Tamron SP400mm F/4LD

[RVT1K]

Hi,

Someone in my area has this listed on Craigslist. The seller claims zero knowledge and is simply settling an estate. Here's the text:

Up for sale is an unusual Tamron SP400mm F/4LD. I don't know anything about it, except it's new and unused. It's part of an estate sale, so it basically is what it is.

I can't find much about this lens and was wondering if anyone out there has any thoughts or comments or possibly experience? I can't even find out if it is compatible with a Nikon body. I will say that I find the "new" part a more than a little suspicious.

Thanks

 

[Braineack]

it's a huge, manual focus, adapt-all lens. good luck.

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 400mm f/4 LD IF (65B) Lens Reviews - Tamron Adaptall Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

 

[RVT1K]

it's a huge, manual focus, adapt-all lens. good luck.

Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 400mm f/4 LD IF (65B) Lens Reviews - Tamron Adaptall Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Thanks for the input.
I actually saw that link but never opened it since I though it only pertained to Pentax cameras.

I've had some more time to investigate and I saw the lens has not been made since 1995 making the "new" claim even harder to swallow.

 

[Derrel]

I owned a 300/2.8 Tamron LD with its original 2x converter, and payed as I recall $1,699 in '86 or '87. It was in Adaptall-II mount.Constuction quality was good.
Their 400/4 LD was less-popular.

 

[RVT1K]

I contacted the person who posted the ad and got a fuller story. He's helping the daughter of the deceased close out an estate. Apparently her dad was a hoarder and there is a ton of unused stuff. I may take a look Sunday if the weather here permits.

 

[cooltouch]

I own it's little brother, the SP 300mm f/2.8 LD IF. The 400mm f/4 is basically the same optic, but larger. The 300/2.8 is an outstanding lens and I'm sure the 400/4 LD IF is every bit as good. The "LD" in its name indicates it has special "low dispersion" glass that improves optical performance. The 300/2.8 came new in a case with a 1.4 teleconverter. I suspect the same is true for the 400/4.

Adaptall-2.com has all the good information on Tamron manual focus lenses. Here is their comments regarding the 400/4:

Tamron SP Adaptall-2 400mm F/4 LD-IF Model 65B

 

[RVT1K]

Thanks for all the input.

I took a look at things on Sunday and I did buy it. There were already a couple of Nikon adaptors with it. But I also got the 300mm f/2.8 with a 2x tele-converter. And a nice Manfrotto tripod with a SLIK head. All for $400.

The 300mm is in great shape but I see what is probably fungus in the 400mm. The way I saw it, I got a great deal on the 300mm/tele-converter/tripod/head and got the 400mm for free. He also had a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 that was in nice shape (and I probably could have "stolen") but I already have the 70-200 f/2.8.

 

[Braineack]

nice!

 

[RVT1K]

So is it feasible to get the 400mm examined and cleaned. I've only heard of having a digital camera sensor cleaned but never the internals of a lens.

 

[RVT1K]

Here's a test shot made with the Tamron 300mm f/2.8 SP AF LD mated with the Tamron 300FNs 2X SP AF tele-converter. Shot through a closed window so maybe not the best test but not bad.

 

[ac12]

So is it feasible to get the 400mm examined and cleaned. I've only heard of having a digital camera sensor cleaned but never the internals of a lens.

Yes, by a camera tech with an optical bench.
But it won't be cheap, if it has to be recollimated on the bench. Though cheaper than doing a zoom.

 

[Dao]

Super Nice!!

 

[RVT1K]

Update....

I had the 400mm evaluated and it was as I feared, not worth repairing.
The fungus had damaged the coating on some of the glass and I was told that even though the fungus could be removed ($200 - $300), the image quality would not improve much.
I've asked to have it returned as-is.

 

[Derrel]

I dunno... I think it is a mistake to get rid of it unless the fungus is really, really bad... how are the images?

So..the coating is not that great..big deal... even un-coated, the image ought to be relatively sharp, and all you'd need to do would be to apply bit of extra sharpening and added clarity/contrast in post.

You got a 300/2.8 AND a 400/4 in Adaptall-2, plus converter(s) for $300... you have VERY little investment here...

 

[RVT1K]

I dunno... I think it is a mistake to get rid of it unless the fungus is really, really bad... how are the images?

So..the coating is not that great..big deal... even un-coated, the image ought to be relatively sharp, and all you'd need to do would be to apply bit of extra sharpening and added clarity/contrast in post.

You got a 300/2.8 AND a 400/4 in Adaptall-2, plus converter(s) for $300... you have VERY little investment here...

I don't know what I'll do with it. I don't really have any experience with fungus on any other lenses but it looked bad to me.
I took a few pictures with it when I first picked it up and I recall them being pretty cloudy. But I was just playing and its possible I can get acceptable images with it, I'll see what happens when it comes back.