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

Tamron brochure (1985)
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2015 12:38 pm    Post subject: Tamron brochure (1985) Reply with quote

Thought this might be of interest to fans of Tamron MF lenses:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEYQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gyes.eu%2Fdocuments%2Ftamron-adaptall-2_brochure%25281985%2529.pdf&ei=B7dlVaDDEYqcgwSml4HwDg&usg=AFQjCNF3ypmwzRF1-ZTHKRC66JN70fPIrA&bvm=bv.93990622,d.eXY


PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2015 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for sharing. A great line by Tamron.


PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2015 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cool.


PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2015 3:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks very much for this. It's in some ways a better resource than adaptall-2.org. As a hard-core Tamron fan, I appreciate it very much.


PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2015 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

+1
Another Tamron fan you made happy Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2015 6:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you. That is awesome.

I think I am missing 140F...

Another question:
My 300/2.8 360B, a newer version of 60B, has a long shade tube at the rear that won't fit 200F. Do you know there is a shorter tube that designed to fit with the 200F?


PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2015 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dunno the answer to your question. According to adaptall-2.org, the 200F fits all versions of the 300/2.8. See:

http://adaptall-2.org/lenses/200F.html

If it really won't fit with the 200F, perhaps that shade tube can be modified, such that it will?


PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
Thanks very much for this. It's in some ways a better resource than adaptall-2.org. As a hard-core Tamron fan, I appreciate it very much.

Indeed very nice! +1 on the the original post.
Didn't know about the tamron spotting scope. Is it any good?


PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting document. This explains why I never find the same mid range AD2 zoom twice! That is a lot of different ways of achieving 35mm at medium apertures. These days I am sure the marketing department would have insisted on stronger product differentiation.
So many zooms (though that f2.8 zoom looks tasty), and so few primes (though the ones listed are probably all good ones).

Though zooms outnumbering primes is also true of the current Tamron lineup.


PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Basilisk wrote:
Interesting document. This explains why I never find the same mid range AD2 zoom twice! That is a lot of different ways of achieving 35mm at medium apertures. These days I am sure the marketing department would have insisted on stronger product differentiation.
So many zooms (though that f2.8 zoom looks tasty), and so few primes (though the ones listed are probably all good ones).

Though zooms outnumbering primes is also true of the current Tamron lineup.


Your observation regarding (the number of) zooms vs. primes is very well taken. This is something which has intrigued me also, in the past, about Tamron.

I guess the image quality of Tamron SP zooms oftentimes approaches that of prime lenses . . or so many SP users assert. Candidly, I'm from Missouri on that one!!

Regarding the Tamron primes:

I cannot tell you much. Here in the USA most are so expensive as to be out of reach for average folks . . including myself. All many of us can do is dream . . . . and salivate. Wink


PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's very common for 3rd party manufacturers to produce more zooms than primes. Seems to me it's been that way for more than 30 years. Although most recently that trend seems to be changing, especially with makers like Sigma and Samyang, which are producing some fast primes that compete with the camera makers' more expensive offerings.

If the f/2.8 zoom you're referring to is the 80-200 LD, I can assure you that it is indeed "tasty". I have a copy and it is a fantastic lens. The Modern Photography tests shown at adaptall-2.org reveal that, at 200mm, the lens is as sharp as the Nikon180/2.8 ED, which is an incredible lens.

A few years ago, I was researching primes in the 180-200mm range with an f/2.8 maximum aperture until I stumbled across the tests for that SP 80-200, and that cinched it for me. I found an SP 80-200 at KEH in BGN condition (reason for the BGN was the zoom collar slips slightly, otherwise it's a solid EXC+) for about $250, quite a bit cheaper than competitive optics, like the Nikkor 180/2.8 ED, so I bought it. Quite a bit cheaper than what I typically see it sell for on eBay, far as that goes. And, as a former Nikkor 180/2.8 ED owner, I can tell you that it is a great lens -- equivalent to the Nikkor. The biggest drawback to it is its weight. It's quite a bit heavier than the Nikkor. But it has a tripod mount so that helps a lot.

As for product differentiation, I'm pretty sure those "similar" zooms all sold for different amounts, so their various price points established the differentiation.

Rense, I don't havae an answer for you regarding the spotting scope, but I'll wager it's at least as good as competitive products.


PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Glad to hear that the 80-200 f2.8 is decent Cooltouch. I have the later 35-105 f2.8 lens, but I have to say it is not really up to modern standards at f2.8 (as well as having an over-loose one-touch action that doesn't stay where you put it).

