Any experience with Tamron 24mm f/2.5 ?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by ondrejp_spyderman, Mar 10, 2006.

  1. Hi, I would like to ask about your experience with Tamron 24mm f/2.5
    adaptall mount. I am considering getting one, so any advice is welcome.
  2. I tried one once and it was disappointing. Go for a used 24/2.8 ai or ais. They're cheap, plentiful and the sharpest 24 made for Nikon.
  3. Ditto that. I think that Tamron is probably the best third-party lens mfr. out there but the
    one I tried a few years ago was pretty unexceptional. You should be able to pick up a
    used Nikkor 28mm f2.8E fairly inexpensively and that's a sure bet. Good luck in your
  4. It's ok, but not great. The only reason I hang on to mine is because with the Adaptall mount I can use it on my Spotmatic as well. It vignettes even with a single filter on the front, but I've never tried a thin filter, or maybe you could use a step-up ring and larger filters. If you can't find something better for your $80 in your area, it's probably a reasonable value.
  5. The only 3rd-party manual-focus 24mm I've found to approach the Nikkor Ai/AiS 24/2.8 is the Sigma 24/2.8 Superwide II. Cheaply built, but most samples are very sharp at most apertures, it received a 4.0 in photodo tests. (see photodo)
  6. Yup, mine's spiffy. Even on the D2H, which is typically unforgiving of older design lenses, it's a good performer. Sharp, contrasty, no real problems with flare or chromatic aberrations.

    Downside: My two Tamron Adaptall wide angles, which includes the 17/3.5, both produce a yellowish cast. Not a problem on negative film, can be easily corrected for with digital, but not so great with color slide film.

    These are solid, well made lenses. Mine were well used when I bought 'em. The 17/3.5 was a camera shop's rental unit until they retired it. It ain't purty, but it works. Not as good optically as the 24/2.5, tho'. The 17/3.5 has far less distortion than the 18-70 DX at 18mm, so I'll use it when I need a rectilinear wide angle. But it has mediocre contrast, good but not great sharpness, is subject to veiling flare but surprisingly resistant to ghosting, and that yellowish cast. On the plus side, it has built in color correction filters and a yellow filter, which is pretty cool.

    The 24/2.5 has one quirk that will take some getting used to. If it doesn't come with a Tamron lens hood you'll have to try a few generic hoods to find one that works properly. Threaded only, no bayonet or clamp-on types. The lens has a peculiar design at the front. Most rubber collapsible hoods will interfere with getting the full range of focus. Not a problem if you zone focus at moderate distances, but still a hassle. I found an oversized rubber collapsible hood designed for a telephoto that doesn't interfere. I trimmed it down so it doesn't vignette. Ditto filters on this lens - they must not exceed the diameter of the barrel, even by a hair.
  7. Hi, I own this lens, and it is quite a good performer in my opinion. I flares quit a bit in dark scenes (but I don't use any hood, I suppose I'll have to find one), but the sharpness is very good. I don't find any vigneting on this lens, but I haven't tried any filter to test with it. Here is a photo taken with this lens quite stopped down. Ioritz.
  8. Ioritz, try the rubber hood trick I mentioned. Be sure to find one that doesn't interfere with the full focusing range. Trim it to prevent vignetting. It really helps minimize flare, except when the light source is visible in the frame.
  9. thank you guys for your opinions.

    you speak here that the lens is opticaly good, but i found MTF curves at and they weren't very pleasing...
  10. I just bought this lens used and am quite surprised by it's performance. It isn't in the best condition but performs very well on my picky full frame Kodak SLR/c:

    <img src="">

    Paul Martinez

Share This Page