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

Silver Tamron 300mm f/5.6 Adapt-A-Matic or Adaptall?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is indeed the adaptall version (CT-300), only in silver.
(the small scuffs will likely be worse than you can see here, it is always like that Crying or Very sad )
I am lucky though that my keybord has a water drain though, it is droolworthy Razz .
I guess we will see when it arrives how good it is and what the front ring says.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Found my one and it has the grip missing from the aperture ring, although the focusing grip is still OK. Sexy looking lens Smile
I even have the matching branded Tamron lens cap Smile
#1

#2


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Now this is the 'adaptamatic' type, however judging by the rear of the lens it has an adaptall type bayonet mount.
Just like the original lens in the topic, it is a transition version.
Note that it does not have a MC designation, however still has 'Auto'. So it is looking more likely that it is in fact the CT-300 version that was used for the fotos on Flickr. Note that the grip material has changed to the normal adaptall type.
It is still a very nice looking lens though.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Tom. I'm not sure about the nuances of the mount. I use my normal adaptal-eos mount on this lens and it seems to work just fine. Maybe I'll get a chance to shoot it this weekend Smile


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ymmot wrote:
Yup, we know that about adaptamatic, that is what is said on adaptall-2.org.
However we are talking about lenses from the transitional period between adaptamatic and adaptall.
As far as i can see most lenses listed as adaptalls feature BBAR MC and are introduced from '76 as for the 300mm, which certainly features MC.
However the adaptamatic version is listed as discontinued in '73.
The lens from this tread is a transitional version, indicating that after '73 there must have been a transition between adaptamatic and adaptall and from SC to MC. Sadly no picture of the front ring is available, so no designation of the front ring can be seen, giving any conclusion about MC.

I found a possible clue regarding the question by looking through the list: adaptall mount zoom lenses from '73 with the text 'Auto':
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/old-lens/z250.htm
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/old-lens/sz38.htm
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/old-lens/z220.htm
These are the three earliest adaptall zooms, all still carry the 'Auto' designation and are probably 'remounted' adaptamatics.
Also the adaptall 105mm seems to carry an auto designation (and is also a possible 'remount'):
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/old-lens/ct105.htm
However this lens is introduced in '76 just as the 300mm. Sadly no (BBAR) MC designation is visible here in any of the above lenses.

So the lens in the Flickr post is either an transition period 'adaptamatic type' lens which might have featured an early MC designation and adaptall mount, or (which sounds more plausible to me as there is also a 105mm with 'Auto') it is a early 'adaptall type' type lens which featured MC and still carried the 'Auto' label.
So if someone can provide one of the above zooms with a MC designation or one of the other lenses with both MC and Auto designation this will answer our question I guess.

This didnt really bring us any further, however it gave me something to do Wink


Well, if you are considering the transition period, you failed to consider the F lenses which is jammed in between the Adaptalls and Adaptamatics with overlap. All I was pointing out is that Adapt-A-Matics have magnesium fluoride coating. There are some of us with adaptamatic collections. Plus there are brochures scanned at the Adaptall-2 orphan site. I have downsized my adaptamatic collection to the 21mm, 35mm and 105mm.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ymmot wrote:
Now this is the 'adaptamatic' type, however judging by the rear of the lens it has an adaptall type bayonet mount.
Just like the original lens in the topic, it is a transition version.
Note that it does not have a MC designation, however still has 'Auto'. So it is looking more likely that it is in fact the CT-300 version that was used for the fotos on Flickr. Note that the grip material has changed to the normal adaptall type.
It is still a very nice looking lens though.


This is actually an Adaptall lens. I have the 200mm version in silver and it has a silver Adaptall tripod ring as well as the Adaptall mounting system. The difference between this and the black version, I presume, is the BBAR multi-coating.

As it is, the optical scheme may well be the same as the Adaptamatic version.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
Thank you all for info. I did write to Harry from Flickr (still no response).
Here photos of mine acquisition - i guess in reality it will be looking worst than this Wink :




The lack of BBAR coating makes me wonder if this is an F lens. I don't have an F series lens at the moment to compare the mount though. Auto and Automatic was used on the F lenses much the way it was for the Adaptamatics.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here is a black version of the F 300mm



PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Seriously, the lens clearly has the ta symbol on the barrel of the lens there...the ta stands for Tamron Adaptall Smile

Interestingly though, there WERE multi coated silver Adaptalls sold as well, if you look on Googles images you will see a 105/2.5 with the green lettering on the front and the BBAR multi coating designation Smile


