TX More than you wanna know!

[casualcollector]

After collecting the Vivitar/Soligor T4 series lenses for a while, I stumbled into a few of the TX series. I think you know where this led. Gotta have 'em all! It turned out to be an interesting pursuit. It seems that this Tokina made series can be divided into two generations, with a few variations in each generation. I think the first generation was introduced in early 1975. I characterize them by their T4 style breech lock ring for the adapters. I believe all were new optical designs. Generation one is represented by the 11 lenses on the left of the picture. Five in front, six behind. The initial lenses were; 24/2.8, 28/2.5, 35/2.5, 135/2.5, 200/3.5, 300/5.6, 400/5.6, 90-230/4.5 and 75-260/4.5. Later additions included 35-105/3.5, 100-300/5 and an improved 90-230/4.5.

During this period, smaller, lighter cameras became very popular. The Olympus OM series led the way. Canon's A series were more compact than their previous models and following the success of the AE-1, everyone joined in, including Tokina. The TX series were redesigned to be more compact. The second generation (as I refer to it) is characterized by a narrower breech lock ring and a redesigned latch. Gen. two is represented by the 6 lenses on the left side of the picture. The second series consist of 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 135/2.8, 200/3.5, 300/5.6, 400/5.6, 70-150/3.8 and 80-200/4. I think the 35-105/3.5, 90-230/4.5 and 100-300/5 were carried over with the newer style brech lock ring. Later a new 400/5.6 was introduced with internal focus and no tripod collar.

There's a gap in my magazine collection so I don't know when the second generation was phased in. TX was not as successful as the Tamron Adaptall 2 series and seems to have been phased out before 1985. I think I have one of each of the first generation. I have a few representatives of Gen. 2 but at this point I think I have more than enough and won't be pursuing the rest. It's time to take them off the shelf and start making pictures with them!

[John Parry]

An interesting collection. The absence of any focal lengths between 35 and 135 in the primes just shows how geared up we all were to buying cameras with the 50mm-ish standard lens, and cutting costs when it came to wide angles and portrait/teles.

It must say something about lens developments that you never see a camera nowadays with a 50mm-ish lens as standard. They all come with a 35-80 or similar zoom on board.

Regards - John

[PeterW]

I agree with you, John when you say:

It must say something about lens developments that you never see a camera nowadays with a 50mm-ish lens as standard. They all come with a 35-80 or similar zoom on board.

I think it says volumes, some yet to be written.

And, yes, were were all conditioned into using 35mm cameras with a lens around 50mm because this goes back to the days when the majority of affordable 35mm cameras had fixed lenses, and 50mm was thought to be the focal length that gave the most 'normal' perspective - much the same sort of view as 80mm or thereabouts with a medium format 6x9 folder.

The only cameras with interchangeable lenses were the expensive 'precision' ones, Leica, Contax and Exakta, out of the range of most peoples' wallets. Even they came with a 50mm (58 in the case of the Exakta) as standard. The main extra lenses to which most users aspired were 35mm for wide angle and 90mm or 135mm for long focus. These covered everything thought necessary except for specialist photography.

If you used either of these extra lenses with a Leica or Contax you had to fit an separate viewfinder. Photography in those days was a more leisurely pursuit. Even when 35mm SLRs became more affordable, 50-ish mm was still the standard lens, and the idea of three prime prime lenses to cover anything still hung on.

It all changed with the development of zoom lenses which gave results comparable with prime lenses, and didn't change focus when you zoomed, in particular the 'short' zoom from 35mm to 70mm or 80mm. Now we didn't have to guess what was the best focal length for a picture and mess about changing lenses while the picture went away. Just one twist or push and we could see the result in the viewfinder. It was great. On my Canons the lens I used most of the time was the 35 to 70 short zoom.

With the advent of compact 35mm cameras, and later compact digital cameras, a short zoom lens, motor-driven, became the norm for anything except cheap point and shoots. Even the flash fired automatically in low light. It was easy and quick.

It should have improved most peoples' photography, but it didn't. Despite adverts of the "realise your latent creativity" sort, most people still took the same old album-filling snapshots except that they were now probably sharper.

Many people talk about the way cameras have developed to make good photography easier. They often forget that it couldn't have been done without corresponding development of lenses.

As I see it what we have to guard against with digital is the temptation to take hundreds of shots in anticipation that there has to be a few good ones among them. Back in the days when there was more to learn about the 'craft' of photography a good photographer expected, and usually got, 20 to 25 good pictures, and probably half a dozen really good ones, from a 36 exposure roll of film because he or she took a lot more trouble over each shot.

Nowadays you might hear someone say that they took 200 or so pictures on their holiday, yet when they show you their album you find they picked out only about 20 or so as 'keepers'.

That's why, even though we may have a high quality digital SLR that takes care of most of the 'craft' for us it's not a bad idea once in a while to leave it at home and take out an 'old-fashioned' film camera with three prime lenses and just one roll of film, so we have to think a little more about each shot, and the lighting, before we press the button. We might even get a higher proportion of good pictures. And anyway, except perhaps for pro news pictures, what's the hurry?

OK, relax. Ramble over.

PeterW

[Deleted]

Wish that 400mm f5.6 would fit my Nikon. I have an 80-200 f/2.8 Tokina MF zoom that is a wonderfil lens but it was in a non changable Nikon mount. The ONLY changable mount lens I have ever owned was a Vivitar 135mm f2.8 lens in a "T" mount that I got about 1968. The lens didn't couple to the camera meter. It was a preset model that you had to manually stop down before shooting.

[casualcollector]

John, there was a 105 in the old T4 series. I'm surprised there was never a dedicated macro as there was in the Tamron line.

Ah, but an interesting ramble it was, Peter. For years the most used lens in my bag was the huge Canon FD 35-70/2.8. Lately, making photographs has taken a back seat to making sure the latest acquisition is working. When I do use the Canons they often wear a Canon 35/2 or Kiron 28/2.

The TX lenses illustrate your point about improved zooms. In the TX lineup, Five of the family of 12 were zooms. In the earlier, T4 line, only three of 14 were zooms.

Wayne, that 400 will fit your Nikon. A bit of searching will turn up an "AI" auto adapter that should work with your DigiKon. The earlier, T4 series, Nikon F adapter will also work on it but you'll have to use the F or F2. For all the clamor about Nikon having never changed the F mount, there's still a whole bunch of lenses that are unusable on newer Nikons.

[olroy2044]

Well said, Peter! What little digital I shoot, I find myself doing exactly that, or thinking, "I'll fix it later in P/S!"

I really enjoy my T4/TX lenses. Now if I can only find a K-mount adapter for less than the national debt! Roy

[Just Plain Curt]

A few of mine, mostly first version although my 28 f2.8 and 200 f3.5 look like none of yours Bill. My 90-230 Vivitar f4.5 are both first series as is my Soligor 90-230 f4.5. My 300 f5.6 is second version and just for kicks I'll throw in a shot of the 105 f2.8. I have several more 28, 35 and a 24 kicking around but where?

[casualcollector]

Curt,

Interesting to see the Vivitar and Soligor 90-230 side by side. They tried to make them look different but really can't hide their same parentage. I see your 300mm is a TX series hiding amongst the T4s!!

Bill