Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Did Tamron give up on 400mm primes?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:52 pm    Post subject: Did Tamron give up on 400mm primes? Reply with quote

After cursory review, and limiting this to prime lenses:

Older Tamron T2 presets are easy to locate in 400mm versions. I myself own a Nestar. And I see a variety of other older 400mm Tamrons offered for sale from time to time.

But commencing with the Adapt-A-Matics, and continuing forward in time to and through their Adaptall and Adaptall-2 lenses, Tamron appears to have abandoned 400mm prime lenses!

Am I missing something?

Exception:

Wealthy lens mavins will of course smile and point here:

http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/65B.html

Suffice it to say I am writing above about Tamron 400mm lenses average people might have a chance to afford. For me the Nestar was a stretch. A 65B will not be coming my way in this lifetime; nor will any other 400mm lens as fast as f/4!!


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Did Tamron give up on 400mm primes? Reply with quote

guardian wrote:
Suffice it to say I am writing above about Tamron 400mm lenses average people might have a chance to afford. For me the Nestar was a stretch. A 65B will not be coming my way in this lifetime; nor will any other 400mm lens as fast as f/4!!


But a hundred $, or two or three, depending upon the weather, could easily get you a 400/4.5. Smile
Examples:
Attila's Hexanon 400/4.5 with a Nikon mount:
http://www.ebay.de/itm/Konishiroku-Hexanon-400mm-f4-5-Nikon-F-mount-/361892952246?hash=item54428038b6:g:jzAAAOSw5cNYjnED
Or a like-new one in Japan, if your reach extends there:
http://page9.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/k239480642
I saw one go for 100 GBP on EbayUK a couple of weeks ago. It sat there for a couple of months before someone took pity on it.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, without actually knowing the price of that fast Tamron 65B 400mm, I'll bet it is closer to $1000 than it is to $100. It strikes me as a pro lens.

Point is, it appears Tamron consciously and with forethought exited the popular-priced 400mm prime lens market.

However, this was NOT true for example regarding Tamron 300mm primes, which is where they apparently decided to cut off.

You can find affordable Tamron 300mm primes in the post-preset era; but not Tamron 400mm primes.


Last edited by guardian on Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:48 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree guardian, it's curious there isn't a tamron 400mm f5.6, similar to the tokinas for example.
Maybe they decided to concentrate on the mirrors (350mm f5.6 and 500mm f8 ) to cover ultra TP...


Last edited by marcusBMG on Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:54 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is a good and valid observation . . though not one which occurred to me.

But, yes, the Tamron long f/l mirror lenses are recognized as being among the best in their price range. But they are slow, I think. I do not own any mirror lenses.

Regardless, perhaps at some point Tamron marketing just "made a decision" to shift over.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

300/2.8 have been pretty affordable recently. Crop, or add modern brand name 1.4 TC.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The truth is that as early as the mid-1970s Tamron had abandoned virtually all fixed focal length lenses, not only the 400mm. Then the wave was the zoom lenses. The list below shows how zooms dominated the Tamron Adaptall lineup.

24mm F/2.5 Adaptall CW-24
28mm F/2.8 Adaptall CW-28
105mm F/2.5 Adaptall CT-105
135mm F/2.8 Adaptall CT-135
200mm F/3.5 Adaptall CT-200
300mm F/5.6 Adaptall CT-300
35-80mm F/2.8-3.5 Adaptall QZ-35M
38-100mm F/3.5 Adaptall SZ-38
38-100mm F/3.5 Adaptall CZ-38M
70-150mm F/3.8 Adaptall CZ-715
70-150mm F/3.5 Adaptall CZ-150
70-150mm F/3.5 Adaptall QZ-150M
70-220mm F/3.8 Adaptall Z-220
70-350mm F/4.5 Adaptall CZ-735
80-250mm F/3.8 Adaptall Z-250
80-250mm F/3.8-4.5 Adaptall CZ-825
80-250mm F/3.8-4.5 Adaptall QZ-250M
85-210mm F/4.5 Adaptall Z-210
85-210mm F/4.5 Adaptall CZ-210M
85-210mm F/4.5 Adaptall QZ-210M
200-500mm F/6.9 Adaptall Z-500
200-500mm F/6.9 Adaptall CZ-500

from: http://www.adaptall-2.com/


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My page of adaptall-2 and SP's lists 32 zooms, but still 17 primes. Tamron continued it's prime lens coverage up to the point of abandoning the adaptall line up c. 2005. The 500mm mirrors were amongst the last to go.
Sure zooms started to dominate in terms of market share but primes still tend to be the preferred option for ultra TP specifically, so that still begs the question why tamron decided not to compete in that segment: consumer refractive 400's.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marcusBMG wrote:
Sure zooms started to dominate in terms of market share but primes still tend to be the preferred option for ultra TP specifically, so that still begs the question why tamron decided not to compete in that segment: consumer refractive 400's.


