T4 and TX mount lenses for classics

<p>I stumbled upon the Vivitar/Soligor T4/TX interchangeable mount lenses some weeks ago when I was looking for old M42 lenses that I could attach, via a Yashica adapter, to the 1.6x AF adapter on my Yashica 230AF and have some fun autofocusing them. (This is really a blast, by the way, but out of place on this forum because the Yashica AF system is in no sense a "classic" or "manual" camera. If PN ever starts a forum for dead/obsolete automatic cameras, I'll tell you all about it.) Anyway, one of the first lenses I snagged was a Vivitar 35/2.8 with an odd mount. With the help of the web and some folks on this forum, I learned that it was a T4 interchangeable mount lens with a generic M42 mount labeled "CS". (At length, I figured out that "CS" must stand for "Contax S" or perhaps "Contax screw" in reference to the originator of the format.) I then set about learning about T4 and TX lenses and learned some things that may be of interest to classic camera users who are, like I was, uneducated about these systems. Since I had to dig on several web sites to learn about them, I'm recounting what I learned here in some detail for the convenience of future googlers.<br /> <br /> The T4 mount was originated by Tokina and licensed to importers Vivitar and Soligor commencing in the late 1960s. The innovation, compared to existing interchangeable mounts such as Tamron's T mount, was to be able to fit a standardized line of lenses with mount-specific adapters that enabled all of the automatic features of the cameras of that period. Thus, the lens transmitted aperture info to the camera such that wide-open metering and aperture-priority automatic exposure could be used. Tokina made (or, some believe, subcontracted Mamiya to make) a family of lenses for the T4 mount, which were supplied to Vivitar and Soligor, and were marketed by both with minor cosmetic differences. The complete family was: 21/3.8, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 105/2.8, 135/2.8, 200/3.5, 250/4.5, 300/5.5, 400/6.3, and zooms 55-135/3.5, 90-230/4.5, 75-260/4.5. The lenses were heavy, metal-bodied affairs made to a high standard, and were reviewed by the magazines as among the better third-party lenses of the time.<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, shortly after T4 was introduced, camera makers came out with more advanced systems incorporating shutter priority and program exposure modes that required more feedback from, and control of, the lens by the camera body than the T4 adapters permitted. Tokina responded in 1975 with the TX mount, which worked with the new cameras but was incompatible with the T4 lenses. It redesigned the lenses, resulting in a new lineup: 24/2.8, 28/2.5, 35/2.5, 135/2.5, 135/2.8, 200/3.5, 300/5.6, 400/5.6, 35-105/3.5, 90-230/4.5, 100-300/5. Several of the mounts for cameras that had now largely faded from the scene were abandoned, and were replaced by newly popular mounts such as Nikon AI, Pentax K, Minolta MD, and Yashica/Contax. The TX lenses also were favorably reviewed. They were marketed only by Vivitar, and did not last very long. There was time, however, for a second generation of the TX lenses to be released, with slightly different specs (the 28, 35, and 135 that had gone from 2.8 to 2.5 went back to 2.8) and a couple of additional zooms, 70-150/3.8 and 80-200/4. The TX line was gone by 1985 or so.<br /> <br /> Now here is where it gets interesting for today's classic camera owner. Vivitar made T4 adapters in a wide variety of mounts, including those for many cameras whose popularity was already waning in the late 1960s. Besides generic (my "CS") and Pentax-specific M42, there were Miranda, Exakta, Topcon, Petri, Canon FL, Nikon non-AI, Leicaflex, and numerous others. From the standpoint of today, many of these adapters and their lenses are not very interesting. If you have an old Spotmatic or Minolta SRT or Nikon F, a wide selection of OEM lenses superior to the T4s and Txs is available dirt cheap nowadays. But, if you own something like an Exakta, the T4s are a generation more modern than most of your choices in glass. I immediately realized that a suite of (relatively) modern Japanese glass for my Exaktas might change them from a fetish system for accessing the unique look of 1950s German lenses into a viable daily shooting outfit. For a Miranda or Petri owner the same might be true. So I started looking into more T4 lenses, and an Exakta adapter, to see whether I was right.<br /> <br /> To my surprise, I quickly discovered that I already had one. Now that I knew what a T4 lens looked like, I realized that the Vivitar 24/2.8 that I had been using on my Exakta, and which I quite liked, was not a dedicated lens as I had assumed, but a T4. I set about bidding on others and found that T4s are easy to collect. The key to getting a good deal on one is to find a seller who doesn't know what he has. If the auction listing photos are clear at all, there are two giveaways: (1) the prominent slide switch for the lens mount ring, labeled "O <---> L" (for "open-lock"), although this is absent on late TX lenses, and (2) the bidirectional aperture scale. To cope with the fact that some mounts rotate clockwise when stopping down and others counterclockwise, T4 and TX lenses have a scale that goes, e.g., "16 11 8 5.6 4 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16", with the latter half of the values in green. With no adapter in place, the lenses go from closed to open to closed again as you turn the aperture ring; with an adapter properly mounted, the lens is limited to just the correct half of the range. Unfortunately it is not so easy to identify visually whether a lens is a T4 vs. a TX without looking at the inside of the adapter.<br /> <br /> It's fairly easy to acquire the 28, 35, 135, 200, and 300 lenses with a few weeks of auction surveillance for under $30 each, often under $20. The 90-230 is also easily available, but tends to be offered at an unrealistic starting bid by sellers who seem to feel that lenses should be priced by size and weight and not by quality. The others may take a little more time and/or money. I didn't want the 90-230, but grabbed the rest, with a motley collection of adapters, and also picked up the 55-135 and a single TX lens, the 35-105. I wanted to try a TX lens on a T4 adapter because although everyone agrees that a TX adapter won't even fit on a T4 lens, there are mixed opinons about whether, and how well, a TX lens will work with a T4 adapter. It seemed to depend on which adapter was being used. I figured that the Exakta adapter is one of the least demanding because it does not need to pass any aperture info to the camera to support TTL metering, so the camera interface is just a simple claw, with the stop-down mechanism located in the pass-through trigger. So it would be relatively likely to work perfectly with a TX lens, and indeed it does. The same goes for the M42 adapters. This compatibility is a good thing because Exakta, along with Topcon, Miranda, Petri, and others, was among the adapters dropped after T4 and never made for TX.</p>

