Lots of New Lenses Coming in 2014 [CR2]

[Ruined]

Couple of things with STM.

First, there are two types of STM (much like there were two types of USM). One type of STM is a simple motor, which is what the 40mm pancake has. Another type is the faster and quieter screw-type, which the 18-135mm STM has. The latter is far better than the former.

Second, more recent Ring USM lenses (once attached to an enabled body) are capable of the same precision & speed of screw-type STM, so while older USM lenses may need to be upgraded newer ones should work fine with DPAF.

 

[dgatwood]

Second, more recent Ring USM lenses (once attached to an enabled body) are capable of the same precision & speed of screw-type STM, so while older USM lenses may need to be upgraded newer ones should work fine with DPAF.

I think the question is whether they can be as graceful at starting and stopping their refocus as the STMs. For video, speed of focus is secondary to smoothness.

 

[KyleSTL]

Second, more recent Ring USM lenses (once attached to an enabled body) are capable of the same precision & speed of screw-type STM, so while older USM lenses may need to be upgraded newer ones should work fine with DPAF.

I think the question is whether they can be as graceful at starting and stopping their refocus as the STMs. For video, speed of focus is secondary to smoothness.

And noise as well. From everything I've heard, STM is quieter than USM (even the newest USM lenses like 24, 28 and 35mm IS primes). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[CarlTN]

Isn't the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 almost as sharp as the beloved Canon version?

Not from what I've seen. The new 24-70 VC comes somewhat close to the Canon 24-70 II, but there's a bigger IQ gap between the 70-200/2.8 lenses. I'd bet that the new Tamron at 600mm won't be as sharp as the current 100-400 at 400mm, and since you mention a $3K lens you must be referring to the pink unicorn 100-400 II, which if it becomes reality, I'd bet that lens at 400mm cropped would beat the Tamron at 600mm easily. Then there's the issue of AF speed, something Tamron lenses aren't known for...

Many people buy the 70-300 non-L over the 70-200/4L because the former is 100mm longer, has IS, and is a bit cheaper. If they cared about IQ, they'd be better off cropping images from the shorter lens with much better IQ.

I think the Tamron 150-600mm will be reasonably popular, because it'll be a cheap 600mm lens. But there's no free lunch, and the price of this one will be IQ.

Time will tell. But no matter how "sharp" the new 100-400 is, you won't get more resolution from cropping an image shot at 400mm, as shot with the Tamron at 600mm. There's no way the Tamron would be that bad. If it were, nobody would buy it, and I doubt Tamron would build it. This isn't the 1990's anymore. And from what I've seen, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 definitely is sharper than the difference in the price, compared to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. 75% as sharp? More like 90%. 90% of the sharpness for 75% (or less) of the price. As for the autofocus speed, I can't say. No doubt nothing can touch the Canon there. But I've yet to try either for myself. And also, if you are presuming to state that a cropped image from the 70-200 f/4, at 200mm, is as much resolution as the 70-300L is at 300mm (shot with the same camera obviously)...that's not just absurd, that's heresy! But I don't think that is what you meant to say...surely not! The 70-300L is extremely sharp throughout its range. Maybe not quite as sharp as the 70-200 f/2.8 ii, but then that lens doesn't go to 300mm, even with a 1.4x TC. And with the 1.4x attached, some of that magical sharpness goes away too...along with some of the AF speed...not to mention you suddenly can't go as wide as 70mm at the wide end.

 

[jrista]

Isn't the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 almost as sharp as the beloved Canon version?

Not from what I've seen. The new 24-70 VC comes somewhat close to the Canon 24-70 II, but there's a bigger IQ gap between the 70-200/2.8 lenses. I'd bet that the new Tamron at 600mm won't be as sharp as the current 100-400 at 400mm, and since you mention a $3K lens you must be referring to the pink unicorn 100-400 II, which if it becomes reality, I'd bet that lens at 400mm cropped would beat the Tamron at 600mm easily. Then there's the issue of AF speed, something Tamron lenses aren't known for...

Many people buy the 70-300 non-L over the 70-200/4L because the former is 100mm longer, has IS, and is a bit cheaper. If they cared about IQ, they'd be better off cropping images from the shorter lens with much better IQ.

I think the Tamron 150-600mm will be reasonably popular, because it'll be a cheap 600mm lens. But there's no free lunch, and the price of this one will be IQ.

