Did Tamron give up on 400mm primes?

[guardian]

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!!

[konicamera]

[guardian]

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.

[marcusBMG]

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...

[guardian]

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.

[Gardener]

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

[Gerald]

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/

[marcusBMG]

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.

[Gerald]

[Lloydy]

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.

[luisalegria]

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.

[stevemark]

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

[guardian]

[marcusBMG]

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.

[guardian]

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.

[Gerald]

[guardian]

[marcusBMG]

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.

[guardian]

[marcusBMG]

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

[tb_a]

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.

[guardian]

[tb_a]

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

[Gerald]

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

[ZoneV]