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
As far as I can see, the F system lenses are the early Adaptalls with fixed mounts. I believe Tamron did the same with their teleconverters as well.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tom - thanks for a lovely new word, "droolworthy". I'll remember that! Smile


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Seriously, the lens clearly has the ta symbol on the barrel of the lens there...the ta stands for Tamron Adaptall Smile

Interestingly though, there WERE multi coated silver Adaptalls sold as well, if you look on Googles images you will see a 105/2.5 with the green lettering on the front and the BBAR multi coating designation Smile


That makes sense on the BBAR. Trying to search on the F series lenses is a real pita because of the Nikon mount. Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Ymmot wrote:
Now this is the 'adaptamatic' type, however judging by the rear of the lens it has an adaptall type bayonet mount.
Just like the original lens in the topic, it is a transition version.
Note that it does not have a MC designation, however still has 'Auto'. So it is looking more likely that it is in fact the CT-300 version that was used for the fotos on Flickr. Note that the grip material has changed to the normal adaptall type.
It is still a very nice looking lens though.


This is actually an Adaptall lens. I have the 200mm version in silver and it has a silver Adaptall tripod ring as well as the Adaptall mounting system. The difference between this and the black version, I presume, is the BBAR multi-coating.

As it is, the optical scheme may well be the same as the Adaptamatic version.


What i meant with 'adaptamatic' type is that the build of the lens corresponds to the 670Au adaptamatic (only the see through index part is different). However the lens from martyn_banister definitely is an adaptall indeed, but it offers no qlue whether it has MC, it is certainly not listed on the lens. If you look closely you see that the lens from pancolart is actually different, not having a tripod ring and looking shorter it is a CT-300 type, only in silver. I can make some pictures of my black adaptamatic to compare if you want.
Also the lens from Pancolart does not clearly show a MC or BBAR label (part of the ring is invisible).

I am definetly not an expert or a collector though, I can only try to reason with the info I have, so more insight is always welcome Wink
My info on F-system lenses is non existent so I am happy with any info so i can learn more.
@Blue, Im sorry if I came over offensive, I did not mean it that way.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ymmot wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Ymmot wrote:
Now this is the 'adaptamatic' type, however judging by the rear of the lens it has an adaptall type bayonet mount.
Just like the original lens in the topic, it is a transition version.
Note that it does not have a MC designation, however still has 'Auto'. So it is looking more likely that it is in fact the CT-300 version that was used for the fotos on Flickr. Note that the grip material has changed to the normal adaptall type.
It is still a very nice looking lens though.


This is actually an Adaptall lens. I have the 200mm version in silver and it has a silver Adaptall tripod ring as well as the Adaptall mounting system. The difference between this and the black version, I presume, is the BBAR multi-coating.

As it is, the optical scheme may well be the same as the Adaptamatic version.


What i meant with 'adaptamatic' type is that the build of the lens corresponds to the 670Au adaptamatic (only the see through index part is different). However the lens from martyn_banister definitely is an adaptall indeed, but it offers no qlue whether it has MC, it is certainly not listed on the lens. If you look closely you see that the lens from pancolart is actually different, not having a tripod ring and looking shorter it is a CT-300 type, only in silver. I can make some pictures of my black adaptamatic to compare if you want.
Also the lens from Pancolart does not clearly show a MC or BBAR label (part of the ring is invisible).

I am definetly not an expert or a collector though, I can only try to reason with the info I have, so more insight is always welcome Wink
My info on F-system lenses is non existent so I am happy with any info so i can learn more.
@Blue, Im sorry if I came over offensive, I did not mean it that way.


No problem YMMOT. It is an older thread and I came back into it on a different page so to speak. I understand what you mean. It is a trick determining which of these early adpatalls are carried over optical designs from the adaptamatics and the F series adds another wrinkle to that. I have had 2 F lenses in the past in m42 mount and didn't realize the mount didn't come off, but have long since traded them. However, I am certain that unless a lens has mc or BBAR on it, it only has the magnesium fluoride coating.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:15 am    Post subject: How much are they worth? Reply with quote
I've had one of these laying around for several years -- a silver Auto Tamron 300mm f/5.6, with an Adapatall mount.

What are they worth compared to the more common black version?

Mine is well-scuffed, but the glass is fine and it works fine. I have the original, interesting lens cap, but the rear cap is for the Contax/Yashica Adaptall adapter it came with. I also have what I take to be the original case, but it doesn't say Tamron; the fake leather on the top is gone.