I think you said the key word: consumer! Forty years ago there was a small market for cheap 400mm lenses like Cambron, Spiratone, etc., which cost about $50 but were not lenses for serious use. Professional sports and nature photographers bought Canon and Nikon lenses (sorry guys, but Pentax, Olympus, Minolta, Konica, Rollei, etc. were amateur brands).

At the time when all lenses were manual focus, most amateurs had difficulty in focusing a large, heavy 400mm lens. The lime pad on the 400mm amateur lens market was perhaps the appearance of the small and light 500mm mirror lenses. Unfortunately, the difficulty in focusing a super-telephoto lens continued, so the amateurs ended up getting disillusioned with the mirror lenses, too.

Returning to Tamron. I think Tamron made the right decision not to invest in 400mm refractive lenses because the market was too small. The Tamron SP 400mm F4.5 (and the 300mm F2.8, too) was used by Tamron primarily as a technological showcase (to impress amateurs who would never buy these lenses!).

The only third-party lens manufacturer that seriously invested in super-telephoto lenses was Sigma with its multiple internal-focusing APO lenses. These Sigma lenses were expensive and directed primarily to the professional market. But, as we know, Sigma dropped the ball with the countless cases of haze in lens cement and the infamous Zen coating.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes..the magazines that we read were full of full page adverts for the new generation of 'superzooms' - which are still the first major purchase for someone who has bought a DSLR, even if they had limitations. And they killed the market for long primes in the amateur market, the pro's still used primes but they were expensive.

I've got a Vivitar 400 / 5.6 and a Soligor 400 / 6.3 which are both quite good lenses that I've had very good pictures from, but I rarely use because they are not easy to use. if I want a long lens I use one of my 500 / 8 mirror lenses, even though they are a whole lot slower - they are easier to use. By the time I'm using a lens of this focal length I've got a tripod out whether it's f5.6 or f8. So it's no wonder the superzooms won the market.

And Sigma weren't the only manufacturer to make great sales in the semi pro superzoom market with great lenses that eventually failed, I have a Tokina AT-X 80-200 / 2.8 that is barely usable because of the haze on internal elements. I guess the old adage of "you don't get anything for nothing" is true, these old high performance lenses were obviously made possible by making economies, which showed up as the product aged.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tamron actually began the fad for cheap consumer 400mm and similar. All the earliest Japanese ones seem to be Tamron. They also made a good variety including ultra compact ones, besides the Nestar; I have several.

I like those old consumer 400's, the Tamrons and Aetnas and Spiratones and Astranars and Soligors, etc., they are cheap, very light and generally work rather well. I like them as "snapshot" lenses on digital.

That said, I think most consumers didnt use them much because of the learning curve. They are easy to buy but hard to use.

I suspect that Tamron later put itself at a rather more exclusive spot in the market and 400mm primes werent going to be impressive enough to justify the prices Tamron wanted to charge. After all, there were those 200-500 zooms to sell.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The general reason behind "giving up 400mm lenses" is connected to the image quality and especially to CAs.

Using LD glass (abbe number of about 70) one can make good 4/200mm lenses, but an LD 4/300mm is already quite limited by its CAs (e. g. the Canon nFD 4/300mm, the Minolta MD 4.5/300mm or the Mamiya Sekor E 4/300mm). The problems increase at f=400mm, and the only way to really control them is by

* EITHER using Fluorite (Abbe number 94) or AD glass with a large anomalous partial dispersion (UD glass with an Abbe number of 80 isn't really sufficient, as the nFD 2.8/400mm L proves)
* OR by constructing mirror lenses

Obviously Tamron chose to go the "mirror way" (5.6/350mm, 8/500mm) for cheaper lenses. They were the successors to the early 5.6/400mm and 6.3/400mm lenses (usually achromatic doublets or triplets coupled with a single negative lens in the rear, to make them tele lenses and to correct field curvature).

400mm LD Lenses such as the Hexanon AR 4.5/400mm or the Canon nFD 4.5/400mm have strong CAs. I would not recommend them for landscape work, since image quality doesn't really increase when sopping down. Shooting "animal portraits" usually is no problem, however!

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
The general reason behind "giving up 400mm lenses" is connected to the image quality and especially to CAs.

Using LD glass (abbe number of about 70) one can make good 4/200mm lenses, but an LD 4/300mm is already quite limited by its CAs (e. g. the Canon nFD 4/300mm, the Minolta MD 4.5/300mm or the Mamiya Sekor E 4/300mm). The problems increase at f=400mm, and the only way to really control them is by

* EITHER using Fluorite (Abbe number 94) or AD glass with a large anomalous partial dispersion (UD glass with an Abbe number of 80 isn't really sufficient, as the nFD 2.8/400mm L proves)
* OR by constructing mirror lenses

Obviously Tamron chose to go the "mirror way" (5.6/350mm, 8/500mm) for cheaper lenses. They were the successors to the early 5.6/400mm and 6.3/400mm lenses (usually achromatic doublets or triplets coupled with a single negative lens in the rear, to make them tele lenses and to correct field curvature).

