Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

My first Tamron Adaptall lens - 24mm (CW-24)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2015 5:33 pm    Post subject: My first Tamron Adaptall lens - 24mm (CW-24) Reply with quote
Bought my first Tamron Adaptall lens earlier today. I own a great many Adaptall 2 lenses, and a fair number of Adapt-A-Matic lenses. I didn't buy this with the thought of starting a new collection of Adaptall lenses. There are too many and I'd be starting from scratch. Instead:

Here is the calculus on this purchase:

1. It's a 24mm lens and those are sought after.
2. That adapter, with a bit of modification, can be used on my Adaptall 2 lenses as an m42 adapter. I'm paying $11 for those in China.
3. The condition looked acceptable.
4. Thought it might be a decent lens photographically.
5. This lens is a tad bit faster than my Vivitar 24mm lenses.

Here is the adaptall-2.org information page for the CW-24:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/old-lens/cw24.htm

Here is the auction:

Click here to see on Ebay then click see original listing

Regardless what that says, the seller accepted a best offer of US$25 for the lens. So adding shipping and subtracting the worth of the adapter, the bare lens sans adapter cost circa US$20. That seemed reasonable to me.

I don't really know this lens at all. Does anyone else already own one and have an opinion?


PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
While I don't own this particular model, it seems to be the same optical design as the 01BB from the Adaptall-2 series which is one of my favorite prime lenses for its versatility.

The description at Adaptall-2.org seems to confirm this assessment.


If I am right, I think you will find this lens to be a nice balance between sharpness and ease of use. In comparison, I think you will find the Vivitars to be "sweeter", to have a smoother blur, and to be more forgiving.

Some samples follow.


Minolta SR T 102, Kodak "Max Versatility" ISO 400

This also hints at an interesting trait of my particular copy of this lens. It has an interesting sensitivity for light in the yellow part of the spectrum, without causing a general color shift.





OM-D E-M5, Lens Turbo adapter

This approximates the field-of-view and performance on an APS-C sensor, where it would be roughly equivalent to a 36mm focal length on a 135 film camera.





OM-D E-M5

Here it is wide open on a m4/3 camera, roughly 48mm equivalent.

I have a set dedicated to this lens, if you want to see more examples.


PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
leonAzul wrote:
While I don't own this particular model, it seems to be the same optical design as the 01BB from the Adaptall-2 series which is one of my favorite prime lenses for its versatility.

The description at Adaptall-2.org seems to confirm this assessment.


If I am right, I think you will find this lens to be a nice balance between sharpness and ease of use. In comparison, I think you will find the Vivitars to be "sweeter", to have a smoother blur, and to be more forgiving.

Some samples follow.



This also hints at an interesting trait of my particular copy of this lens. It has an interesting sensitivity for light in the yellow part of the spectrum, without causing a general color shift.

This approximates the field-of-view and performance on an APS-C sensor, where it would be roughly equivalent to a 36mm focal length on a 135 film camera.

Here it is wide open on a m4/3 camera, roughly 48mm equivalent.

I have a set dedicated to this lens, if you want to see more examples.


Thank you, leonAzul, for your thoughts. And your photos are quite remarkable! I also happen to own a copy of the 01BB Adaptall 2, but I'm certain in your hands it is a better lens. Smile

I've been a bit surprised by the lack of CW-24 specific replies here. I don't think it's an unusual lens, but truth to tell I don't really know as I do not collect Adaptall lenses. Perhaps that's something I should re-consider. Smile

From a market standpoint, the 01BB Adaptall 2 lenses are ones I see offered for sale very nearly every day (but I own just a single copy), whereas I find CW-24 Adaptall lenses offered for sale only rarely. Prior to this purchase, I cannot recall the last one I saw. And of course the CW-24 lenses, and all Adaptall lenses, are older so condition can more readily become a concern.

My CW-24 has been shipped and should be here Monday. I'm curious to hold it and evaluate it as sort of a curiosity. I still don't think it is an unusual lens . . . but I'm less certain of that than I was when I made the purchase.


PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, the CW-24 is quite a bit older, thus less common, most likely. I also own a copy of the 01BB, and I believe it is the same optical formula as the CW-24. Probably the only real difference is the mount (adaptall and adaptall-2 interchange, btw), the coatings, and cosmetics.

After I bought my 01BB, I did a comparison test between it and my 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor. I was using a crop-body Canon, so I had no way to evaluate the edges and corners, but distortion seemed to be insignificant. As far as contrast and sharpness, it was at least as good as the Nikkor. In fact in the mid-aperture ranges it was slightly, but noticeably, sharper than the Nikkor.

