Back Focus issues on Tamron 85mm in Canon EOS R

[Suresh babu]

hi friends ,
just bought nice condition used Tamron 85mm F1.8 lens for my Canon EOS R ...

after using some days, i found that most of all photos are Back Focused results..

samples attached ..we can see that focus shifted behind eyes near by ear or something..in normal view , it seemed correct focus.. but zoom it and see

just now noticed that Tap In Console available for lens that we can update Firmware and microadjust AF ..

does it will reslove / works the Back Auto Focus issues in EOS R?

does this problem is lens related or Sensor related ?

please help

thanks

suresh babu

 

[koenkooi]

[…]just now noticed that Tap In Console available for lens that we can update Firmware and microadjust AF .[…]

I suspect that the previous owner used the Tap In Console to adjust backfocus and that you’ll need to reset it.

Mirrorless cameras shouldn’t need back focus adjustment, but lenses that were used on cameras with mirrors likely do need to get adjusted again.

 

[hne]

Is this with eye tracking AF or do you spot focus and then recompose? I had the same experience going from kit zooms to large-aperture primes, but that was because I did focus-recompose.

 

[Sporgon]

I think @koenkooi may have the answer. It looks like the back focus is consistent. I don’t believe ‘focus and recompose’ would make any difference in those shots. I used my Tamron 85/1.8 on an RP and it worked flawlessly. Apparently that is the case with the R, but unfortunately not later Canon FF such R6, R5 etc, or so I’ve heard.
The Tamron 85/1.8 is a very good lens indeed.

 

[EricN]

Could it be an example of why Tameron doesn't have rf lenses out in the market yet?

 

[Sporgon]

Could it be an example of why Tameron doesn't have rf lenses out in the market yet?

Possibly. Now that third party lenses can be as optically good as the camera manufacturer‘s for a lower price I think one of the main things putting people off buying them is the AF; on a dslr it was simply never as good as a ‘proper’ one. In the case of Canon, this certainly wasn’t the case with the R and RP and an adapter; my Tamron 85/1.8 and 45/1.8 worked absolutely flawlessly, producing superb results. (The 85 is pretty reliable on a 5DS but the 45 can bite you if you use outer focus points). However this isn’t the case with later Canon RF cameras. At first I thought it would be to do with a conflict between the lens‘s IS and the camera’s IBIS, but then Tamron reported issues with their 35/1.4 that doesn’t have IS.
So something has changed after the R and RP. Whether this is deliberate or a consequence of something else I don’t know, but I do know that if I were Canon I would be concerned about my new mirrorless cameras bypassing the AF sub-performance of very good quality but cheaper third party lenses.
It‘s also put me in a bit of a quandary moving forward with something like an R5; I don’t want to then have to ditch the two Tamron lenses and buy the Canon versions, which would mean a hell of a lot of expense with no return to me, as to get the same quality performances in terms of resolution and bokeh I’d have to be looking at the high end Canon ones. I tried the RF 50/1.8 and it wasn’t the lens for me.

 

[EricN]

Possibly. Now that third party lenses can be as optically good as the camera manufacturer‘s for a lower price I think one of the main things putting people off buying them is the AF; on a dslr it was simply never as good as a ‘proper’ one. In the case of Canon, this certainly wasn’t the case with the R and RP and an adapter; my Tamron 85/1.8 and 45/1.8 worked absolutely flawlessly, producing superb results. (The 85 is pretty reliable on a 5DS but the 45 can bite you if you use outer focus points). However this isn’t the case with later Canon RF cameras. At first I thought it would be to do with a conflict between the lens‘s IS and the camera’s IBIS, but then Tamron reported issues with their 35/1.4 that doesn’t have IS.
So something has changed after the R and RP. Whether this is deliberate or a consequence of something else I don’t know, but I do know that if I were Canon I would be concerned about my new mirrorless cameras bypassing the AF sub-performance of very good quality but cheaper third party lenses.
It‘s also put me in a bit of a quandary moving forward with something like an R5; I don’t want to then have to ditch the two Tamron lenses and buy the Canon versions, which would mean a hell of a lot of expense with no return to me, as to get the same quality performances in terms of resolution and bokeh I’d have to be looking at the high end Canon ones. I tried the RF 50/1.8 and it wasn’t the lens for me.

I can understand you because you really have to stop down Canon's RF 50/1.8 to at least f/4.5 if you want good sharpness, but at that point, I think most people would decide on the 24-105 f/4 is a better option with the caveat of never getting larger apertures than f/4

 

[Del Paso]

Is this with eye tracking AF or do you spot focus and then recompose? I had the same experience going from kit zooms to large-aperture primes, but that was because I did focus-recompose.

This an issue I often experienced with the EOS R, since I disliked (aka was too lazy) moving the focus-point with the touch screen...

 

[Del Paso]

Possibly. Now that third party lenses can be as optically good as the camera manufacturer‘s for a lower price I think one of the main things putting people off buying them is the AF; on a dslr it was simply never as good as a ‘proper’ one. In the case of Canon, this certainly wasn’t the case with the R and RP and an adapter; my Tamron 85/1.8 and 45/1.8 worked absolutely flawlessly, producing superb results. (The 85 is pretty reliable on a 5DS but the 45 can bite you if you use outer focus points). However this isn’t the case with later Canon RF cameras. At first I thought it would be to do with a conflict between the lens‘s IS and the camera’s IBIS, but then Tamron reported issues with their 35/1.4 that doesn’t have IS.
So something has changed after the R and RP. Whether this is deliberate or a consequence of something else I don’t know, but I do know that if I were Canon I would be concerned about my new mirrorless cameras bypassing the AF sub-performance of very good quality but cheaper third party lenses.
It‘s also put me in a bit of a quandary moving forward with something like an R5; I don’t want to then have to ditch the two Tamron lenses and buy the Canon versions, which would mean a hell of a lot of expense with no return to me, as to get the same quality performances in terms of resolution and bokeh I’d have to be looking at the high end Canon ones. I tried the RF 50/1.8 and it wasn’t the lens for me.

As you wrote it : "Optically as good".Sometimes, certainly.
But I'm still convinced the build quality of L lenses is often superior to what you'll find elsewhere.

 

[Sporgon]

As you wrote it : "Optically as good".Sometimes, certainly.
But I'm still convinced the build quality of L lenses is often superior to what you'll find elsewhere.

You make a good point, and you’re right to be convinced, especially after the likes of lensrentals has done various ‘tear downs’ that show just have well engineered and made some of these Canon L lenses are.

 

[EricN]

This an issue I often experienced with the EOS R, since I disliked (aka was too lazy) moving the focus-point with the touch screen...

I used the RP and R5. The RP obviously is not as nice, but it was adequate for me.