<div></div>

<p>My lenses all happen to be Vivitars except for the 300/5.5. The Soligor 300mm fits happily on Vivitar-branded adapters, and vice versa.<br /> <br /> As the lenses dribbled in from various sellers, I stuck them on my VX IIb and went out shooting. As I expected, these lenses completely changed the experience of using my Exakta. They look and feel like what we of the immediate pre-AF generation tend to think of as modern, high-quality manual focus lenses. Unlike my assortment of Jenas, Schneiders, and Meyers, there was no fussing with preset apertures, no stiff focus rings, no stopped-down metering. They are faster than most of my old German lenses, making for a brighter image when focusing. Overall, they take as much awkwardness as is possible out of using an Exakta, given its left-handed operation and other quirks. <br /> <br /> As for their optical performance, I am still forming an opinion about some of them. I already liked the 24, and have been impressed with the 135, 200, and 300. I'm afraid to test my lowly $15 Soligor 300/5.5 against my Zeiss T* 300/4, because the latter is not considered one of Zeiss's better efforts and the Soligor may actually be sharper!</p><div></div>

<p>The long lenses were smaller and lighter than I expected.</p><div></div>

<p>The 300/5.5, in particular is barely any larger than the 200/3.5.</p><div></div>

<p>The other standout has been the TX 35-105. This lens is a short, fat, two-touch zoom whose speed and physical length are constant across the zoom range, although focal distance is not. Mine is the only one of my T4/TX family that arrived in less than great condition; it has a few fine scratches on the front element, dust between the front and second elements, some kind of optical bubble or other flaw on the second element, and the front casing is bashed so that it will never accept a filter. None of this appears to affect image quality and it delivers sharp, contrasty images with good color definition and reasonable bokeh. I was so impressed that I soon bid on a Soligor version in better condition with a dedicated mount for my Minolta; well worth the $4.99! And especially welcome as there is no normal-length prime in the T4/TX ranges.</p><div></div>

