Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Tamron Adaptamatic 21/4.5 1960's Ultrawide
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:16 am    Post subject: Tamron Adaptamatic 21/4.5 1960's Ultrawide Reply with quote

I found this lens at a bargain price - still it is my most expensive Adaptamatic lens ! It is a fairly uncommon lens though one does show up on ebay every month or so. Its much harder to find one at a reasonable price however.





It is a very early super-wide, so the front element is enormous, in spite of being only an f/4.5, it has a 82mm filter ring, compared to 72mm for the slightly later Tokina/T4 21/3.8 and 62mm Cosina 19/3.8 -



L-R - Tamron Adaptamatic 21/4.5, Soligor/Tokina T4 21/3.8, Vivitar/Cosina 19/3.8

I guess because of the super-size front filter, Tamron provided for a tiny 17mm rear filter -



I got this for the sake of my Tamron Adaptamatic collection. So far I am missing the 24/2.8, the very rare 105mm, and the enormous 200-500 zoom.

This lens is of course an Adaptamatic with an interchangeable mount. Construction and finish is excellent like all the Adaptamatics. It is a very pleasant lens to use, all rings are light and smooth. Close-focus is quite good at less than 10"/25cm. The max aperture is very small, f/4.5, but it still seems bright even on my dim DSLR viewfinder.

Performance is superior to the Tokina 21/3.8, being quite sharp even at f/4.5, and much less prone to flare and ghosting, though it will of course do that under the worst conditions. Edge quality is not very good even on a crop-sensor. There is also a quite evident barrel distortion. So this is no substitute for a Flektogon 4/20 and should not sell at the same price, though I have seen that. All in all though, a nice user.















The bird ?



Not cooperating, unfortunately. 21mm is not in their contract.

So, other tests -

Note barrel distortion -



Crop center f/4.5 -



Crop corner -



Into the sun -



PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I looks pretty nice. Do you have a photo of your adapt-a-matics all together Smile


PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good catch, Luis!


PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really nice! first one what I seen! congrats!


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Seymore,

Its interesting about Bushnell. They seem to have carried the Adaptamatic line for a short time with interchangable adapters and all, probably the only merchant to do that. Some others carried fixed mount versions of some of the Adaptamatics. I also get the impression that Bushnell-branded Adaptamatics are rather scarce. So yours is a collectible !

I should try more flare tests. So far its not bad at all for what it is, or its no worse than my much later Vivitar 19/3.8, which will also flare in a situation your sample shot.

Maybe I'll get one of those girly-man flower hoods.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Tamron Adaptamatic 21/4.5 1960's Ultrawide Reply with quote

luisalegria wrote:


It is a very early super-wide, so the front element is enormous, in spite of being only an f/4.5, it has a 82mm filter ring, compared to 72mm for the slightly later Tokina/T4 21/3.8 and 62mm Cosina 19/3.8 -


It ressembles a lot the 24mm I have 72 mm filter ring) :



PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's a very interesting lens! Thanks for showing it.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a Tamron 21/4.5 Adaptamatic myself with a MD mount.(going to make an adapter to M42 Wink for it)

What other interesting Adaptamatic were available?


PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Alex,

Most of the Adaptamatics were pretty conventional and average. These are not Takumars or Zeiss. There are no legendary lenses in the line. I like the 3.5/200 and 5.6/300, but thats just me. Other people have different opinions.

The 200-500mm zoom would be pretty unique, there were few lenses like that in those days.

The rare 105mm is probably very good as it may be the ancestor of the early Adaptall 105. But that one is indeed rare, I only saw it once ever.

A M42 adapter should be easy, just a male M42-female 58mmx.75

Good luck with it.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting as always, Luis... Here's a bit more to add to the marketing mysteries of the 60s and 70s...

from 1973:


from 1969:




PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Tamron Adaptamatic 21/4.5 1960's Ultrawide Reply with quote

luisalegria wrote:
So this is no substitute for a Flektogon 4/20.....


Hi Luis, Wanderfull example!!

you anticipate to my question.

Here are two or three of this lenses going around for a long time.