While I think the 55BB cat lens has a very welcome place in my bag, and I imagine the 90mm macro can still compete, I won't be getting any of the zooms. They are probably no better than modern kit zooms, and my interest in MF lenses is getting fast, compact, robust high quality optics that I can't afford in modern AF versions, and I feel Tamron at this point was a bit lacking on this front. Both Tokina and Sigma were offering better choice on wide angle primes.


PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

guardian wrote:

Regarding the Tamron primes:
I cannot tell you much. Here in the USA most are so expensive as to be out of reach for average folks . . including myself. All many of us can do is dream . . . . and salivate. Wink


That's interesting. In the old times (1980's) I had for budgetary reasons a Tamron tele lens 300mm for very short time. It was rather low standard and wasn't able to produce contrasty pictures. So I gave it away and the brand was somehow done for me.
Some years ago when I bought my Sony A850 I was thinking of a 100mm macro lens in AF and the original AF Minolta lens was too expensive. Therefore I gave Tamron a second chance and bought for relatively little money the 90mm/2.8 AF macro lens as it had a good reputation. This time I kept the lens and still have it. It's not bad I would say. The Tamron is about 200 Euro in Europe and the Minolta is about 400 Euros (prices for used lenses). Most probably the Minolta lens is the better one (my MF macro lenses from Minolta are excellent). Tamron produced also some standard zoom lenses for Minolta and those are available both in Tamron and Minolta brand. Those are the worst Minolta lenses I have in terms of optical quality. They are my most bulky camera caps. I do not use them for shooting.
Obviously Tamron is indeed able to produce good quality lenses. My macro lens is a proof for that. Nonetheless I would never consider Tamron as an expensive brand. Not in Europe.


PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
guardian wrote:

Regarding the Tamron primes:
I cannot tell you much. Here in the USA most are so expensive as to be out of reach for average folks . . including myself. All many of us can do is dream . . . . and salivate. Wink


That's interesting. In the old times (1980's) I had for budgetary reasons a Tamron tele lens 300mm for very short time. It was rather low standard and wasn't able to produce contrasty pictures. So I gave it away and the brand was somehow done for me.
Some years ago when I bought my Sony A850 I was thinking of a 100mm macro lens in AF and the original AF Minolta lens was too expensive. Therefore I gave Tamron a second chance and bought for relatively little money the 90mm/2.8 AF macro lens as it had a good reputation. This time I kept the lens and still have it. It's not bad I would say. The Tamron is about 200 Euro in Europe and the Minolta is about 400 Euros (prices for used lenses). Most probably the Minolta lens is the better one (my MF macro lenses from Minolta are excellent). Tamron produced also some standard zoom lenses for Minolta and those are available both in Tamron and Minolta brand. Those are the worst Minolta lenses I have in terms of optical quality. They are my most bulky camera caps. I do not use them for shooting.
Obviously Tamron is indeed able to produce good quality lenses. My macro lens is a proof for that. Nonetheless I would never consider Tamron as an expensive brand. Not in Europe.


In the USA, roughly ten years ago, I paid US$10 for a Tarmon 52B (90mm). At that price, the seller threw in a Tamron 01F teleconverter and a Tamron Adaptall 2 to PK adapter . . . for free. All three items were is pristine condition.

Today here, that same lens alone can easily fetch US$90.


PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2015 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

guardian wrote:

In the USA, roughly ten years ago, I paid US$10 for a Tarmon 52B (90mm). At that price, the seller threw in a Tamron 01F teleconverter and a Tamron Adaptall 2 to PK adapter . . . for free. All three items were is pristine condition.
Today here, that same lens alone can easily fetch US$90.


Similar situation for the old MF lenses here in Europe. Nice 52Bs are offered for almost double nowadays and the Adaptall system makes them very attractive for many people. I was referring to the 272E lens above which you get new for apprx. 330 Euros although the original list price was almost double, which was definitely far beyond scope.


PostPosted: Sun May 31, 2015 9:50 am    Post subject: Re: Tamron brochure (1985) Reply with quote

guardian wrote:
Thought this might be of interest to fans of Tamron MF lenses:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEYQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gyes.eu%2Fdocuments%2Ftamron-adaptall-2_brochure%25281985%2529.pdf&ei=B7dlVaDDEYqcgwSml4HwDg&usg=AFQjCNF3ypmwzRF1-ZTHKRC66JN70fPIrA&bvm=bv.93990622,d.eXY


Hey, i could use that as a whishlist Very Happy

Thanks for sharing