<p>The 35-105 also has a very useful close focusing mode.</p><div></div>

<p>Preliminarily, I am not yet so pleased with the 28, the 35, or the 55-135 zoom. The wides, so far, seem just okay. </p><div></div>

<p>They do the job, but just don't blow me away like a Rokkor, say.</p><div></div>

<p>The 55-135, like the TX 35-105, is a two-toucher with all the zooming going on internally. But it is larger and heavier, and I haven't managed to take a sharp picture with it yet. Could just be me. I'm going to stick it on a Minolta and give it another chance.</p><div></div>

<p>So, conclusions. If you use Exakta or a similar 1950s make, the T4 line is worth looking into. The lenses are solid performers by 1970s standards, have a modern look and feel, and offer some capabilities otherwise unavailable. For example, I understand that no other manufacturer ever made fully auto-diaphragm lenses longer than 200mm for the Exakta. They give you updated ergonomics and image style -- I won't say better quality, because I'm not sure that the Tokinas are better than the Tessars and Primotars, they just give a more modern look. I now have basically parallel lens lines for my Exaktas, one 50s German and one 70s Japanese, with a few "bridge" lenses (my Pancolar 50/2 and Flektogon 20/4 are right at home with the T4s) so I can decide, on a given day, whether I want the vintage look or no-fuss normal photography. <br /> <br /> Further reading:<br /> <br /> Informal history of T4: http://www.vermontel.net/~wsalati/CasualCollector/t4_for_two.htm<br /> <br /> Vivitar TX brochure: http://www.peterdaprix.com/_files/photography/photo_pages/brochures/vivitar/lenses/2covers-med.html<br /> <br /> Rick Oleson's lens mount ID page (T4 is close to the bottom): http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-99.html</p>

<p>Thanks for the useful and interesting discussion of these mounts.</p>

<p>For anything after T2 adapters, I tend to buy only lenses that are already set with a mount I can use (generally, M42 automatic or Nikon). That way, I can not only use them on the cameras they were "made for", but can also mount them with an additional adapter on my Canon EOS cameras.</p>

<p>I've just found it very hard to find appropriate adapters on their own, without their already being on another lens.</p>

 

<p>Since (through the magic of the used market) I've acquired multiple manual focus SLR systems over the past couple of years, I've found that the Tamron Adaptall system allows me to use both old (classic or near-classic) and new Tamron class on everything I have. Mainly I use it for lenses that would be expensive to have in all my systems (Minolta, Olympus, Yashica, Konica, Pentax K and M42, and Nikon). I use the Adaptall mount for my Tamron 17mm f3.5, 90mm f2.5 macro, and 28-200 f3.8-5.6. I also have the 24mm f2.5 and 35-70 f3.5 CF, but am only using those with the Nikon and Konica since I have these lenses covered in the other systems. Tamron also made Adaptall mounts to allow their lenses to be used manually on the Maxxum and EOS.</p>

<p>To get closer to the Classic criteria, some of the 70's vintage Tamrons are worth looking into: The 105mm f2.5 was really nice. We had one in stock at the family camera shop, but since I only used Minolta at the time, I had a Minolta 100mm f2.5. Another lens I liked was the 300mm f5.6. For zooms, the 70-150 f3.5 was one of their better efforts from that time. Older Adaptall mounts were aperture-specific for some models (like Konica mount) so the VF flag would correctly show the maximum aperture. With later Adaptall-II that was automatic. Even though I don't need it, the 70-150 is so cheap now I'd almost be tempted to pick one up. I'd say no-thanks, however, to the 38-100 f3.8. Too bulky and too much barrel distortion at the wide end. The only two we stocked were both bought by newspaper reporters.</p>

<p>At Robert Monaghan site at the Wayback Machine are lots of good information on the T4 & TX lenses. I couldn't paste the address so here is the address typed out.<br>

<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060830231621/www.medfmt.8k.com/third/index.html">http://web.archive.org/web/20060830231621/www.medfmt.8k.com/third/index.html</a><br>