400mm LD Lenses such as the Hexanon AR 4.5/400mm or the Canon nFD 4.5/400mm have strong CAs. I would not recommend them for landscape work, since image quality doesn't really increase when sopping down. Shooting "animal portraits" usually is no problem, however!

Stephan



Thank you, Stephan. That is some of the most fascinating and interesting information I have read in my many years on this website.

OK, for me Stephan's post prompts this observation . . . .

With reference to the OP (find link there), the Tamron 65B offers

*an Adaptall-2 lens able to be fitted to a wide variety of camera bodies

*a lens having the front two elements made from low dispersion (LD) glass

*a very fast lens when considered against 400mm lenses in the "consumer" category

Having now checked 65B pricing, I find my earlier guess was not too far astray. 65B lenses in decent shape, when they infrequently become available for sale, sell in the range of US$750 to US$1000.

Now in light of those observations, and also prompted by Stephan's post, I have this inquiry:

Suppose I want a 400mm lens having only two of the aforementioned three attributes. A 400mm lens

*able to be fitted to a wide variety of camera bodies and

*having LD glass sufficient to minimize at least a portion of the CA concern raised by Stephan

I'm purposefully giving up speed in hope of lowering cost. Am willing to live with a 400mm lens at f/5.6 or even slower, but NOT f/8. And note that high quality Nikon or Canon lenses that only can be fitted to Nikon or Canon camera bodies do not help.

Does anyone know of such a 400mm lens, widely usable regardless camera body and having LD glass, but slower and less expensive than a Tamron 65B?


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're right about the price of the 65B's guardian. I only noted one listing over a two year period, a BIN for £1000. There were two listings in the last year, both went for ~ £800. I swapped messages with one seller, but it was too much for me (and I have to ask: just how much better than the FD 400mm f4.5 I use on my NX20 would it be?).
Options to meet your criteria are limited, some possibilities have already been mentioned: adaptall 06B 350mm mirror, 400mm Nestar..
The quality 400mm 5.6 that comes to mind is the canon eos 400mm f5.6 - but you've already disqualified that.
Otherwise: sigma APO 400mm f5.6 in approprate mount (that isn't hazed); late model Tokina SD400mm f5.6, MF or later AF, in appropriate mount (which depends on the adaptability of the cameras you anticipate using..).

I can mention I have been quite happy with the sigma APO 500mm f7.2 I acquired a month ago, those don't seem as prone to the haze, and the zen coating is in the end merely a cosmetic issue. Not the sharpest but decent, and spec is good with 3 LD elements.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting

You are, in effect, saying the Nestar employs LD glass. I already own a Nestar. But I was unaware of the LD glass.

WOW!

I need to look into this in more detail.

As for mirror lenses, I own none. They are affordable though slow. But for me (only):

I've always remained clear of first surface mirrors . . . whenever and wherever possible. They can too easily become scratched. The mirror coatings oxidize. They make me nervous.

When I was a little kid my dad designed and built an evaporator. He achieved quite high vacuums for those long-ago days, using first a mechanical vacuum pump and then an oil diffusion pump. And I can remember, as a youngster standing watching, when he achieved the high vacuum he wanted and then would fire off those aluminium links, three of them at once, with high current. There was a flash and in that instant a first surface mirror was created. Dad was making telescope mirrors with his apparatus. He ground the mirrors first starting with a flat mirror blank. It was his hobby.

So, anyway, my familiarity with first surface mirrors goes back into the 1940's and 1950's. I'm not a fan, but it's just me. I'm not trying to bring others over to my viewpoint. If mirror lenses are working for you, God bless and I'm happy for you.

But for myself only, the preference is for refractive lenses, preferably with LD glass as taught by Stephan.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

guardian wrote:
Interesting

You are, in effect, saying the Nestar employs LD glass. I already own a Nestar. But I was unaware of the LD glass.

WOW!

You should not be so enthusiastic. Smile LD glass is just another name for crown glass:
Quote:
Low-dispersion glass (LD glass) is a type of glass with low dispersion. Crown glass is an example of a relatively inexpensive low-dispersion glass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-dispersion_glass

Virtually all photographic lenses manufactured in the last 100 years have one or more elements made of crown glasses.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerald wrote:
guardian wrote:
Interesting

You are, in effect, saying the Nestar employs LD glass. I already own a Nestar. But I was unaware of the LD glass.

WOW!

