....
http://i.pbase.com/o6/63/551663/1/129098595.F9oXW6hY.Ptown_M7K3986_7_8_tonemapped.jpg
Mike
Oct 03, 2010 at 03:57 PM
p.2 #17Adaptall thread
Kuul images mcbroomf!
Krosavcheg wrote:
Apparently not..well, it's gone anyway...
You saw that too huh? I bid on it till it got too high. Assuming you're talking about the one on the auction site.
Krosavcheg wrote:
Apparently not..well, it's gone anyway...
You saw that too huh? I bid on it till it got too high. Assuming you're talking about the one on the auction site.
Oct 03, 2010 at 09:24 PM
p.2 #18Adaptall thread
Nopp, that one was in local shop. I saw the auction also, but that was too expensive.
One in shop went for about 11.000yen soimething I think...AB or B rank.
They also had the 90/2.8, but it was sold fairly quickly also..
But I picked up 60-300 there last week for 1.000.. Some dust inside, hopefully I can remove rear element and clean a little...
One in shop went for about 11.000yen soimething I think...AB or B rank.
They also had the 90/2.8, but it was sold fairly quickly also..
But I picked up 60-300 there last week for 1.000..
Some dust inside, hopefully I can remove rear element and clean a little...Oct 24, 2010 at 02:38 AM
p.2 #19Adaptall thread
AmbientMike wrote:
The 300 2.8 isn't bad, usable wide open, a bit of haze wide open like many older lenses, but usable.
Which model of 300/2.8 do you have? I have the 60B and it has no haze wide open and its very sharp. Mind you, I use the standard Tamron bayonet fit hood with it any time I'm using it.
I have removed the 43mm rear plain glass filter to make it even sharper...Not that CA is a problem WO but I swear there is even less CA without the rear filter too.
Using the right teleconverter with it can be critical for best performance...I use the common Tamron SP 2x on it and WO it seems just as sharp as without the TC and CA is not noticable...I tried a supposedly higher quality Nikon 2x on it though and CA was absolutely terrible!
I would'nt mind getting the rare SP 200F 2x TC for it as its supposed to be even better.
The 300 2.8 isn't bad, usable wide open, a bit of haze wide open like many older lenses, but usable.
Which model of 300/2.8 do you have? I have the 60B and it has no haze wide open and its very sharp. Mind you, I use the standard Tamron bayonet fit hood with it any time I'm using it.
I have removed the 43mm rear plain glass filter to make it even sharper...Not that CA is a problem WO but I swear there is even less CA without the rear filter too.
Using the right teleconverter with it can be critical for best performance...I use the common Tamron SP 2x on it and WO it seems just as sharp as without the TC and CA is not noticable...I tried a supposedly higher quality Nikon 2x on it though and CA was absolutely terrible!
I would'nt mind getting the rare SP 200F 2x TC for it as its supposed to be even better.
Oct 24, 2010 at 04:45 AM
p.2 #20Adaptall thread
LightShow wrote:
I have this lens with an OM mount, but have yet to try it, I'm waiting for an OM to EOS adapter.
I'll post my findings and some pics when I get a chance.
http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/02B.html
Why not just get an adaptall-EF adapter?
Heres a cheap one:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Tamron-adaptall-2-Lens-Canon-EF-EOS-Mount-Adaptor-/180530929588?pt=UK_Photography_CameraLenses_Lens_caps_hoods_adaptors_ET&hash=item2a087b5fb4
I have this lens with an OM mount, but have yet to try it, I'm waiting for an OM to EOS adapter.
I'll post my findings and some pics when I get a chance.
http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/02B.html
Why not just get an adaptall-EF adapter?
Heres a cheap one:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Tamron-adaptall-2-Lens-Canon-EF-EOS-Mount-Adaptor-/180530929588?pt=UK_Photography_CameraLenses_Lens_caps_hoods_adaptors_ET&hash=item2a087b5fb4
Oct 24, 2010 at 04:49 AM