AmbientMike wrote:
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....Show more →
Mine is sharper and has less CA without the rear filter so I dont think it is part of the optical formula.
Hmm My 60B copy is sharper and less CA with the rear filter installed and I believe it's part of the formula. The one that is sharper without the filter is the first version, 107B according to adaptall-2.org:
"Optically, the model 107B has slight inherent softness caused by very slight overcorrected spherical aberration which is introduced when using a rear drop-in standard filter. The extremely slight softness (when using the standard drop-in filter) makes this lens especially suitable for close-up portrait and stage photography whenever you don't want the finest of details rendered absolutely razor sharp. Removing the filter from the lens's rear filter holder makes the very slight spherical aberration disappear. The result is a significant increase in contrast and sharpness. Oops!!! Tamron's optical engineers originally designed this lens without accounting for the optical effects of the rear drop-in rear filter within the very fast F/2.8 optical path. The rear drop-in filter was added later during development after the initial optical design had already been "carved in stone". Remove the filter from the rear filter holder, and this gorgeous yet extremely rare lens will perform nearly as well as the model 60B introduced the following year. The later model 60B is somewhat sharper towards the corners and was designed to always be used with a filter in the rear filter slot. You can get the same slight softness effect with the later model 60B simply by removing the rear drop-in filter. The result will be slight undercorrected spherical aberration. The rear filter removal for this lens isn't merely a theory; I verified the results by testing my SP 300mm model 107B on my optical bench with 50x magnification at the focal plane. Shown further below are Modern Photography's test results with the filter along with my test results without the filter."
I have 60B and I played with it some and the filter affected focus. I always use hood too. been a while, seems I didn't test sharpness and ca but since the focus seemed right with the filter installed that way that's how I used it. Maybe I'll have to test again. My tamron 2x is absolutely awful with this lens, have to use at f/11 or 16 (5.6 or 8 on lens) where there is a huge focus shift. Have gotten one really really good photo with this combo probably due to decreased contrast, and resolution was adequate.
Sometimes mine has a bit of the glow that some older lenses have wide open, but then sometimes seems ok. Perhaps you have a better copy? I definitely use mine wide open when I need it.
200-500 31a is pretty good. Mine seemed a bit sharper than 100-400 L that I used! Kind of wonder about that opinion but that is what I remember. very big and heavy, not really handholdable like 100-400, and a pain to use, but pretty good. Better stopped down a half stop or more, I use it at f/8 1/2 a lot. Weight listed on adaptall-2.org is 6 lbs. so maybe about the same as canon 300/2.8. Used it with tamron af 1.4 tc and got ok results, need to tape contacts or something to get it to work, though. I recommend the 200-500 31a, definitely worth a look. Usable wide open, better a half stop down.
Great shots as always, Matt, particularly good use of the 17 on the last shot. But the arrangement of these two was priceless. "Bear," looks like it's followed by, "Uh, Dad, that's a really big bear walking this way."
Credit where credit is due: Shot #4 was actually made by a sort of collaboration... of me. I was only about 3 or 4 feet off the ground, and had previously dialed in aperture/ss for the spot. We went through a few iterations of him making a shot, then showing it to me, than me saying, "Ok, come in closer, angle it up a bit," until we got it just right. I feel like I set up the basic conditions, and nudged the shot towards a specific idea-- but it was ultimately his eye that lined everything up through the viewfinder, and his fingers that focused the lens and pushed the shutter. And it came out nicely.
hi,
i want to get a few tamron adaptall sp lenses.
those are the 70-210mm f/3.5 , the 300mm 5.6 and the 35-80mm 2.8-3.5
i have the 90mm 2.5 already and i'm very pleased with it.
can you tell me something about those lenses and how they compare to current lenses ?
are there good alternatives for about the same price ?
thanks a lot
asa14
asa14,
All those 3 are good lenses and you can find them with very reasonable prices. There is a thread on the 300/5.6 recently HERE
It's hard to find a better value than the SP 70-210/3.5. A few within the same price range or cheaper with comparable IQ are the tamron 80-210/3.8-4 (103A) or the vivitar series 1 70-210/3.5 (Kiron,Tokina, Komine).
Same thing can be said about the 35-80/2.8-3.5 (01A). The older version adaptall 35-80/2.8-3.5 (QZ-35M) is quite as good. There also is a vivitar series 1 35-80/2.8 but it usually is more expensive and is a way bigger/heavier lens.
freaklikeme wrote:
Great shots as always, Matt, particularly good use of the 17 on the last shot. But the arrangement of these two was priceless. "Bear," looks like it's followed by, "Uh, Dad, that's a really big bear walking this way."
Thanks Brad. It was a big bear, but was more interested in berries than us.
thanks for your response.
ok, i see. they are good, but how do they compare to current ones like the canon l series ?
especially the 300mm is interested.
one question about the 90mm macro. i heard something about an extension tube for archieving 2:1 with the teleconverter.
do i have to use the original tube from tamron(18F) or can i use another one and if yes which ?
thanks
debuggerus wrote:
.
Same thing can be said about the 35-80/2.8-3.5 (01A).
The 01A is a 2.8-3.8. I have one and I love it. It is (at least) as sharp as a typical modern zoom, even more so at the long end, and it has a very handy 1:2.5 macro feature which is rather uniquely implemented. All of this in a very compact, solid little lens with super smooth focus and zoom action. The cons are barreling at the wide end (simple enough to correct), a cool caste, and significant flare/ghosting in contra light. The combination of the flare and cool caste can sometimes result in a "blue glow" feeling in the photo, which is rare, and kind of "cool" when it happens. I wouldn't normally associate this with the colour of coatings, but it is worth it to mention that the BBAR coatings on my copy are predominantly blue-indigo-violet. I should also mention that my copy has its share of dust, so this is likely exacerbating the contra light issue.
Got a "junked" 70-210/3.5 19AH (don't seem to be able to get macro mode) but the glas is in the beautiful condition. Paid about $10 and took it for a spin to Tokyo Dome Luna Sea concert.
Few shots:
Nice street images man! That 19AH does really well on the road like that! Good work!
cogitech, I just got the 01A and the 27A together in a set buy. I haven't had time to play with either extensively but I messed about with the 27A a little bit - just cuz it's "wide" and it seems very much alike to the images you posted here. I'll have to do a heads up between the two when I get more time. If nothing else it might make for an interesting post. :P
It was a big bear, but was more interested in berries than us. 