tamron lens 35mm

[leslie]

anyone got anything against tamron?  found a 35mm with 12 blades and its a tad faster than the takumar at 2.8 verses 3.5 with a nice enough price. there's two other takumars that i would be interested in either a f2 or the f2.3 but they tend to be a bit pricey. So their being put to the side for now.

[noone]

10 hours ago, leslie said:

anyone got anything against tamron?  found a 35mm with 12 blades and its a tad faster than the takumar at 2.8 verses 3.5 with a nice enough price. there's two other takumars that i would be interested in either a f2 or the f2.3 but they tend to be a bit pricey. So their being put to the side for now.

I like Tamron lenses or at least most of the ones I have owned.

I loved a 17-35 2.8-4 AF lens  I had when i used Pentax but otherwise they have all been  old manual focus adaptall lenses with interchangeable mounts.     The SP lenses in particular are nice 

Some of the non SP 70/80-200/210 type lense have only been average though even they were not much different to similar lenses from others.

My favourites are my ancient 300 2.8 (been used and abused a lot for decades and dropped onto the ground from a fair height but still works),the 70-210 3.5 (model 19AH).....big and heavy but I love that lens, wish i still had it and the 28-80 3.5-4.2  I got fairly recently for almost nothing (do not use it much as I mainly use primes but am keeping it).  They are all SP lenses 

No experience with any shorter Tamron primes but i would be happy to use them based on my general experience with Tamron.

[kye]

@noone where would you say that Tamron are compared to other lenses?  I know that most lens companies started off optically worse than todays offerings, although there are notable exceptions, but were they more flawed?  more vintage?  more modern?  more neutral?

Things like takumars have a real look to them, known for being sharp but not too sharp, and contrasty but not too contrasty, etc.  Russian lenses are known for being soft wide open then very sharp when stopped down, etc etc..  I'm wondering how the Tamrons fit.

[noone]

Well I guess I have never had a Tamron lens that stood out for any particular really notable reason (like soap bubble bokeh, or really soft wide open or veiled or what have you.   The old adaptall (interchangeable mount) lenses were very mixed so in general I consider them just like FD, Pentax K Minolta MC/MD, Nikon F lenses of similar age and build.      Used to be lots of discussion on all the forums i haunted about them (they were usually cheaper than camera maker brand lenses of the same type but still ranged from cheap to very expensive with some pro grade lenses).

They made the Adaptall 2 lenses from about 1980 to 2006 (and before that adaptall and adaptamatic lenses are similar) so  I would put them just like other manufacturers from then.

The SP lenses are the better ones (and more expensive) and that still applies  today.

A lot of the consumer Tamron lenses at the time (just like the consumer lenses from others then) did not often include aspheric elements or ED glass or other special elements but they could use other glass types to what they can now.     Some of the better Tamron adaptall lenses might have been better because they were bigger so the elements spacing MIGHT have made a difference (just my opinion).     One reason I prefer Canon FD L lenses to other similar aged legacy lenses is they often DID include exotic elements and not just the longer telephotos.

The model 19ah 70-210 3.5 was quite large for what it is but was very highly regarded (especially on Pentax 6mp DSLRs because Pentax did not get a 70-200 2.8 type lens for a while and the lens could be auto focused with a 1.7x auto focus adapter).    Was sharper to my eyes than the various similar lenses I had including a few cheaper tamron adaptall and others.

The 300 2.8 I have, does use LD glass  (model 60B, there was a later better model too) was regarded as about the same as the Nikon and Canon 300 2.8 of the time ...maybe a fraction behind but cheaper ( NO bad 300 2.8 lenses have been made).

  I still use my 300 2.8 and love it even though as i said I dropped it and have had photos from it in a few newspapers including a national greyhound racing paper where I also used the 1.7x afa t get a very fast focus AF lens (centre point only) 510mm 4.8 lens on Pentax...Now i use it for mostly outdoor concerts and portraits.     it is still probably the smallest and lightest 300 2.8 made (though still over 2kg)

I have an older Tamron 70-350 constant 4.5 lens and it was VERY expensive in its day (came with a lockable case) but cost me very little.    A nice enough lens but this does not have any special elements so its performance today would be below that of the cheapest modern consumer zoom at  300mm (though 4.5 at 350mm would be more expensive and harder to find).

http://www.adaptall-2.com/

The later 17-35 2.8-4 i had (Pentax mount) was a nice enough AF lens that was often compared to the Canon EF 17-40 f4 L in photography forums.