Silver Tamron 300mm f/5.6 Adapt-A-Matic or Adaptall?

[dab63]

Hi all,
I have this 'silver' Tamron:



How can I understand if it is an Adaptall-1 type mount or the previous Adapt-A-Matic mount?
According to Adaptall-2 website, the 300mm f/5.6 with a filter size of 62mm is a adapt-a-matic lense, but all pics I saw are of black body lenses.

My lens has a mount for Canon FD



I would like to test it on my canon eos, but there are no adapters for adapt-a-matic type, so if it is an a-a-m I should pass through an M42 mount (a-a-m -> M42 -> EOS), while if it is an Adaptall I can find adapters for eos on ebay.

thanks in advance for your help
daniele

[Nelson]

I think it is a Model 670Au Adapt-A-Matic

here is mine http://323i.e30.free.fr/galerie/MF/Tamron300f5.6.jpg

mine has a M42 mount for pentax
may be you should try to find another Adapt-A-Matic lens with a good mount, it may cost you less than finding another mount

[ManualFocus-G]

[luisalegria]

The mount is definitely Adaptall.

It looks like one of the very early Adaptalls (not listed in the Adaptall site) that were actually reworked Adapt-a-matics. I think these date from the early 1970's. There were Adaptall versions of several Adaptamatics, including the 200mm and 300mm primes.

The differences, besides the different mounting system, are cosmetic. Your example is missing the grip and trim rubber; I expect it would have been similar to the Adapt-a-matic ribbed rubber rather than the textured stuff on the early "proper" Adaptalls.

The Adaptall site is very far from being complete, the owner seems to have stopped working on it several years ago. Several members have material that can considerably supplement whats there.

[ManualFocus-G]

The little clips on the side and the lack of silver screw on mount holder are the Adaptall giveaways (although a view of the rear will tell for sure).

Looks like the original rubber focusing grip has broken off and disappeared a while back...this is the case with almost every silver Adaptall 1 I've seen so far

[dab63]

[luisalegria]

You have a clear field for creativity now, in putting in new grip material.

I have been tempted to have a go in a few cases, but have never gotten around to it.

Thats a hippie-age lens, and some whimsy wouldn't go amiss. Some thin leather (fringed ? patterned? painted ? peace signs ? beaded in wampum ?), some glue, and that thing could again look groovy.

[Nelson]

[dab63]

[luisalegria]

Thats an Adaptall, certainly.

[dab63]

I just got my adapter for tammy -> EOS

It's very dark now so no chances to test the lens .. I only could mount it on my 1D and take a picture of it.

I'm so so happy, I wanna share such gorgeous piece of metal:







can't wait the weekend to go outside and take some pics with it!!!

[martinsmith99]

That looks like something out of a 60's sci-fi movie!

[luisalegria]

"That looks like something out of a 60's sci-fi movie! "

Well, thats what it is actually. Thats the style of the era.

[Blue]

[calvin83]

[Blue]

[Pancolart]

Were photos on link made with this type of Tamron?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrisalo/6241259362/in/photostream

[Ymmot]

Considering the MC mentioned, probably no.
At least my adaptamatic does not have MC according to adaptall-2.org
So I guess that this transition version also does not have this?
This leaves the CT-300 (adaptall) and 54B (SP adaptall 2) which do feature MC.

Edit: Now i understand your confusion, the 'Auto' part is inconsistent with a later tamron lens (i can not find any adaptall lens featuring the 'auto' script on it), So while 'MC' seems to suggest a later tamron lens, 'Auto' suggests a early lens...
So anyone else could enlighten us?

[Pancolart]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I have a very similar Tamron 300 to that, not sure of model number, will have to get it out and check. Mine doesn't have an interchangeable mount as far as I remember, it's just plain old M42. Haven't used it because it's got heavy fungusing in the rear elements and I haven't gotten round to taking it apart to try to clean it.

[martyn_bannister]

I also have a very similar Tammy 300mm. It, too, has problems with the rubber grips. Nice looking lens, although my copy is considerably grubbier than yours

[Ymmot]

Maybe you could mail the guy via Flickr and ask for a lens picture?
Everything i have heard in the last few days makes me want to drag it out of the closet again, as people seem to like it better than i remember it being for me .
The silver version does look very cool, I would like to see it when you get it. It is a much better finish than my 'boring' black and orange finish. Mine still has an intact rubber grip, most seem to have lost that somehow.
Also the adaptamatic mount is not as removable as an adaptall mount, it looks far more like a fixed mount in the same way that most people also often will not recognize T mount lenses as such (including me )

[Blue]

Regarding Adapt-A-Matics lenses:

AdaptAMatics were made by Tamron from 1969 into 1974. These are thought to be the last lenses designed by pencil, paper and slide rule. Adaptamaitc lenses are not multicoated, but some optical surfaces within these lenses may have magnesium flouride coatings to prevent ghosts caused by internal reflections off of critical optical surfaces. One must remember that coating technologies were relatively new at the time and multicoatings were simply unheard of. Adapt-A-Matic lenses tend to produce a warm image due to the lack of multicoatings. A UV protective filter instead of a 1A filter should be considered for these lenses since a 1A filter might produce an overly warm image.

[Ymmot]

Yup, we know that about adaptamatic, that is what is said on adaptall-2.org.
However we are talking about lenses from the transitional period between adaptamatic and adaptall.
As far as i can see most lenses listed as adaptalls feature BBAR MC and are introduced from '76 as for the 300mm, which certainly features MC.
However the adaptamatic version is listed as discontinued in '73.
The lens from this tread is a transitional version, indicating that after '73 there must have been a transition between adaptamatic and adaptall and from SC to MC. Sadly no picture of the front ring is available, so no designation of the front ring can be seen, giving any conclusion about MC.

I found a possible clue regarding the question by looking through the list: adaptall mount zoom lenses from '73 with the text 'Auto':
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/old-lens/z250.htm
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/old-lens/sz38.htm
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/old-lens/z220.htm
These are the three earliest adaptall zooms, all still carry the 'Auto' designation and are probably 'remounted' adaptamatics.
Also the adaptall 105mm seems to carry an auto designation (and is also a possible 'remount'):
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/old-lens/ct105.htm
However this lens is introduced in '76 just as the 300mm. Sadly no (BBAR) MC designation is visible here in any of the above lenses.

So the lens in the Flickr post is either an transition period 'adaptamatic type' lens which might have featured an early MC designation and adaptall mount, or (which sounds more plausible to me as there is also a 105mm with 'Auto') it is a early 'adaptall type' type lens which featured MC and still carried the 'Auto' label.
So if someone can provide one of the above zooms with a MC designation or one of the other lenses with both MC and Auto designation this will answer our question I guess.

This didnt really bring us any further, however it gave me something to do

[Pancolart]

Thank you all for info. I did write to Harry from Flickr (still no response).
Here photos of mine acquisition - i guess in reality it will be looking worst than this :