Time will tell. But no matter how "sharp" the new 100-400 is, you won't get more resolution from cropping an image shot at 400mm, as shot with the Tamron at 600mm.

That isn't true at all. Depending on how good the quality of the Tamron is, it could very likely perform poorly enough that its 600mm end that the Canon at 400mm is as good or better. The lens' resolving power is ultimately determined by aberrations and aperture. At the very least, the wider f/5.6 aperture of the EF 400mm lens would give it a diffraction limited resolution (~123lp/mm MTF50) edge over the f/6.3 aperture (~104lp/mm MTF50) of the Tamron 600mm. At the very least, your losing about 15-16% due to diffraction with the 600mm lens. There are also going to be compromises in order to support the zoom range. For this lens to fit into it's cost bracket (i.e. reasonably cheaper than the Canon), you have to figure Tamron is cutting even more corners, so the optical performance of the lens is not going to be absolute top notch, which means your going to have some optical aberrations on top of the diffraction, too (i.e. it's best performing aperture, it's actual DLA, is likely going to be a stop beyond maximum, f/9.)

So, I wouldn't be quite so certain that a top notch L-series 100-400mm replacement that uses the latest Canon optical tech like antireflection nanocoating on internal elements, maybe a fluorite element or two, and Canon's new high grade manufacturing process couldn't hold it's own against a mid-range 150-600mm superzoom from Tamron. It is still certainly possible the Tamron at 600mm outperforms the Canon 100-400 at 400mm, and it might even be able to edge out a 100-400 II if/when it comes out...but I wouldn't suspect the margin to be more than very slim...not with a 150-600mm zoom lens...too many necessary compromises.

There's no way the Tamron would be that bad. If it were, nobody would buy it, and I doubt Tamron would build it. This isn't the 1990's anymore. And from what I've seen, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 definitely is sharper than the difference in the price, compared to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. 75% as sharp? More like 90%. 90% of the sharpness for 75% (or less) of the price.

What are you basing those numbers on? Gut feeling? It would be nice to have some actual numbers or comparable MTF charts to back up those claims... I know the Tamron 70-200/2.8 is a good lens, but saying there is only a 10% margin in difference between a $1400 off-brand lens and a $2200 brand-optimized lens just needs more than a gut feeling for basis.

 

[Loswr]

Time will tell. But no matter how "sharp" the new 100-400 is, you won't get more resolution from cropping an image shot at 400mm, as shot with the Tamron at 600mm. There's no way the Tamron would be that bad. If it were, nobody would buy it, and I doubt Tamron would build it.

Time will tell, indeed. It's true for the current 100-400 vs. the Sigma/Tamron lenses that go to 500mm. I bet it's also true for the 70-300L vs. the Bigma 150-500 OS, and 300mm vs. 500mm is a bigger difference than 400mm vs. 600mm.

But even if so, Tamron would still build it and people would still buy it. People buy the Bigma, too. A zoom that goes to 600mm...Canon doesn't have one, Sigma doesn't have one (natively), there's a niche there. The new 24-70 VC is sharp, true...and it's likely that Tamron could design and build a 150-600mm lens with great IQ...but I suspect they will choose not to, because if they did, it would have to be priced too high, and that (not relatively poor IQ) would result in poor sales.

Many people buy the 70-300 non-L over the 70-200/4L because the former is 100mm longer, has IS, and is a bit cheaper. If they cared about IQ, they'd be better off cropping images from the shorter lens with much better IQ.

And also, if you are presuming to state that a cropped image from the 70-200 f/4, at 200mm, is as much resolution as the 70-300L is at 300mm (shot with the same camera obviously)...that's not just absurd, that's heresy! But I don't think that is what you meant to say...surely not! The 70-300L is extremely sharp throughout its range. Maybe not quite as sharp as the 70-200 f/2.8 ii, but then that lens doesn't go to 300mm, even with a 1.4x TC. And with the 1.4x attached, some of that magical sharpness goes away too...along with some of the AF speed...not to mention you suddenly can't go as wide as 70mm at the wide end.

Read again, please. I've highlighted the important bit that you seem to have missed (along with the part about it being cheaper than the 70-200/4, which the 70-300L clearly isn't).

 

[AvTvM]

we should see comparison shots of the new Tamron vs. Canon EF 200-400/1.4x any time soon, I guess.

