Patent: Tamron 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/4, 500mm f/4

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
7,716
353
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
It looks like Tamron may be entering the world of fast supertelephoto lenses. Three different optical formulas have appeared in the same patent application from Tamron.</p>
<p><strong>Embodiment 1: 300mm F/2.8</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length: 304.799 mm</li>
<li>F No.: 2.8</li>
<li>ω: 3.997</li>
<li>Image height: 21.64 mm</li>
<li>Back focus: 70.1919 mm</li>
<li>Lens length: 298.38 mm</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Embodiment 2: 400mm F/4</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length: 396.296 mm</li>
<li>F No.: 4.0</li>
<li>ω: 2.963</li>
<li>Image height: 21.64 mm</li>
<li>Back focus: 102.3549 mm</li>
<li>Lens length: 332.36 mm</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Embodiment 3: 500mm F/4</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length: 485.045 mm</li>
<li>F No.: 4.001</li>
<li>ω: 2.530</li>
<li>Image height: 21.64 mm</li>
<li>Back focus: 125.2621 mm</li>
<li>Lens length: 420.001 mm</li>
</ul>
<p>I think a 400mm f/4 is a lens missing from everyone’s lineup. Apologies to the Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS II, but I think a non-DO version would likely cost less and could give equal or better performance at the expense of reduced size and weight. Maybe there’s an engineering reason that I am unaware of as to why a non-DO 400mm f/4 doesn’t exist for Canon’s EF mount.</p>



		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 33%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-32806 gallery-columns-3 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016-1.gif'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016-1-168x168.gif" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016-1-168x168.gif 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016-1-144x144.gif 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016.gif'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016-168x168.gif" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016-168x168.gif 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000016-144x144.gif 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000020-53a25.gif'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000020-53a25-168x168.gif" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000020-53a25-168x168.gif 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JPA_429223891_000020-53a25-144x144.gif 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
 
Mar 31, 2014
981
78
69
Center of my universe
I usually don't post with nothing substantive to say (yes, I know that point can be argued) - but this is very interesting news. Nothing long was interesting, until this. 500mm f/4!

And this may inspire the others to respond with similar offerings.
 

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
3,155
681
Sigma never made a mark across the board with long primes (which means don't chime in about a single particular great lens you owned once in a blue moon) so let's hope Tammy gets it right. There has never truly been econo choices for birding, let us hope.
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,816
35
400 F4 would be nice.

Also like to compare weight of these lenses to Canon's - assuming that they are brought to market
 

9VIII

EOR R
Feb 8, 2013
1,843
0
Pixel said:
Kinda miffed that, apparently, nobody else wants to make a 600 f4.
The market for $10,000 lenses is just a bit too restrictive.

After what we've seen with the latest round of zoom lenses, theoretically they could get 400f4 out the door for under $2K.
Even if the element is a few mm larger, the overall design is so much simpler I can't see this costing much more than the 150-600G2.
That might even get some people to upgrade from the Superzooms.
 

Chaitanya

EOS 6D MK II
Jun 27, 2013
1,115
196
33
Pune
400 f/4 now that's a lens that I would purchase for mammals. Perfect compromise when 400 f/2.8 is just too big and heavy..
 

Attachments

Chaitanya

EOS 6D MK II
Jun 27, 2013
1,115
196
33
Pune
9VIII said:
Pixel said:
Kinda miffed that, apparently, nobody else wants to make a 600 f4.
The market for $10,000 lenses is just a bit too restrictive.

After what we've seen with the latest round of zoom lenses, theoretically they could get 400f4 out the door for under $2K.
Even if the element is a few mm larger, the overall design is so much simpler I can't see this costing much more than the 150-600G2.
That might even get some people to upgrade from the Superzooms.
I highly doubt 400 f/4 will ever cost $2K even for a 3rd party manufacturer, more realistically it will come in around $3k-$3.5K.
 

Steve Dmark2

EOS T7i
Mar 30, 2016
74
0
31
Germany
Finally some news i really like.
Maybe this puts more pressure on canon to update their lineup.
Im interested to see the pricetag on the Tamron primes.

Cheers Stefan
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,142
1,673
Canada
Chaitanya said:
9VIII said:
Pixel said:
Kinda miffed that, apparently, nobody else wants to make a 600 f4.
The market for $10,000 lenses is just a bit too restrictive.

After what we've seen with the latest round of zoom lenses, theoretically they could get 400f4 out the door for under $2K.
Even if the element is a few mm larger, the overall design is so much simpler I can't see this costing much more than the 150-600G2.
That might even get some people to upgrade from the Superzooms.
I highly doubt 400 f/4 will ever cost $2K even for a 3rd party manufacturer, more realistically it will come in around $3k-$3.5K.
Yet they came out with a 150-600 at $800.... and the G2 version of the 150-600 is $1400. 600 at F6.3 means a 95mm filter, while 400mm at F4 means a 100mm filter...... not much difference.... and the 400 prime would be shorter and not require the mechanicals for a zoom mechanism. They could easily do a G2 quality lens for $2000.
 

