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

Adaptal Lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 2:15 pm    Post subject: Adaptal Lenses Reply with quote
I've recently accidentally purchased a Tamron Adaptall 135mm Close Focus. I'm not quite sure why because I already have two 135mm lenses, but I seem to be a sap for anything "Close Focus". I also have a snipe in for an Adaptall 105mm which I hope to get cheap. I had looked at a SP 90 in Adaptall mount, but it went quite high in my relatively cheap terms.

I noticed that there is an Adaptall to SONY A-mount available out of China. That piqued my interest some in that an additional M42 to Sony adapter wouldn't be needed. I hope they're a good quality.

ANy thoughts on the Adaptall lenses will be appreciated, especially the 135mm Close Focus and 105mm.


PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oooh there's some good ones about Smile

My favourite Adaptalls:

Adaptall 2 24/2.5
Adaptall 2 28/2.5
Adaptall 2 80-210/3.8-4 103A
Adaptall 2 70-210/3.8-4 46A
Adaptall 2 75-250/3.8-4.5 104A
SP 17/3.5
SP 24-48
SP 28-80
SP 300/5.6
SP 35-210/3.5-4.2
SP 60-300/3.8-5.4


PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, I didn't get the 105mm, so I now have a collection of one - one not on your list.


PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 10:53 pm    Post subject: 70-210 colour fidelity test Reply with quote
Seems quite happy with greens and browns?

Panny L1 and SP 70-210




and purple and yellow?




Doug


PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have an SP 28-80 f/3.5-4.2 and one of the venerable SP 60-300 f/3.8-5.4 lenses.
While I have yet to do anything more than crappy, lousy test shots in horrible conditions with the 60-300, I've really taken a liking to the 28-80. Some shots from it:

These are from a defunct railyard






And these are from an abandoned NIKE missile site






I think a good UV filter should cut down a bit on the CA, but I've been happy with it so far.

Last edited by SkedAddled on Tue May 18, 2010 2:09 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm really just interested in primes. That missile site wasn't in NJ, was it? I was at one some years back - people were turning clay pots there.


PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Among the non-OEM brands Tamron Adaptall are perhaps the best ones if we restrict our search to manual lenses. (With AF lenses, I prefer Sigma and Tokina to Tamron.)

My experience:
1. Tamron A2 SP (very good to excellent)
2. other Tamron, Sigma and Tokina (good to very good)
3. Vivitar and Soligor (good, some very good)
4. othert non-OEM brands like Hanimex, Beroflex etc. (you can find the odd very nice lens there)


PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have also recently just gotten into the Tamron adaptall stuff. I have been searching for a long, fast tele and after finding the Tokina MF 300mm f2.8 a bit short for my needs, I picked up the Tamron SP 400mm f4. Unfortunately it needed a CLA and is currently out for repair so I can't comment on it just yet but the reviews I read are great!

There is just something about the primes! The SP glass is supposed to be pretty great. I have heard great things about the 17mm, SP 180mm f2.5, and SP 300mm f2.8. Are you familiar with Adaptall-2.com? They have some great info and I especially like the original ad scans they have.

I have been curious about that close focus lens myself. Take some shots when you get it and post them. I would love to see what it can do!


PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Oooh there's some good ones about Smile

My favourite Adaptalls:

Adaptall 2 24/2.5
Adaptall 2 28/2.5
Adaptall 2 80-210/3.8-4 103A
Adaptall 2 70-210/3.8-4 46A
Adaptall 2 75-250/3.8-4.5 104A
SP 17/3.5
SP 24-48
SP 28-80
SP 300/5.6
SP 35-210/3.5-4.2
SP 60-300/3.8-5.4

Where is the 90mm Macro? Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Oooh there's some good ones about Smile

My favourite Adaptalls:

Adaptall 2 24/2.5
Adaptall 2 28/2.5
Adaptall 2 80-210/3.8-4 103A
Adaptall 2 70-210/3.8-4 46A
Adaptall 2 75-250/3.8-4.5 104A
SP 17/3.5
SP 24-48
SP 28-80
SP 300/5.6
SP 35-210/3.5-4.2
SP 60-300/3.8-5.4

Where is the 90mm Macro? Rolling Eyes


Sold it Very Happy The Zeiss Makro Planar is better and doesn't give the purple spot in the middle Wink


PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anyone have experience with the Chinese adapters? I see them on ebay where I can get one for direct mount to the SONY.


PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
SkedAddled wrote:
I have an SP 28-80 f/3.5-4.2 and one of the venerable SP 60-300 f/3.8-5.4 lenses.
While I have yet to do anyhing more than crappy, lousy test shots in horrible conditions with the 60-300, I've really taken a liking to the 28-80. Some shots from it:

These are from a defunct railyard






And these are from an abandoned NIKE missile site






I think a good UV filter should cut down a bit on the CA, but I've been happy with it so far.


A UV filter wont reduce CA at all as UV is invisible to the human eye and therefore cant be seen in photos even if the sensor is able to caspture it...but it could make it worse. My Tamron SP 300mm f2.8 LD IF does'nt have much CA wide open anyway but it certainly has even less CA when I remove the 43mm UV rear filter that comes with it...Contrast is better too without the UV filter. Wink


PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
My Tamron SP 300mm f2.8 LD IF does'nt have much CA wide open anyway but it certainly has even less CA when I remove the 43mm UV rear filter that comes with it...Contrast is better too without the UV filter.


Really!? You're positive of this? That's quite interesting. Is this because the filter itself is poor quality? My 400mm came with the original Tamron 43mm filter and I will definitely have to experiment with performance both with and without this filter. Also I have read the 112mm can affect performance as well. Have you seen any of this?


PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
That missile site wasn't in NJ, was it?
No, it's in Michigan. Abandoned nearly 40 years.


PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSG wrote:
A UV filter wont reduce CA at all as UV is invisible to the human eye and therefore cant be seen in photos even if the sensor is able to caspture it...but it could make it worse. My Tamron SP 300mm f2.8 LD IF does'nt have much CA wide open anyway but it certainly has even less CA when I remove the 43mm UV rear filter that comes with it...Contrast is better too without the UV filter. Wink
It's been shown, quite decisively, that an SP 60-300 can produce results far better than the lens itself, with a quality UV filter in place. While it may have been Shrek or someone else who demonstrated it, I cannot say for certain, but I'm absolutely positive that I have seen examples posted here which clearly show the differences of the lens with and without a UV filter in place.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSG wrote:

A UV filter wont reduce CA at all as UV is invisible to the human eye and therefore cant be seen in photos even if the sensor is able to caspture it...but it could make it worse.


I'm sorry, but that's wrong. The blue photosites on the camera's sensor will certainly be sensitive to UV and, as they are blue, will give visible results in images. Likewise, depending on how the red filters are manufactured, the red pixels may well be sensitive to UV light which has a wavelength of half that of some of the red wavelenghts passed by the filter. What's more, as the UV light will not be focussed properly by the lens, it will give some out of focus response. A good UV filter will definitely help here.

One thing that I don't quite understand is whether the UV is the source of some of the purple fringing on some lenses. It certainly seems like it could be, given what I've said above, but there are two problems with this:
1: Most glasses don't transmit UV very well, so the majority of lenses should dissipate the UV within their various assemblies
2: If we were thinking about out of focus rays causing the effects, then you'd imagine that it would be most visible on the dark side of a bright/dark transition (i.e. the uv from the brighter region bleeding into the darker one), however most purple fringing is most noticeable on the light edge of such a transition. So I'm not sure that the UV explanation is such a solid one for purple fringing.[/b]


PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I get a great deal of fringing (mostly blue) from some lenses, particularly the Vivitar Series 1, and much less from others. However, I had noted that Boomer had considerably less of a problem using the same lens on his Canon (I use Sony). It seems the sensor in combination with the camera software is responsible, at least in part, for controlling the effect.

I have finally received my adapter that allows me to use my first Adaptall lens; the 135mm Close Focus. Fringing from this lens is considerably less than from my Vivitars, although I do get some at wide apertures.

Someone had asked me to report out on the lens, so here's a brief one after just one use. The lens seems fine and delivers good results, but I don't see anything special from it. As with many others, you must get the focus spot on or results will be soft. When I did nail the focus, it delivered sharp pictures. All in all, I'd rate the lens very average. The short focus distance isn't all that short, and it's longer than my Series 1 lens, which doesn't call itself short focus. Even with the fringing, the Series 1 lens produces better results in my opinion. In fact, I think the standard Vivitar f/2.8 delivers better colors, contrast, and sharpness. Here are a few Tamron 135mm examples:






PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSG said "My Tamron SP 300mm f2.8 LD IF does'nt have much CA wide open anyway but it certainly has even less CA when I remove the 43mm UV rear filter that comes with it...Contrast is better too without the UV filter"

My 360b has less CA with "normal" 43mm filter removed. Haven't tried it with any other 43mm or 112mm filters.
bb2


PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 300mm F5.6 gives a lot of CA. UV makes no difference.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
The 300mm F5.6 gives a lot of CA. UV makes no difference.


Adaptall or Adaptall-2 SP?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1