If this http://blog.naver.com/sp_marketing/70179201020 is any indication of what the Tammy can do @ 600mm, I expect it to have no chance against the 200-400 with 1.4x engaged = 560mm and then cropped to match the Tamron's image. I would also think, the Tamron will not reach the 200-400 @ 400mm cropped (without using built-in extender)

And depending on how close the Tamron can get (same camera, same scene/shot, on solid tripod) to the 200-400 IQ, we can then *speculate on a higher plane* how the Tammy might compare to an improved 100-400 II - with IQ that we only know that it should be better than the current 100-400 and lower than the 200-400/1.4x @400mm. ;D

 

[M.ST]

An inexpensive lens up to 600 mm sounds like a dream. But it only sounds so.

If you want quality, you have to pay the price for it.

The 200-400 Extender lens plays from the price and IQ in an other league. Even with the internal Extender on and an additional Extender the lens beats the upcoming Tam... 200-400 Extender lens performs very well. At 200 it´s nearly the same as 200 mm with the 70-200 2.8 II IS lens. At 300 mm compared to the the 300 mm 2.8 II IS lens the 300 mm 2.8 II IS wins (AF speed and IQ).

First tests with the upcoming 100-400 IS replacement shows, that there is a big gap between the replacement lens and the 200-400 Extender lens. But if you look from the 100-400 IS lens it is a big step over the old lens.

 

[TrabimanUK]

we should see comparison shots of the new Tamron vs. Canon EF 200-400/1.4x any time soon, I guess.

If this http://blog.naver.com/sp_marketing/70179201020 is any indication of what the Tammy can do @ 600mm, I expect it to have no chance against the 200-400 with 1.4x engaged = 560mm and then cropped to match the Tamron's image. I would also think, the Tamron will not reach the 200-400 @ 400mm cropped (without using built-in extender)

And depending on how close the Tamron can get (same camera, same scene/shot, on solid tripod) to the 200-400 IQ, we can then *speculate on a higher plane* how the Tammy might compare to an improved 100-400 II - with IQ that we only know that it should be better than the current 100-400 and lower than the 200-400/1.4x @400mm. ;D

Agreed, but at an estimated sub £1,500 for the Tamron, vs the £11,500 (yes, £sterling, not $US) for the 200-400 and an estimated £2,500 for the TBA 100-400ii, the Tamron (potentially) offers a hell of a lot of bang for buck for the amatuer and the less well off enthusiast, and the 600mm (ish) throw is VERY appealing. If the Tamron is anything close to the current 100-400 then it will shift a lot of units.

Yes, it will more than likely get walked over up to 400mm by the new 100-400, but for the price/reach/IQ combination that it potentially offers, then I would be very tempted to get one for the extra reach.

Looks like Tamron might have out-Sigmad Signma!

 

[Loswr]

Yes, it will more than likely get walked over up to 400mm by the new 100-400, but for the price/reach/IQ

My point is that it may very well get walked over up to 400mm by the current 100-400, and a new 100-400 @ 400mm will likely beat the Tamron at 600mm (i.e., you'll get better IQ by cropping). If that's true, the reach benefit is reduced, the IQ benefit is gone, and you have a slower, bigger, heavier lens for which the only realadvantage will be price. Of course, that is a significant advantage. People will see the 600mm and the price tag, and jump. After all, there are people who buy that 650-1300mm f/8-16 lens (and some of them might even have a tripod that can support that 6 pound chunk of metal and cheap glass).

 

[CarlTN]

Time will tell. But no matter how "sharp" the new 100-400 is, you won't get more resolution from cropping an image shot at 400mm, as shot with the Tamron at 600mm. There's no way the Tamron would be that bad. If it were, nobody would buy it, and I doubt Tamron would build it.

Time will tell, indeed. It's true for the current 100-400 vs. the Sigma/Tamron lenses that go to 500mm. I bet it's also true for the 70-300L vs. the Bigma 150-500 OS, and 300mm vs. 500mm is a bigger difference than 400mm vs. 600mm.

But even if so, Tamron would still build it and people would still buy it. People buy the Bigma, too. A zoom that goes to 600mm...Canon doesn't have one, Sigma doesn't have one (natively), there's a niche there. The new 24-70 VC is sharp, true...and it's likely that Tamron could design and build a 150-600mm lens with great IQ...but I suspect they will choose not to, because if they did, it would have to be priced too high, and that (not relatively poor IQ) would result in poor sales.