Good luck with you tammy. Rino.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I let the 105mm adapt-a-matic slip by me on ebay. I got outbid and was gone when it concluded and didn't get to counter. The seller didn't not what it was and thought it was a Nikon lens. I'm certain the other 2 bidders figured it out. Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Colours and sharpness look very good to me. And if you don't take pictures of brick-walls the barrel-distortion shouldn't be a problem.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some more shots with the Adaptamatic 21mm
These done on the Pentax K-x, most at f/4.5 with a polarizer (also acts as a ND filter for wide open shooting in daylight)

















PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking at the pics of the lens, it looks very similar in barrel styling to the early Petris I have, makes me wonder if the 1.8/55, 2.8/35 and 5.5/200 Petris I have are not Tamrons too.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not likely to be the Petri's.

As far as I know Tamron never made a 1.8/55, but who knows what they did make for sale under other brands.

The 2.8/35 Adaptamatic is quite distinctive and much bulkier than the automatic Petris I have seen.

http://forum.mflenses.com/tamron-35-2-8-adaptamatic-t10343,highlight,%2Badaptamatic.html

There is also another very distinctive fixed-mount automatic Tamron that doesn't look like a Petri either - No pictures of that as I only have it in Canon FD mount, but this is the 28mm -

http://forum.mflenses.com/vernon-edonar-taisei-tamron-28-2-8-odd-and-rare-t16523,highlight,%2Btamron.html

And I don't think that Tamron made a 5.5/200 at all in Adaptamatic or similar style, though they did have a rather scarce 5.6/200 preset.
There is a rare Adaptamatic 4.5/200
http://forum.mflenses.com/tamron-adaptamatic-200-4-5-a-rare-tamron-t15276,highlight,%2Btamron.html


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will have to take some pics of my Petris.

I strongly suspect many japanese companies bought metal parts for the barrels from the same source as there is such a degree of commonality.

This definitely happened is east germany as you can find different lenses from different makers in virtually identical barrels.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:36 pm    Post subject: I have it too Reply with quote

First time posting here ever. I have a bunch of old manual focus lenses and this is one I have had for a while. I have not used it a whole lot but I find it very useful when I do, despite the lack of a good coating. The focus is super smooth on mine. A couple of random pictures below from my Canon 7D.















PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:44 pm    Post subject: Re: I have it too Reply with quote

Quoting to hep show the images. These are very nice.
I have this lens too, but use it only occasionally.

jumbomad wrote:
First time posting here ever. I have a bunch of old manual focus lenses and this is one I have had for a while. I have not used it a whole lot but I find it very useful when I do, despite the lack of a good coating. The focus is super smooth on mine. A couple of random pictures below from my Canon 7D.















PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:54 pm    Post subject: Thanks Reply with quote

Don't know why the images does not show. But thank you very much.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like it too. I am using it a lot more these days.

Its very good for zone focus style (hyperfocal) and street shooting. Just guesstimate the distance and you will be correct nearly all the time, even wide open.

Of course this is true for any 21mm lens, but most decent ones are much more expensive than this and not as nice to use. It also looks cool.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw one of those 105mm lens a few months ago... Sad .It went fairly cheap by memory.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

just got this lens in nikon mount... judging by the photos it seems in very good condition...

http://www.fcknbstrds.com/ebay/3/3328.JPG
http://www.fcknbstrds.com/ebay/3/3329.JPG
http://www.fcknbstrds.com/ebay/3/3326.JPG


PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

luisalegria wrote:
Hi Alex,

Most of the Adaptamatics were pretty conventional and average. These are not Takumars or Zeiss. There are no legendary lenses in the line.


A 35mm f1.8 was announced by Tamron who published a photo with a TBA price and no optical diagram. I saw the lens listed in an old magazine. But has it really been produced?


PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

takumat wrote:
A 35mm f1.8 was announced by Tamron who published a photo with a TBA price and no optical diagram. I saw the lens listed in an old magazine. But has it really been produced?

I remember reading about an Adaptall 28mm f/1.8 once... I think it was in a Photokina report in an American photo magazine. This one never seemed to make it to market, either. Shame!