Tamron adaptall lenses.

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

Marcus, is the softness due to the raft moving and a slowish shutter speed? the water looks calm, but there might be enough movement to lose sharpness.

marcusBMG · Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1316 Location: Conwy N Wales

1/400th, 1/320th, 1/200th, plus some exposure comp (typical pentax + adaptall inconsistencies - and f4.5 was showing f4 so that affected things).

Raft wasn't moving, if its being pushed around by the strong currents that flow up and down the estuary with the tides you can usually see the ripples.

biggles3 · Joined: 09 Nov 2009 Posts: 61 Location: Crickhowell, Wales

I wonder if a CLA might help. Given the lens is over 40 years old and contains a lot of heavy glass, if it was used a lot, especially under extreme weather conditions, the fine tolerances of the components may have been compromised. It might be worth contacting Eddie Houston (thelensdoctor.co.uk) who is a Tamron specialist for his thoughts - I can recommend him as he's brought a few of my lenses back from the brink.

Rense · Expire: 2016-12-25

Yes Edde is the man!

bychance · Joined: 24 Apr 2013 Posts: 347 Location: Kent, England

Well,Ive now got seven okayish lenses...

02B 28-2.5
58A 70-210
44A 28-70
22A 35-135
17A 35-70
03A 80-210 x2

I cleaned up one of the 28-210 and the 28-70 both of which were quite dusty and had a lot of fungus and was suprised how easy this job was.

Happy days Smile

biggles3 · Joined: 09 Nov 2009 Posts: 61 Location: Crickhowell, Wales

I wish I had your knowledge.

I've cleaned up a number of Zeiss 50mm 1.4 and 1.7 Planars that have had fungus or oiled aperture blades but have never had the guts to try a zoom - just the thought of all those cams...and then trying to reassemble them!

I have a lovely old Tamron 26A - the SP 35-210 - with a bloom of fungus on one element in a centre group; I've been tempted to have a go but where do you start - at the front or the rear; do you have to take the whole lens apart; how do you re-collimate a lens with so many groups/elements...etc etc... My mind boggles!

Well done you - I'm most impressed!

PhantomLord · Joined: 08 Apr 2013 Posts: 472 Location: Szczecin, Poland

bychance · Joined: 24 Apr 2013 Posts: 347 Location: Kent, England

This was pretty much my first go at cleaning a lens and I didn't strip it down completely I just removed the front and rear elements and de-fungussed them and everything else I could reach.

I did however completely strip down a minolta rokkor 55/1.8 last night Shocked

It took me about five hours to clean an incredible amount of what appeared to be dark grey silt form the inside which had made the focus ring impossible to move. What a game I had re-assmbling it! I had one screw and the bloody ball bearing and spring left over when I finished Very Happy

I decided that I had de-clicked it on purpose Cool

It's as smoothe as you like now and seems fine.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

I find the dis-assembly of a lens to be one of those tasks that I wish I could pawn off on others, but seldom can I afford to do so, or more to the point, seldom does it make economic sense to have a professional do the work. I've been repairing cameras and lenses since about 1990, so I've picked up a few tips and tricks, although they still too often desert me in my hour of need.

As for dealing with a lens's complexity, the easiest way these days is to take many pics during the disassembly process. I have found, through much trial and error, that it is not always necessary to completely dismantle a lens to get to a particular area that needs attention. This is especially true with zooms. All too often though it will require separation of sections where a helical is undone. I have tried on many occasions placing marks so that it is easier to reassemble the lens later, but usually there is something about the way the pieces come apart that prevent me from making precise location marks. So it seems as if I'm always having to do a trial-and-error refitting of the helical before I've got it set right again. It's not that big of an ordeal, really. Most important is having a scene in which you can set the lens to infinity on, because that's how you determine if the helical is set back properly, the infinity setting.