Many people buy the 70-300 non-L over the 70-200/4L because the former is 100mm longer, has IS, and is a bit cheaper. If they cared about IQ, they'd be better off cropping images from the shorter lens with much better IQ.

And also, if you are presuming to state that a cropped image from the 70-200 f/4, at 200mm, is as much resolution as the 70-300L is at 300mm (shot with the same camera obviously)...that's not just absurd, that's heresy! But I don't think that is what you meant to say...surely not! The 70-300L is extremely sharp throughout its range. Maybe not quite as sharp as the 70-200 f/2.8 ii, but then that lens doesn't go to 300mm, even with a 1.4x TC. And with the 1.4x attached, some of that magical sharpness goes away too...along with some of the AF speed...not to mention you suddenly can't go as wide as 70mm at the wide end.

Read again, please. I've highlighted the important bit that you seem to have missed (along with the part about it being cheaper than the 70-200/4, which the 70-300L clearly isn't).

Oh? Where's your proof that it's true?

 

[CarlTN]

Isn't the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 almost as sharp as the beloved Canon version?

Not from what I've seen. The new 24-70 VC comes somewhat close to the Canon 24-70 II, but there's a bigger IQ gap between the 70-200/2.8 lenses. I'd bet that the new Tamron at 600mm won't be as sharp as the current 100-400 at 400mm, and since you mention a $3K lens you must be referring to the pink unicorn 100-400 II, which if it becomes reality, I'd bet that lens at 400mm cropped would beat the Tamron at 600mm easily. Then there's the issue of AF speed, something Tamron lenses aren't known for...

Many people buy the 70-300 non-L over the 70-200/4L because the former is 100mm longer, has IS, and is a bit cheaper. If they cared about IQ, they'd be better off cropping images from the shorter lens with much better IQ.

I think the Tamron 150-600mm will be reasonably popular, because it'll be a cheap 600mm lens. But there's no free lunch, and the price of this one will be IQ.

Time will tell. But no matter how "sharp" the new 100-400 is, you won't get more resolution from cropping an image shot at 400mm, as shot with the Tamron at 600mm.

That isn't true at all. Depending on how good the quality of the Tamron is, it could very likely perform poorly enough that its 600mm end that the Canon at 400mm is as good or better. The lens' resolving power is ultimately determined by aberrations and aperture. At the very least, the wider f/5.6 aperture of the EF 400mm lens would give it a diffraction limited resolution (~123lp/mm MTF50) edge over the f/6.3 aperture (~104lp/mm MTF50) of the Tamron 600mm. At the very least, your losing about 15-16% due to diffraction with the 600mm lens. There are also going to be compromises in order to support the zoom range. For this lens to fit into it's cost bracket (i.e. reasonably cheaper than the Canon), you have to figure Tamron is cutting even more corners, so the optical performance of the lens is not going to be absolute top notch, which means your going to have some optical aberrations on top of the diffraction, too (i.e. it's best performing aperture, it's actual DLA, is likely going to be a stop beyond maximum, f/9.)

So, I wouldn't be quite so certain that a top notch L-series 100-400mm replacement that uses the latest Canon optical tech like antireflection nanocoating on internal elements, maybe a fluorite element or two, and Canon's new high grade manufacturing process couldn't hold it's own against a mid-range 150-600mm superzoom from Tamron. It is still certainly possible the Tamron at 600mm outperforms the Canon 100-400 at 400mm, and it might even be able to edge out a 100-400 II if/when it comes out...but I wouldn't suspect the margin to be more than very slim...not with a 150-600mm zoom lens...too many necessary compromises.

There's no way the Tamron would be that bad. If it were, nobody would buy it, and I doubt Tamron would build it. This isn't the 1990's anymore. And from what I've seen, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 definitely is sharper than the difference in the price, compared to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. 75% as sharp? More like 90%. 90% of the sharpness for 75% (or less) of the price.

What are you basing those numbers on? Gut feeling? It would be nice to have some actual numbers or comparable MTF charts to back up those claims... I know the Tamron 70-200/2.8 is a good lens, but saying there is only a 10% margin in difference between a $1400 off-brand lens and a $2200 brand-optimized lens just needs more than a gut feeling for basis.

You're just full of conjecture today, aren't you? Nothing you've said disputes anything I've said, it's just your opinion, period. Talk about gut feelings!