This is the index page. You can spend happy hours going through all the info.<br>

Robin</p>

 

<p>Thanks for that link, Robin, I can't image how I missed it up to now, but it is great for those of us who are, well, obsessed with old lenses, etc.</p>

<p>Thanks for this enjoyable and educational post. Nice looking results!</p>

<p>For the Medium Format enthusiasts see Robert Monaghans pages here:<br>

<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20031001184803/www.medfmt.8k.com/mf/index.html">http://web.archive.org/web/20031001184803/www.medfmt.8k.com/mf/index.html</a><br>

Robin</p>

<p>I have almost all of the T4 and TX lenses. I wish there had been a TX lens wider than 24mm. At one time I thought I saw a 17mm Lentar lens on eBay woth an interchangeable mount. I am missing at least one T4 zoom and also the 400/6.3 TX lens. Not all of the T4 and TX lenses aged well. It's hard to find a 105/2.8 TX with its locking ring in good condition. There was no wide angle T4 zoom like the 35-105 TX. I have two of the 35-105 TX lenses. Both would need a complete overhaul to be useful. A few years ago I saw a 100-300/5 TX lens on eBay with the Tokina marking. It's the only one like it I've ever seen.<br>

The 400/5.6 TX I have is an IF lens. It's a different and shorter design from the older 400/4.6 Fixed Mount. I have the Fixed Mount lens in M42 and Minolta MC mounts. I started SLR photography with a Konica Autoreflex T2, before TX lenses were available. The only way you could use a T4 lens on a Konica was to attach an M42 adapter and then use the Konica to M42 adapter. For this reason I got to know the Fixed Mount lenses long before I was collecting or knew much about the T4 and TX lenses. My early Fixed Mount Vivitars were the 135/2.8 and 28/2.5. Both are very good. The 28 rivals those of the camera manufacturers. Other Fixed Mount lenses I had or have are the 17/3.5, 20/3.8, 24/2 (both versions) 28/2 (both versions) 35/1.9, 200/3.5, 300/5.6, 55/2.8 macro, 90/2.8 macro, 135/2.8 Close Focusing. I haven't done exhaustive tests but I have an idea of how the T4 and TX lenses compare with the Fixed Mount lenses. The 21/2.8 T4 and 20/4 FM are both good. I prefer the 20. The Tokina made 24/2.8 FM and TX lenses are the same optically. The T4 model is good but not as good as the later FM and TX ones. The 28/2.5 FM has a different formula from the TX and is better. The 35/2.8 Tokina made FM is the same optically as the T4. Neither is as good as the 35/1.9. Mechanically the 35/2.5 TX is not impressive. Optically I like the later 35/2.8 TX better. I also like the later 28/2.8 TX better than the 28/2.5 TX. <br>

There were no T4 or TX macro lenses. All of the T4 and TX 135s are good. My favorite is the smaller 135/2.8 TX, followed by the 135/2.5 TX. I would say that the 200/3.5 T4 isn't as good as the 200/3.5 T4 and the 200/3.5 T4 is not as good as the 200/3.5 FM (Komine). The 300/5.6 TX is less bulky than the 300/5.5 T4 but lacks the tripod collar of the T4 lens. I don't think I have a 400mm T4 either. I don't really like the zooms very much even though I have all of the TX models. The 90-230/4.5 TX is surprisingly good and the 100-300/5 is good too if the slow speed doesn't turn you off. It's hard to find an 80-200 TX in good condition. It had a popular zoom range and there were many other choices including other Vivitar FM models. The 75-260 is impressive just for its size. It's OK if you close down a little but not great. Vivitar made 70-150/3.8 Fixed Mount lenses in both 2-touch and 1-touch versions but the TX model was only made in a 2-touch design. From what I can tell it's identical to the FM version. I prefer the 2-touch lens. It seems a little sharper to me and has no zoom creep.<br>

I have two Yashica FX-3s. Each came with a 50/1.9 ML lens. I am waiting for a friend to mail me a Y/C TX adapter. With that and an M42 to Y/C adapter I will have many lens choices for theFX-3s. I have a few T mount lenses and at least a dozen Tamron lenses. Somewhere I have a Y/C Adaptall II adapter. If I find it I'll be able to put my 90/2.5 SP (2nd model) on too.</p>