One feature I find interesting is the "EE" setting on the aperture ring. As far as I can tell, this was for the Konica Auto-Reflex and compatibles. The EE setting worked correctly for shutter-priority auto exposure on my Pentax DSLR, though it was always one stop off (I don't recall which direction; it's been several years since I've mounted it), easily fixed with exposure compensation.

I bought it cheaply on eBay several years ago, but since it is optically unimpressive compared to Tamron's later SP version (which is also smaller and lighter), I'd assumed it wasn't worth much. Ever since getting an SP version, my only interest in this silver Auto version is that it looks so unusual and cool. But now, reading this thread, I'm intrigued to learn that's it's rare, and I'm wondering if it's worth substantially more than the pocket change that the standard black versions are selling for (or, more often, not selling).


Thanks,

Greg


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:22 am    Post subject: Forgot to add.. Reply with quote
I forgot to add:

Mine still has the original grips for both the focus ring and the aperture ring grip. The focus ring grip is loose and seems to have grown bigger, so it can't just be glued down without wrinkles or a cut. But it's still flexible; not brittle. The aperture ring grip seems as good as new. The grip style is a sort of randomized bumpiness; the same as in Pancolart's pictures.

Greg


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:31 am    Post subject: Re: Silver Tamron 300mm f/5.6 Adapt-A-Matic or Adaptall? Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Adaptall mounts for EOS are easy to find (made in China) or use an M42/K/OM/Yashica-Contax or Nikon mount with appropriate EOS adapter Smile

My AD2 > M42 is not usable with M42 > EOS adapters as it blocks the aperture ring.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Silver Tamron 300mm f/5.6 Adapt-A-Matic or Adaptall? Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Adaptall mounts for EOS are easy to find (made in China) or use an M42/K/OM/Yashica-Contax or Nikon mount with appropriate EOS adapter Smile

My AD2 > M42 is not usable with M42 > EOS adapters as it blocks the aperture ring.


Is yours an original Tamron mount? I've not had an.issue with mine.

To the other person, the lens is not valuable I'm afraid, even in silver.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Silver Tamron 300mm f/5.6 Adapt-A-Matic or Adaptall? Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Adaptall mounts for EOS are easy to find (made in China) or use an M42/K/OM/Yashica-Contax or Nikon mount with appropriate EOS adapter Smile

My AD2 > M42 is not usable with M42 > EOS adapters as it blocks the aperture ring.


Do you use a flanged adapter? I remember hearing about problems with some lenses, as far as I remember depressing the pin constantly on some lenses made the apperture mechanism jam. This is likely because the mechanism was not designed for this, as the apperture pin on most m42 lenses is only depressed intermittently when the shutter is fired as focussing happens wide open on native m42 cameras.
This may indeed make your m42 adapter useless with newer adaptall 2 lenses which do not have their own A-M switch in your case I guess Sad .

My pentacon electric mount works perfectly when adapted, however my m42-olympus 4/3 adapter does not have a flange. Also the pentacon electric m42 adaptall mount has a useless A-M switch as it does not seem to be designed to stay into position by itself Rolling Eyes .
So I end up using the A-M button on my 105mm adaptall instead and the adapter is useless as well for the newer adaptall 2 lenses for me. I have not tested with a flanged adapter though.

Again to the other person Wink . Indeed the interest in this tread was probably mostly about the unusual look of the silver adaptalls. As the value of the older adaptalls is usually not very high, a silver version does not likely add a huge amount to that. Probably only if the lens is fully mint, which yours is not, it will add a small bit of value for a possible collector. For your lens it may only be the difference between sold and not sold I guess (Due to the indeed quite cool look Wink ).


PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
Thats a hippie-age lens, and some whimsy wouldn't go amiss. Some thin leather (fringed ? patterned? painted ? peace signs ? beaded in wampum ?), some glue, and that thing could again look groovy.


Shocked Cool Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ymmot wrote:
Maybe you could mail the guy via Flickr and ask for a lens picture?
Everything i have heard in the last few days makes me want to drag it out of the closet again, as people seem to like it better than i remember it being for me Smile .
The silver version does look very cool, I would like to see it when you get it. It is a much better finish than my 'boring' black and orange finish. Mine still has an intact rubber grip, most seem to have lost that somehow.
Also the adaptamatic mount is not as removable as an adaptall mount, it looks far more like a fixed mount in the same way that most people also often will not recognize T mount lenses as such (including me Wink )


In fact Harry confirmed that photos were taken with this silver model. Link to photos again: http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrisalo/6241259362/in/photostream
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2