I also try to arrange the small parts -- typically screws of various sizes -- together in the order in which they were removed. I also like to lay out a towel or some sort of cloth over the working area. Pieces that like to bounce and disappear into infinity are less likely to bounce as far if they hit cloth as opposed to a hard table or desk surface. It's also a good idea to set a towel or carpet at your feet. Inevitably it seems with me, when it comes time to do things like re-insert that little ball bearing that provides the clicks for the aperture ring, that pesky little thing will drop from my tweezers and bounce its way into a parallel dimension, never to be seen again. I mean, I have taken a powerful rare-earth magnet and swept every square inch of floor before, looking for one of these tiny balls, for naught. But if I had the foresight to lay out a towel at my feet first, the ball will not have gone far, and can usually be recovered.

Typically we need to get into a lens for one of three reasons: oil on the aperture blades, fungus or haze, etc., on an interior element, or the helical needs to be relubricated. Each will require its own disassembly strategy.

I usually try to get to the inner group of elements, whether to clean fungus/haze or to reach the aperture iris, from the rear of a lens first. It depends somewhat on what type of lens it is. If it's a prime, that's the approach I use. If it's a zoom, however, often I'll start by removing the rubber focusing and/or zoom collar grip. With a two-ring zoom, under the zoom collar grip is where the cam action for the zoom is, and under the focusing collar are often found the stops for the focusing collar rotation, which may need to be removed, depending on what the job is. With a one-ring zoom, the cams and stops are combined under the single collar grip.

One of the most common reasons for dismantling a lens is to clean the aperture iris blades of oil. If it is a lens with an auto aperture, the blades must be totally dry to work properly. I always try to reach this assembly without having to disturb the blades' positions. Usually this can be done with a barrel-type lens. With a lens-shutter type, this is usually not the case, and I wind up having to deal with resetting each blade. But in a barrel they're usually held in an assembly which doesn't require disassembly. To clean them, I've used a variety of different things: alcohol, naphtha, and even acetone (fingernail polish remover). Oil will dissolve in all three. Probably the worst of the lot is alcohol, simply because the alcohol you buy at the drug store is only about half alcohol; the rest is water. So, the alcohol will evaporate from the blades rather quickly, leaving behind residual water. You can use a hair dryer to evaporate the water, though, so it's not that big of a deal. Naphtha, aka lighter fluid, is a good solvent. Oil dissolves into it easily and it evaporates fairly quickly. Acetone can be rather harsh on things it comes into contact with. It can melt certain plastics and will dissolve paint as well as oil. So you have to be a little more careful with it, but it is also a good cleaner. Now, to actually remove the oil, I just use Q-tip cotton swabs. Easy does it -- you don't want to push on the blades too aggressively, just lightly wipe the swab across the blade's surface. Sometimes I'll fluff up the swab a bit to soften things even more. You'll want to repeadedly actuate the iris mechanism while you're doing this. The oil tends to collect in the blade pivot points. By repeatedly actuating the mechanism, you're drawing the oil out from the pivot points, but it will usually require quite a few actuations before the pivot points are free from residual oil.

Fungus can make its home on any number of surfaces. For inner surfaces, often a lens spanner will be needed to get to it. Sometimes, if you're lucky, it will be found on the outer element of a group, so it can be gotten to easily enough. Fungus tends to be rather stubborn stuff. It will not wipe off easily. I've found that wiping it very firmly with my thumb (clean, of course) is a good way to remove it. It works well because a thumb is soft yet a good deal of direct pressure can be applied. I follow up by using a lens tissue with lens cleaning fluid to remove any oils or other substances my thumb may have left behind.

