Tamron CF 80-210/3.8-4 Adaptall2 - the cheapest Adaptall ?

[luisalegria]

I picked this up for the sake of the mount, an M42 Adaptall-2 -



This must be the most common Adaptall lens ever made, by far the most easy to find on ebay and elsewhere. I understand there are three versions of it. This is the earliest, a model 03A . They are available for surprisingly little these days.

http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/03A.html

Its a very conventional one-touch zoom of the late 1970's in most respects.

Like most of this series of Tamrons, the style is distinctive and can't be mistaken for anything else, with the straight and simple lines and plenty of angular engraved text and scales. The finish is very fine, in the Tamron tradition, but the fit isn't quite the same as the Adaptamatics. Every Tamron of this line I've tried feels distinctly "loose", and some even rattle. This one also "creeps" - the zoom ring tends to slip towards the short end (80mm). Thats one reason I've never liked one-touch zooms.

The built-in hood is nicely made, but very small, and unfortunately its awkward to add a screw-in hood as it will prevent the built-in hood from extending fully, and on this lens that prevents getting infinity focus on the short end.

On the other hand, this thing has its virtues. First, it is very small and light for its specifications; compared with other lenses in its class, it gives a lot of range and aperture. There is no comparison with the Adaptamatics ! It isn't really heavier or longer than most 200mm primes.

Next, it really does hold constant focus while zooming - so well that one is tempted to actually zoom a lot with this thing, which can be a problem with the Pentax DSLR IS, as that needs to have the focal length pre-set. Best to turn IS off if zooming a lot.

The zoom/focus ring is relatively loose (see above about rattling!), but it moves very quickly and accurately, and its very handy to do critical focus at 210mm and zoom out to frame. The ergonomics are excellent I think - this is an easy lens to focus accurately because of the relatively large aperture and the very easy focus/zoom.

All in all, on the DSLR its a very practical alternative to most 1970's zooms in its class, delivering all the features in a much lighter and smaller package than, for instance, the extremely common Kiron-made 85-205/3.8 .

And of course it gives much closer focus than 200mm primes, while keeping the same maximum aperture.

I would say the optical quality is excellent on my K100D sensor. You gents with more megapixels may have a different opinion though.

A lot of these were shot on a very foggy day on the Bay, at f/4-5.6 or so.















The bird - well, yet another bird. I've been short of seagull pictures lately, so I'm catching up !



crop -

[yalcinaydin]

Yes it is (generally below 10usd) but in my opinion has a very good performance and great price/performance ratio. I've used it at concerts and I'm really pleased with its performance.

http://forum.mflenses.com/tamron-adaptall2-80-200-3-8-4-03a-t9444.html

Do I really need the 52A? To be honest I'm not that sure 03A was easier to use thanks to it's one touch usage.
http://forum.mflenses.com/tamron-sp-70-210mm-f-3-5-4-model-52a-t12293.html

[luisalegria]

Hi Yalcin !

I missed your post, I'm sorry to say. Very well done concert series.

Don't worry about selling it, there are plenty around if you ever need one. I'm thinking I may want to change my recommendation for a cheap MF zoom lens for people who want to try MF. I used to think the Kiron 85-205/3.8 was a good, cheap easy to find starting lens (under $20). Now maybe I'll mention this.

[yalcinaydin]

[Xpres]

I have the second version - in fact I did have three, all picked up for the mounts attached, but recently sold the other two, for more than I paid, and without mounts. So I think they must still be popular as a cheap useable zoom.
I've kept one for just the reasons outlined above. The quality for the price is about as good as it gets and the one I have doesn't suffer from creep and has an add on hood. In fact it feels very well put together.
As this was Tamron's most popular lens I wonder if they made a slightly better lens than they needed to to draw people in to the range as a kind of loss leader?

[Rob Leslie]

Unfortunately compared to the latter 103A the 03A wasn’t a very good lens but compared to others of its time was still OK.
IMO the 103A is just about as good as many of the SP lenses and certainly better than many zoom lenses costing considerably more. It is also a fairly compact lens, very useful
Well your examples show the 03A can produce good sharp results. Imagine what the 103A and the SP versions do.

PS. It is all relative. I was told by one forum member the 03A was the better lens because it had a built in Lens hood!

[karabud]

Wonderfull lens!