Tamron Adaptall 24mm f2.5

<p>This lens could go in either the CMC or MFC forum, but since I took the photos posted with the lens attached to my Pentax ZX-5 I will post here. Tamron apparently didn't sell as many of these lenses as they hoped since even after more than a decade this lens can be bought as NOS from several vendors. Another reason for using the lens with the ZX-5 was I wanted to see how the KA adaptall mount would work with the ZX-5. With the camera set at A and the lens at minimum aperture (f22) the camera provides program autoexposure. Like my 50mm f2 SMC A, it displays aperture and shutter info in the finder. Film was Kodak Gold 200 (found it 4 rolls for $6 at CVS).</p>

<p>Here is a photo of the ZX-5 with the Tamron Adaptall 24mm f2.5 attached. Charge was down on my digital camera so I used my Blackberry to take a photo for the expected camera porn.</p><div></div>

<p>Now for some results. I found the lens to be quite sharp, but more tendency to flare than my Sigma 24mm f2.8, but I do not have the hood for the Tamron.</p><div></div>

<p>More shots, to show the wide FOV.</p><div></div>

<p>This is the two lane road that the Christian school I teach at is located. Nice, relaxing drive each day.</p><div></div>

<p>The above photo is the typical foreground emphasizing effect the wide angle lenses are famous (or infamous) for. All photos, BTW, were in center weighted mode, which I think the camera probably defaults to when used with manual focus lenses. I know the early Maxxums would switch from matrix to CW when MF was used.</p><div></div>

<p>Above photo shows that the lens does have some barrel distortion at close range.</p><div></div>

<p>I would say this lens is about "middle of the pack" on flare. Better control of flare than my Kiron 24mm f2, but not as good as my Sigma 24mm f2.8. Definitely a keeper and I can use it on any of my SLRs since I have Adaptall mounts to fit all.</p>

<p>That Tamron shows an impressive lack of geometric distortion for so wide an angle. Flare, as you say, could be better, but I've seen worse.</p>

<p>I've had that Tamron Adaptall 24/2.5 for several years. It was a beater when I bought it, a rental from an Austin camera shop. I think I paid $25. At that price it's an outstanding value. In absolute terms, it's still a very good lens, sharp and contrasty even wide open. I've used it on my Nikon film and digital cameras, and on my former Olympus OM gear.</p>

<p>It is vulnerable to ghosting flare, but no worse than any other 20mm-28mm prime of that era. It's remarkably resistant to veiling flare, even aimed directly into the setting sun. (Note the bottom photo in the attachment - I only repositioned the camera very slightly to block the sun. Veiling flare isn't too bad for that situation.) My much more expensive 28/3.5 PC-Nikkor is more prone to veiling flare, tho' less prone to ghosting.</p>

<p>I actually like the distinct shapes of the flare with this lens, especially the piston or hourglass shapes, that I've used the flare artifacts produced with this lens to copy onto other photos where I didn't want to use generic "lens flare" from my digital editing software. Most fake lens flare options in photo editing software lack the variety of shapes usually seen in true lens flare.</p>

<p>It's a difficult lens to fit with a non-OEM lens shade. The focus ring is a little too far forward on the barrel, and tends to interfere with the generic third party hoods I've tried, hindering infinity focus. Same problem with some filters - I have only one red filter that doesn't hinder infinity focus on this lens.</p>

<p>The Tamron Adaptall 17/3.5 with built in filters is another excellent value in a third party manual focus lens. Kinda wish I'd kept that one - it was much better corrected for barrel distortion at 17mm on my DX format dSLR than the popular 18-70 DX Nikkor at 18mm. Looking back at my b&w street photos from years ago, I got a lot of good use from the 17/3.5 Tamron on my FM2N and OM-1. It was a real mistake to sell it.</p>

<hr />

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00TXVa-140201584.jpg" alt="" width="445" height="1317" /><br>

<strong> Top photo at f/3.8; bottom at f/5.6. Each taken about one minute apart, with only slight shift in position to use a branch to block the sun.</strong></p>

<p>Yeah, Lex. I have the 17mm f3.5 as well. I agree, it is a good lens. I may have to do a series on it before long. I think I have a thread on the Pentax Spotmatic from a few years back and I recall making a couple of images with that lens as well as the excellent 50mm f1.4 SMC Takumar.</p>