 

[Slyham]

One lens I would like to see in 2014 is a EF-S 135-400 4-5.6 IS STM. I am an enthusiasts on a budget and would love to see a complementary tele zoom for my 18-135. I know this lens would not be of interest to a lot of you, but I cannot afford the 100-400L. I would like it to have better build quality than the 55-250 (metal mount, etc) and lighter and cheaper than the 100-400L. Here's for hoping. ;D

 

[Don Haines]

Isn't the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 almost as sharp as the beloved Canon version?

Not from what I've seen. The new 24-70 VC comes somewhat close to the Canon 24-70 II, but there's a bigger IQ gap between the 70-200/2.8 lenses. I'd bet that the new Tamron at 600mm won't be as sharp as the current 100-400 at 400mm, and since you mention a $3K lens you must be referring to the pink unicorn 100-400 II, which if it becomes reality, I'd bet that lens at 400mm cropped would beat the Tamron at 600mm easily. Then there's the issue of AF speed, something Tamron lenses aren't known for...

Many people buy the 70-300 non-L over the 70-200/4L because the former is 100mm longer, has IS, and is a bit cheaper. If they cared about IQ, they'd be better off cropping images from the shorter lens with much better IQ.

I think the Tamron 150-600mm will be reasonably popular, because it'll be a cheap 600mm lens. But there's no free lunch, and the price of this one will be IQ.

Time will tell. But no matter how "sharp" the new 100-400 is, you won't get more resolution from cropping an image shot at 400mm, as shot with the Tamron at 600mm.

That isn't true at all. Depending on how good the quality of the Tamron is, it could very likely perform poorly enough that its 600mm end that the Canon at 400mm is as good or better. The lens' resolving power is ultimately determined by aberrations and aperture. At the very least, the wider f/5.6 aperture of the EF 400mm lens would give it a diffraction limited resolution (~123lp/mm MTF50) edge over the f/6.3 aperture (~104lp/mm MTF50) of the Tamron 600mm. At the very least, your losing about 15-16% due to diffraction with the 600mm lens. There are also going to be compromises in order to support the zoom range. For this lens to fit into it's cost bracket (i.e. reasonably cheaper than the Canon), you have to figure Tamron is cutting even more corners, so the optical performance of the lens is not going to be absolute top notch, which means your going to have some optical aberrations on top of the diffraction, too (i.e. it's best performing aperture, it's actual DLA, is likely going to be a stop beyond maximum, f/9.)

So, I wouldn't be quite so certain that a top notch L-series 100-400mm replacement that uses the latest Canon optical tech like antireflection nanocoating on internal elements, maybe a fluorite element or two, and Canon's new high grade manufacturing process couldn't hold it's own against a mid-range 150-600mm superzoom from Tamron. It is still certainly possible the Tamron at 600mm outperforms the Canon 100-400 at 400mm, and it might even be able to edge out a 100-400 II if/when it comes out...but I wouldn't suspect the margin to be more than very slim...not with a 150-600mm zoom lens...too many necessary compromises.

There's no way the Tamron would be that bad. If it were, nobody would buy it, and I doubt Tamron would build it. This isn't the 1990's anymore. And from what I've seen, the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 definitely is sharper than the difference in the price, compared to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. 75% as sharp? More like 90%. 90% of the sharpness for 75% (or less) of the price.

What are you basing those numbers on? Gut feeling? It would be nice to have some actual numbers or comparable MTF charts to back up those claims... I know the Tamron 70-200/2.8 is a good lens, but saying there is only a 10% margin in difference between a $1400 off-brand lens and a $2200 brand-optimized lens just needs more than a gut feeling for basis.

You're just full of conjecture today, aren't you? Nothing you've said disputes anything I've said, it's just your opinion, period. Talk about gut feelings!

But I can state with absolute certainty that a 70-200F4 will out resolve a Sigma 120-400. That's a case of a zoom lens half as long picking out more detail, so I can certainly see a lens 2/3 as long doing the same.....

Granted, the new tamron will most definitely be sharper than a Sigma 120-400, but so will a new 100-400.... My gut feeling is that they will be close in resolving power, but who knows..... Either one could surprise us.... I would not want to make a prediction one way or another....

The rumored 400F5.6 is a different story..... It is already significantly sharper than the 100-400, particularly in the corners, and if it takes the same quality jump that any of the other long lenses took going from series 1 to series 2, it should have no problems outresolving the canon 100-400 II or the Tamron 150-600.