200-400 F5.6 TAMRON LD INTERNAL FOCUS ?

I found this TAMRON 200-400 F5.6 LD INTERNAL FOCUS for a good price on a used equipment site and was wondering if anyone could tell me anything about them. It looks like a good lens complete with tripod mount ring. I would be grateful for your opinions.
Clay

OMG - see if you can find the older version of the Photodo web site. The Tamron 200-400/5.6 was the LOWEST rated lens ever made (by Photodo.) PASS.

Thanks for your help. How about this one.

Canon Auto Focus
80-400 F4.5-5.6 TOKINA AT-X

It was replaced several years ago with a different model so getting repair work could be an issue. Here's a couple of old threads with some info. Also, the system automatically adds "related threads" at the bottom of the screen so you may be able to find some info there.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=347393
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=19178

Forget it, i owned one and never got 1 usable picture out of it, Always soft, always looked like crap, and the AF was complete ****e (Though this was on a Nikon)

It WAS built well, so i suppose you could use it as a hammah

For cheap telephoto fun look into converting something old and manual focus or one of the Sigma 400mm f/5.6 primes, Forget all telezooms above 300 you find for cheap because they're pretty universally all junk

Thanks Kenjis. I have some M42 to EOS adaptors, so maybe I will give the MF route a try.

I used to have it and don't know what you guys are talking about. It's not a bad lens, doesn't compare to my 100-400 but it was perfectly usable. Great built, not the fastest focus but good enough. If your a little shaky though, no IS so you might have trouble.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Okay, maybe I'm a jerk, but I've got to say it.

Those two shots are good reasons why I think I would avoid that lens. The Eagle shot is incredibly soft and the colours and contrast seem very weak.

Wow, I think you were just being honest. I plan to save some money and get something else.

Like I said it doesn't compare to the 100-400L but it is usable. For some of the pixel peepers around here it will never do. On a budget and you want 400mm, go for it.

Here's another one

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Eagle wrote in post #7569813
Like I said it doesn't compare to the 100-400L but it is usable. For some of the pixel peepers around here it will never do. On a budget and you want 400mm, go for it.

Meh, its not bad but I agree the shots just lack "wow" or "pop" or anything

I did see some good shots done with the old Sigma 170-500 and 135-400 twins, wherein if you get a good copy, the results are actually pretty damn good

But again, You'd be better off going and converting some old M42 glass or a Nikon prime or something to Canon mount if you're on a budget...

Eagle, are those 3 photos posted up scans of prints?

No they were taken with the 20D

Eagle wrote in post #7569813
For some of the pixel peepers around here it will never do. On a budget and you want 400mm, go for it.

Again, I'm a jerk, but no pixel peeping needed I'm afraid. The shots are not flawed when viewed only at %100 crop and pixel peeping has nothing to do with it.