<p>Jeff, that's quite a list. I used to own a Vivitar 70-150 f3.8 and I found it to be a bit sharper wide open than the Tamron. I also owned a Tamron 85-210 f4.5, but I found it a bit soft at the 210mm end.</p>

<p>I have the 70-150/3.5 CF Tamron. It's smoother to operate and slightly faster than the Vivitar 70-150 but I agree that wide open it isn't as sharp as the Vivitar. I have seen photos of a rare 70-150/2.8 Tamron with a soft focus feature. Tamron made two versions of the 80-210/3.8 Adaptall II. One had a built-in hood and one didn't. I think I have two of each. I find them to be pretty good. A few years ago I used one with a Minolta 2X 300S teleconverter on an X-700 and got very good results. </p>

<p>Jeff, I had the older version of the 70-150 f3.5. I don't think it was as good as the 70-150 CF.</p>

<p>I am old enough to remember when most of these lenses were tested in the photography magazines of their day. Here are some test results on the Vivitar T-4s done by <em>Camera 35</em> and reprinted in an ad in <em>Modern Photography's </em> October 1969 issue. To save space I'll just give the results wide open and at the optimal f/stop. There were only resolution figures given but in all cases the lenses showed good contrast by the time they were stopped down to optimal resolution. Numbers are center (edge)<br>

28 f/2.8 40 (28): f/5.6 & 8: 56(40)<br>

35 f/2.8 56 (34): f/5.6 & 8: 80 (56)<br>

135 f/2.8 40 (28): f/8 56 (40)<br>

200 f/3.5 48 (34): f/11 56 (48)<br>

300 f/5.5 40 (34): f/11 48 (40)<br>

These are pretty decent with the 35mm lens outstanding. Lenses were about $120, mounts $10, and the test results were really amazing for those prices at that time. A 135 f/3.5 is listed as being in the lineup but was not tested (or the test results were not included in the ad;-) The T-4 and TX lenses generally did not focus as closely as the corresponding fixed mount lenses, while those did not usually focus as closely as Tamrons of the TX era. There were some earlier Tamrons in Adaptamatic mount that worked on Exaktas (which the Adaptall mounts did not). T-4/TX certainly spans the widest range of camara makes and eras. However, I think Spiratone sold a 300mm f/4 (more like f/4.5 really but faster and bigger than most of the competition) in YS mount that gave auto-aperture on Exaktas. I can confirm that TX lenses I've tried work with a T-4 mount on an Exakta. The 35-105 wide angle to telephoto is a gas on a VX-500.</p>

 

<p>With a faster motor drive a T4 mount lens can have issues with a dancing diaphram. The added stuff-gizmo with the T4 mounts linkage/stuff/mechanism can is some cases work poor with a motor drive body.</p>

<p>Hi, I know this is a little old. But I was wondering if ALL Soligor 400/6.3 where with T4 mount? There is one on one of the acution sites and the seller is sayng it fits Minolta. I asked them if they are sure, or if there is simply a Minolta adaptor screwed onto the lens. Of course the responded with "It fits Minolta. Nothing is screwed on" Or something to that effect. Unfortunately the pics are bad and they don't show the mount in detail. Is it possible that is truly is a Minolta only mount or is it safe to assume it is a T4 with the Minolta adaptor?</p>

<p>Is there any particular reason to think this IS a T-4? The T-4 lenses were a sideline for Soligor even when made, with fixed mount lenses before, during and after the T-4 era, to say nothing of stuff branded as Soligor overseas. I would say that unless there is some reason to think this is a T-4 lens then probably it is not. As you probably know the Vivitar T-4/TX lenses have serial numbers starting with 37 which helps to narrow things down with a seller who knows nothing about photo gear. However, there were also non-T-4/TX Vivitars starting with 37;-( I don't know how bad the photo is but a dead giveaway visually is the locking tab shown here<br>

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320535624735&ssPageName=STRK:MESOX:IT</p>

<p> </p>