You should not be so enthusiastic. Smile LD glass is just another name for crown glass:
Quote:
Low-dispersion glass (LD glass) is a type of glass with low dispersion. Crown glass is an example of a relatively inexpensive low-dispersion glass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-dispersion_glass

Virtually all photographic lenses manufactured in the last 100 years have one or more elements made of crown glasses.


This is a very good post. Based on the post above, by Stephan, I did a little sleuthing earlier today.

It appears there are a great many varieties of LD glass. It is strictly a guess on my part, but I'm thinking possibly those types with the lowest dispersion, together with a useful refractive index, cost more and are found in the best lenses.

Here is a reference:

https://books.google.com/books?id=y3nnCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=abbe+number+diagram&source=bl&ots=UDvPH7QDyU&sig=VrvjuqOxMm30Eb38KYT6IkX7c48&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKy4Xoz5TSAhVp74MKHUk7DowQ6AEIejAS#v=onepage&q=abbe%20number%20diagram&f=false

What do you think?

In the instance of the high-end 65B, the writeup at adaptall-2.com highlights the special LD front-most two elements and colours them in light green. Same is true for the other high-end Tamron LD SP lenses.

But the 31A for example, which is also an SP lens, has no such LD mention. It's a guess. But I'm guessing the 31A and many other lenses use LD glass exactly as you suggest is the case. But perhaps the Tamron SP LD series of lenses uses an even higher quality, more effective, variety of LD glass . . . which is also more expensive.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another suggestion guardian: shop around for a 300mm f2.8 - the adaptall 60B is the most common, in fact the other two (107B, 360B) are rare. That can be acquired for less than half the price of a 65B. And an 014F 1.4x tc isn't expensive either.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marcusBMG wrote:
Another suggestion guardian: shop around for a 300mm f2.8 - the adaptall 60B is the most common, in fact the other two (107B, 360B) are rare. That can be acquired for less than half the price of a 65B. And an 014F 1.4x tc isn't expensive either.


Well, I'd love to own a 60B. I have several 300mm lenses, but nothing even close to that fast.

Gosh, all of those Tamron Adaptall-2 SP LD lenses are absolutely killer!

ETA

OK, here is a boogered 60B that went for only US$150 plus shipping:

Click here to see on Ebay

Prices for lenses in better shape can be found here:

http://www.ebay.com/sch/Cameras-Photo/625/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=Tamron%2060B&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

They are expensive. But at least these 300mm lenses are available for sale, whereas most often the 400mm SP LD lenses are not seen.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In any case the suggestion of going with a 1.4x TC with a quality 300mm may be more realisable than finding an equal or better quality 400mm f4.something


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The proposal to use a 300mm tele lens combined with a 1.4X converter is certainly a good one.

Here is an example from my Minolta AF 300mm/F4 lens combined with the excellent Kenko 1,4x MC4 DGX converter.
This combination results in a very good 420mm/F5.6 lens.
Unfortunately still heavily foggy outside why I've done an indoor picture.

Picture taken with Sony A850 24MP/FF WO at F4 (F5.6 due to converter):



100% crop for pixel peeping purposes (clickable for larger view):



Not bad at all I would say.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
The proposal to use a 300mm tele lens combined with a 1.4X converter is certainly a good one.

Here is an example from my Minolta AF 300mm/F4 lens combined with the excellent Kenko 1,4x MC4 DGX converter.
This combination results in a very good 420mm/F5.6 lens.
Unfortunately still heavily foggy outside why I've done an indoor picture.

Picture taken with Sony A850 24MP/FF WO at F4 (F5.6 due to converter):

100% crop for pixel peeping purposes (clickable for larger view):

Not bad at all I would say.


Agreed beautiful shots!

Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just to show what the excellent Kenko 1,4x MC4 DGX converter can do in combination with a good 300mm lens (Minolta AF 300/4).
This time on my Ricoh GXR-M (APS-C) which results in a MF lens of 630mm FOV FF equivalent at F5.6 (actually F4 on the lens).
Still a little bit foggy. However, the result (I never tried this before) is rather impressive for me:

#1


#2


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good article on the Tamron SP 400mm F4 LD-IF 65B:
http://makingnottaking.blogspot.com.br/2010/04/tamron-sp-400mm-f4-ld-if-065b-it-has.html


PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
..
* EITHER using Fluorite (Abbe number 94) or AD glass with a large anomalous partial dispersion (UD glass with an Abbe number of 80 isn't really sufficient, as the nFD 2.8/400mm L proves)
..


The Canon FD 400mm f/2.8L is not as good as the stellar 300mm/2.8L sister with fluorite - but still the CA correction is not bad under many taking conditions.
Some of my cheap slower 300/4 or 4.5 lenses from Makinon and Haminex are much worse from what I would estimate.
I even think the relative expensive Zeiss Contax 300mm f/4 is worse than the Canon Fd 400mm/2.8 - but I have not made a direct comparison yet.