To relube the helicals, the lens will usually have to be completely dismantled. I remove all the old lubricant first. One can do this chemically, but grease-cutting chemicals can often be quite toxic such that you don't even want them to contact your skin. Sometimes it's necessary to go this route, but most of the time it isn't. What I typically do is wipe down the helical threads with paper towels and follow up with a toothbrush. You can get them pretty clean this way. For replacement lube, I turn to the auto parts store. They've usually got a variety of lubes to chose from. I prefer the molybdenum sulfide grease. It's either white or gray in color. You can buy it in a tub -- about a pint or a half-liter or so -- for a few bucks. Chances are this will last you for a good twenty years or more. I know -- I still have a tub that's mostly full that I bought 20 years ago. Also, one of the good things about the moly grease is it doesn't tend to harden or coagulate the way some lens lubes have over the years. I'm thinking specifically of the lube that Kern-Paillard used in its 16mm camera lenses, like the Switars, Yvars, etc. In lenses that were manufactured back in the 60s or 70s, that grease has turned into stuff the consistency of crayons now. That is, it's turned into a wax-like substance. The moly grease won't do this -- ever. So to re-apply, I will lightly smear grease across the threads, distributing it evenly. Often that toothbrush I used earlier to remove the old grease works well to distribute the new grease. Next, reconnect the helical pieces and try them out. Too much grease will result it a heavy feel. Too little and you will feel and hear metal-to-metal contact as you rotate the collar or zoom in and out.

Back to the subject of Tamrons, one thing that has been common to all Tamron lenses I've dismantled so far (all zooms) is the use of tape to hold main sections of the lens together with. This is often how infinity focus is arrived at, by positioning the sections where they're supposed to be, then applying tape. Sounds weird, but it works.

Looking back over what I've just written, I can see that it may appear to be a bit much to take on. But really if you just take your time and stay focused on your goal, it's not so bad. And hey, if you feel like you need to take a break and do something else, that's not a problem. I've done this before, many times. If it looks like the break may last more than a few hours, however, I will get out some plastic sandwich-size bags and place the component parts separately in bags, labeling each as to its contents. Keeping in mind that I've documented what I've done so far with my camera, it won't be difficult picking back up where I left off at a different time or date.

marcusBMG · Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1316 Location: Conwy N Wales

Thats a great summary cooltouch, thanks for taking the time to write it, +1 to all your points from my own experience. Should go in the DIY section too, in one of the sticky's/as a sticky.

biggles3 · Joined: 09 Nov 2009 Posts: 61 Location: Crickhowell, Wales

Thank you Michael for taking the trouble to respond so comprehensively - much appreciated. I think I'll have a bash at that pesky Tamron zoom; at least, even if I fail, I'll learn along the way and a replacement won't be too costly...

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

marcusBMG · Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1316 Location: Conwy N Wales

I've been taking some more test pics with my 05A, this time with my recently acquired K5.

350mm

crops: f4.5; f5.6; f8

At f8 I have to say there isn't too much to complain about, just that it's, IMO, not that great either, I feel I am getting better from eg 31A. Wide open the image is significantly softer.

This swan isn't so bad either, f7.1, iso 400, 1/400th, particularly resized. Certainly I am realising that I have to focus hard on technique with this lens at 350mm, focus particularly is quite twitchy.

biggles3 · Joined: 09 Nov 2009 Posts: 61 Location: Crickhowell, Wales

Hi marcusBMG,

The image of the swan looks pretty good - I see what you mean about the softness at f4.5; it appears our lenses give slightly different results. I wonder if your lens has taken a slight knock at some stage in its long life...

One thing I noted was that when I shot with a m4/3 body, the images appeared a tiny bit softer and after using the amazing EVF on the Fuji, I am wondering whether critical focusing was an issue - my Olympus E-M5 was a lovely camera but I've found the X-T1 make focusing, especially when wide-open and with a more shallow dof, much more precise.

Using a remote shutter release with the tripod was also a big factor in getting sharp images for me. It's a massive piece of glass and is superbly built but has limitations because of its size and weight; I think it's worth persevering with it as to date, at least with the Fuji, I'm very pleased with the results. I'd love to try it on a full sensor camera - wish I'd still got my Contax N-1D...

jbrooksII · Joined: 31 Jan 2014 Posts: 33 Location: Philippines

Sample from big and heavy SP 80-200mm 2.8

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

I guess I can add a few to the thread. Some of you may have seen some of these images before.

Rosebud, Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro:

A crop of the above image:

P38 Lightning, scanned slide, Tamron 300mm f/2.8 LDIF

F7F Tigercat, Tamron 300mm f/2.8 LDIF

Dove, Tamron 80-200mm f/2.8 LD:

Grackle, Tamron 80-200mm f/2.8 LD"

Kei · Joined: 08 Jan 2015 Posts: 142 Location: S. Wales UK

Really wanted that 80-200mm f2.8 for a long time, along with the very rare 400mm f4 and the 70-150mm f2.8 soft. Prices have risen too much since i bought all of my lenses.