Let us know what you think of your CW-24. I'm curious to know, especially how it measures up to your 01BB. I'll wager that any differences will be minor and might can be attributed to coating differences.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
guardian wrote:

Thank you, leonAzul, for your thoughts. And your photos are quite remarkable! I also happen to own a copy of the 01BB Adaptall 2, but I'm certain in your hands it is a better lens. Smile


Thanks for your kind words, yet I think it would be more accurate to say that I feel comfortable with this lens, which probably has more to do with the limitations of my eyesight than any great skill on my part. Wink

guardian wrote:

I've been a bit surprised by the lack of CW-24 specific replies here. I don't think it's an unusual lens, but truth to tell I don't really know as I do not collect Adaptall lenses. Perhaps that's something I should re-consider. Smile

From a market standpoint, the 01BB Adaptall 2 lenses are ones I see offered for sale very nearly every day (but I own just a single copy), whereas I find CW-24 Adaptall lenses offered for sale only rarely. Prior to this purchase, I cannot recall the last one I saw. And of course the CW-24 lenses, and all Adaptall lenses, are older so condition can more readily become a concern.


I suspect that during the time when the CW-24 was in production Tamron was still earning more as a maker and designer of lenses for other brands and still finding their way as a brand in their own right. If my hunch is correct, it would explain why there aren't very many CW-24 lenses coming up for sale, because there were comparatively few branded with that label.

cooltouch points out another consideration. Although the Adaptall and Adaptall-2 mounts are somewhat interchangeable, the Adaptall-2 system is so superior in functionality that it eclipses the earlier mounts, and it remains quite viable even for DSLR and MILC applications.

As to collecting Tamron glass, there goes the way of GAS and folly. I have come to appreciate Tamron lenses, particularly the shorter primes, for their utility. I feel no compulsion to "collect them all". It happens that the copy of the 01BB I have works for me.

guardian wrote:

My CW-24 has been shipped and should be here Monday. I'm curious to hold it and evaluate it as sort of a curiosity. I still don't think it is an unusual lens . . . but I'm less certain of that than I was when I made the purchase.


If I might make a suggestion, please don't worry so much about its value as a collectable, but rather take the time to discover how it is useful for you. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 2:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:

After I bought my 01BB, I did a comparison test between it and my 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor. I was using a crop-body Canon, so I had no way to evaluate the edges and corners, but distortion seemed to be insignificant. As far as contrast and sharpness, it was at least as good as the Nikkor. In fact in the mid-aperture ranges it was slightly, but noticeably, sharper than the Nikkor.


Now that is a surprise!

If you could share some samples, if only for subjective appraisal, I would be humbly obliged.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 4:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
leonAzul wrote:
cooltouch wrote:

After I bought my 01BB, I did a comparison test between it and my 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor. I was using a crop-body Canon, so I had no way to evaluate the edges and corners, but distortion seemed to be insignificant. As far as contrast and sharpness, it was at least as good as the Nikkor. In fact in the mid-aperture ranges it was slightly, but noticeably, sharper than the Nikkor.


Now that is a surprise!

If you could share some samples, if only for subjective appraisal, I would be humbly obliged.


Well, it took a bit of digging but I found three shots from the comparison. Looking at them again, honestly all I can say is they're both just about dead even with regard to sharpness and contrast by f/8. By f/16 the Tamron is beginning to edge ahead of the Nikon in sharpness, which is starting to fall off a bit from diffraction across the aperture blades, most likely. Wide open the Tamron shows a bit more flare, as is exhibited with the white car in the background. So it ends up being kind of a wash, really.

The images are pretty much self explanatory.





PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:


Well, it took a bit of digging but I found three shots from the comparison. Looking at them again, honestly all I can say is they're both just about dead even with regard to sharpness and contrast by f/8. By f/16 the Tamron is beginning to edge ahead of the Nikon in sharpness, which is starting to fall off a bit from diffraction across the aperture blades, most likely. Wide open the Tamron shows a bit more flare, as is exhibited with the white car in the background. So it ends up being kind of a wash, really.

The images are pretty much self explanatory.


Aha, yes, I see what you mean. I agree that the 01BB is susceptible to bloom and veiling flare, especially when wide open, yet I also note that it is very predictable and consistent about it, which leads to some creative choices.




Finishing With a Flare on Flickr


I have long had a sense that the 01BB "punches above its weight", yet it is interesting to see this confirmed in an actual head-to-head comparison. Thanks for sharing some valuable evidence.

I think we can all agree, though, that the Nikkor is much more refined wide-open. Horses for courses, lenses for lighting; it's a beautiful world! 8^)

Edited to remove reiteratively redundant reposting of images. Sorry about that.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1