No, TX and Adaptall are different.
Brian P. Huber
Troy, OH
bphuber@xxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tom Scales
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2000 8:24 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] beginner lens question
I thought the TX was the same mount as the Tamron adaptall?
Tom> Brian Huber wrote:
> >
> > Also, the 400
> > 5.6 in the TX, NOT FIXED MOUNT, was considered to be a great lens
>
> My mother bought a trio of TX Vivitars (Konica mt.)at Dillard's in '77
> or '78. . . a 28/2.5, 35/2.5 and a 90-230/4.5. They're weird; the wides
> don't have a flared nose like the fixed mount versions and the 90-230
> has "close focus". I can get the nose about 7-8 inches from the
> subject.
>
> What sets them apart is the multicoating, a deep teal very much like the
> "Minolta glow". They're good lenses. . . the 28 is really, really good,
> but it's big and ugly. I'd put it on my OM's if I could find a mount.
>
> Were the TX mounts intended to be switched by their owners? I think
> I've screwed up the coupling once or twice tinkering with them.
>
> Morgan Sparks
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|