I spent some time playing with my 17mm f3.5 51B with built in filters. I reckon there is something not quite right with my sample as the right hand side on landscape shots is definitely worse than the left. Although it seems to be somewhat varied as the last on seems ok at both borders. (My guess is because it was focussed closer) All shots were ~F8

IMG_6841 by --Kei--, on Flickr

IMG_6835 by --Kei--, on Flickr

IMG_6840 by --Kei--, on Flickr

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Hey, Kei, like you, I've also wanted the 80-200/2.8 and the 400/4. I also wanted the 180/2.5 too. I rationalized not buying two of the three thusly. I already own a Tamron 300/2.8 with 1.4x tc and the 80-2002,8. Well, employing the 1.4x with the 300/2.8 gives me a 420m f/4, so that takes care of the 400/4, and the 80-200/2.8's resolution and contrast numbers at 200mm are so close to the 180/2.5's as to not make any significant difference.

I also sometimes forget just how useful the 80-200/2.8 is at replacing other focal lengths. I don't need a 135mm f/2.8 anymore because I've got it covered with the 80-200mm f/2.8. And I don't need a 70-150mm anymore since I've got almost all of that range covered as well. And most all 70-150s I've seen have a maximum aperture of f/3.5, so the 80-200 has them beat by half a stop to boot. Plus, it's got the 85/2.8 and 105/2.8 prime focal lengths covered as well. Its only significant drawback is its weight. And possibly the fact that it doesn't have a macro -- or even a close focus -- mode. But if I just gotta have it for macro work, I can always couple it with extension tubes or my Vivitar macro focusing teleconverter, and I'm there.

marcusBMG · Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1316 Location: Conwy N Wales

bychance · Joined: 24 Apr 2013 Posts: 347 Location: Kent, England

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Glad I could help out in a field, where unfortunately, not a lot of DIY help is available. I was fortunate enough to take two semesters of a camera repair class offered at a local community college back in about 1990. Really, two semesters worth was only enough for me just to get my feet wet, but instead of continuing further, I opted for a machining class instead, which was a good deal more rigorous and time consuming.

On the subject of repairing Tamrons, I was able to successfully complete a repair on my 30A 80-200/2.8 last night, and I have another mostly dismantled 27A 28-80/3.5-4.5 waiting in the wings for me to get to it.

The 30A had an inner group of elements come loose -- literally -- which was knocking around the inside the lens when I moved it. First noticed it had a problem when it would no longer focus to infinity. But since it would still forcus properly at 200mm, I still used it. Until the inner group came loose, of course.

Fortunately it was an easy process getting to the problem. Going from the front of the lens inward this time, which I normally would prefer not to do, but this time it was obvious, just by looking into the lens, which approach was needed. The front group is held in place by a single slotted ring, which came loose easily enough using a spanner. This gave access to a second group, which is a single element, and which was also held in place by a slotted ring. Removing this second element gave me access to the problem. The loose piece was a small, five element group that threaded into the zoom assembly, moving in and out. All that was needed was for the loose group to be threaded back into its carrier and reassembly of the other two groups. The biggest challenge with reassembly is making sure to keep the surfaces absolutely clean as they go back together. No need for re-collimation, since each element/group sits back into a carrier in which it is held securely, with no possibility of lateral movement.

The entire repair took about a half hour and resulted in a 30A that was once again, good as new. Now, if only I could say the same about the 27A that is sitting on a shelf, in baggies, waiting for me to turn my attention back to it. This lens has a problem with the zoom collar not quite reaching 80mm and the focusing collar not quite reaching infinity. I was hoping I could spot the problem without having to uncouple the helicals, but that doesn't seem likely at this point. Oh well. I have too much other stuff to do at the moment, so its gotten set aside temporarily -- with proper documentation and storage, of course.