IglooEater

EOS 6D MK II
Nov 15, 2014
904
0
Choice is normally good for the overall market, so I’m excited to see what comes from Tamron. imho Sigma’s venture into that territory with the 500mm f/4 sports was just to expensive to choose over a used Canon edition.
 

LDS

EOR R
Sep 14, 2012
1,576
151
Canon had two 400/4.5 in the FD era, but they weren't brought to EF versions. Maybe they didn't sell that well? Could there be more market for them today, when faster ISO are less an issue? Fast digital cameras and AF, plus cheaper travels, probably made wildlife photography more widespread, and maybe an f/4 may sell anyway.

Canon used rear drop-in filters, though, although I don't know how often filters are used on such lenses.
 

StoicalEtcher

EOS 80D
Jan 3, 2018
171
78
Yorkshire
Interested to see where Tamron would want to position this, if they produced them: do they go nice and inexpensive (but that will be linked to lesser materials) and then risk the criticism that the lens may be "cheap" (in the sense of not good) or go to the 50-70% price of Canon's product, with consequently better materials, but then look expensive for a non-Canon lens, which may not hold its value as well longer-term?

I think there is a psychological price point for many people (certainly me) above which you think you may as well get the Canon product and be done. Out of interest, if a Canon 400 f/4 DO is (say) £6,500 / $7,000 / €7,000 then how much would you be prepared to pay for the Tammy 400 f/4 before you decided if you're spending that much, you may as well go further and get the Canon? For me, that is probably around the £2,000 mark max (if I were in the market for it).
 

tiggy@mac.com

Pentax K-1000
Jan 20, 2014
498
185
Thetford, VT
www.ForestMetrix.com
IglooEater said:
Choice is normally good for the overall market, so I’m excited to see what comes from Tamron. imho Sigma’s venture into that territory with the 500mm f/4 sports was just to expensive to choose over a used Canon edition.
Yeah, IglooEater, I was looking to buy a 500mm Sigma. Reportedly an excellent lens, just as good as Canon's, but for reported focus shift affecting apertures greater than f/4 (not a great concern for me). That said, I found a used 500mm L II for 116% the cost of the best used Sigma 500 cost, so I bought the Canon of course, as it doesn't have the focus shift issue, and it'll retain value much more over time.

Pretty sure we'll see Sigma's 500 come down to $4500 eventually from the $6k you see now. A sigma offering at 400mm could very well be a $2500 lens, if they chose to go for volume (something Tamron can do much more so than Sigma).

I suspect Tamron would do better to throw the 500mm into the market first, though. More demand, less competition. More of an upgrade market, where most owners of a 400 would need something special to "upgrade" to something that also only got 400mm.

Would expect a Tamron 500 f/4 to go for $3500. Being the cost of a decent pro body, that's a pretty darned reasonable package.

Further, I think the big white refresh from Canon will have to be priced lower than the version IIs simply due to existing and forthcoming competition. They might launch high, but I expect the effective price after discounts to be much lower than the current effective prices. When I borrow a big white from Canon now through its CPS program, they list on the invoice the value of the lens at $16,000, yet they charge $10k-12k in reality. Wouldn't be surprised if we are in the 5-figure range for the next generation once they catch up with supplying the market for those who just can't wait to pay the full price on pre-orders (a year in, typically).
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,816
35
LDS said:
Canon had two 400/4.5 in the FD era, but they weren't brought to EF versions. Maybe they didn't sell that well? Could there be more market for them today, when faster ISO are less an issue? Fast digital cameras and AF, plus cheaper travels, probably made wildlife photography more widespread, and maybe an f/4 may sell anyway.

Canon used rear drop-in filters, though, although I don't know how often filters are used on such lenses.
I remember a 500 F4.5 (I think EOS, not FD) but it was updated to 500 F4 IS (version 1)
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,816
35
tiggy@mac.com said:
it'll retain value much more over time.
Wonder how true this is. Not doubting the truth, just much better does Canon (or Nikon) glass hold their value than good 3rd party glass (excluding of course, Zeiss)
 

tiggy@mac.com

Pentax K-1000
Jan 20, 2014
498
185
Thetford, VT
www.ForestMetrix.com
RGF said:
tiggy@mac.com said:
it'll retain value much more over time.
Wonder how true this is. Not doubting the truth, just much better does Canon (or Nikon) glass hold their value than good 3rd party glass (excluding of course, Zeiss)
I spent the last two years buying and selling cameras and lenses, using the arbitrage profits accrued to pay for the 500. In the course of that, I have noticed that the Canon lenses retain value for longer. That, in part, is due to much larger discounting on the 3rd parties hurting the aftermarket. There are other reasons. With Sigma still up at its launch price, it's I DON'T believe it's a good candidate for value retention.