New Tamron Prime Lenses Coming

[andrewflo]

I wonder how their 35 perform against Canon's 35 f/2 with IS? Also the price...

I imagine a similar price with the Canon 35mm F2 IS.
If the Tamron has 80% of the image quality, and cost less than the Canon, can be advantageous because the aperture F1.8

Good speculation. I did try the SP 15-30mm for a few weeks before exchanging it for a 16-35mm f/4L and I have to say the image quality was unbelievable. Without pixel peeping at 400% at brick walls, it felt like the Tamron outperformed the Canon, even at f/2.8. The build quality was better too. I traded it in purely for portability and filter threads.

This is of course saying a lot considering the Canon f/4 is stunning. Basically I wouldn't count Tamron out against the 35mm f/2 IS just yet

Tamron seriously stepped up their SP line with the 15-30mm. It's WAAY better than the SP 24-70 or SP 70-200, which were already great lenses as it stood.

I'll be patiently waiting to see if they can up the ante again with these new primes A 45mm f/1.8 VC sounds terrific IMO.

Optics will need to be fine and the AF needs to be fast and accurate before I would be interested. The 45 looks interesting, but only if the VC is fast. I am in no hurry to buy more lenses, but I sure would like to see a Canon 50 F2 IS with performance like the 35F2 IS.

Did you mean "as long as the AF is fast" instead of "VC"? Would have to agree if so. The SP 15-30 had really fast, silent, and accurate AF but on an UWA it's a different ball game than 45mm.

Btw the VC on the 15-30 is way quieter than the IS on the Canon 16-35 f/4.

I've never used the Canon 24-70 II or Tamron SP 70-200... but I do have the SP 24-70 and Canon 70-200 II and the Canon is noticeably faster.

The SP 24-70 is ever so slightly slow in use, especially on a 6D where I almost always use center-point-recompose if I want confidence that the AF is locked in properly (sacrifice critical focus by recomposing has proved more reliable than trusting the 6D's outer focus points for me unfortunately).

But it's by no means a deal breaker! Tamron SP lenses really are 95% of Canon L-series, but at bargain prices.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I wonder if pricing will be around the $800 mark in order to compete with:
1) vs 35mm f/1.4L II: Considerably lower price and also has VC
2) vs 35mm f/1.4 Art: has VC (maybe weather-sealed and similar optical performance???)
3) vs 35mm f/2 IS: Slightly faster (maybe weather-sealed and also less vignette???)

Really? You think $800? I can't imagine it going for more then $500. I'm assuming size/weight probably similar to the Canon 35mm f/2 IS. That is probably it's closet competitor and I'd think they need to undercut it on price. Not to discount the 1/3 stop, but f/1.8 and f/2 pretty darn close. Depending on "rounding" of the aperture numbers the lenses could be the same actual T-stops.

Just because it is manufactured Tamron doesn't mean it needs to be cheap. (e.g. The SP 90mm f/2.8 macro is $750.) I don't see them offering such a unique product as weather-sealed 35mm with IS at $500, definitely not initially. The price might settle after a short while. I'm expecting $800 initially and dropping to $700 later.

Although this is all based on my expectations of the lens (i.e. similar optical performance to the Sigma 35 Art, weather-sealed, 9 blade aperture, Lower vignette than the 35/2 IS)

 

[Luds34]

The other thing is that Tamron seems to have figured out the Canon focus system alot better then Sigma. Or at least figured it out earlier as maybe Sigma finally cracked that nut with their latest stuff. The couple of Tamron lenses I have owned have focused spot on and consistently. Tamron's latest lenses seem to give like 90% of the performance of the Canon equivalent lens for roughly half the price...

That is my finding as well. I use the 15-30, 24-70, and 70-200 for my event and wedding work almost exclusively and I typically don't have to reject ANY images for missed focus when I review at the end.

I think it was your high praise (among others of course) of the new Tamrons that helped me take a chance on the 150-600. $1k is a chunk of money to spend on a lens, especially one that is more specialized and not used very often.

 

[Luds34]

Just because it is manufactured Tamron doesn't mean it needs to be cheap. (e.g. The SP 90mm f/2.8 macro is $750.) I don't see them offering such a unique product as weather-sealed 35mm with IS at $500, definitely not initially. The price might settle after a short while. I'm expecting $800 initially and dropping to $700 later.

Except that Tamron's excellent 90mm macro lens is competing against the EF 100 f/2.8L IS macro. So it is still undercutting it in price. I dunno, I think for good or bad, 3rd party manufacturers need to either have a far superior competing product (rarely going to happen) or a similar, "good enough" but beat it on price (common scenario). Otherwise, frankly why would you pass up Canon to pay more for the 3rd party equivalent?

Total side note, that Tamron 90mm macro lens is kind of on my wish list for a FF macro lens. You use to be able to get it for like $550 brand new from Amazon if I recall. I've heard good things about it. But I do little macro work and still use the EF-S 60mm when I need to do macro work.

 

[ashmadux]

Looks like the 35mm wars is on and popping!

I'd love to pick up canons 35, but 500....nahhh.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Just because it is manufactured Tamron doesn't mean it needs to be cheap. (e.g. The SP 90mm f/2.8 macro is $750.) I don't see them offering such a unique product as weather-sealed 35mm with IS at $500, definitely not initially. The price might settle after a short while. I'm expecting $800 initially and dropping to $700 later.

Except that Tamron's excellent 90mm macro lens is competing against the EF 100 f/2.8L IS macro. So it is still undercutting it in price. I dunno, I think for good or bad, 3rd party manufacturers need to either have a far superior competing product (rarely going to happen) or a similar, "good enough" but beat it on price (common scenario). Otherwise, frankly why would you pass up Canon to pay more for the 3rd party equivalent?

Total side note, that Tamron 90mm macro lens is kind of on my wish list for a FF macro lens. You use to be able to get it for like $550 brand new from Amazon if I recall. I've heard good things about it. But I do little macro work and still use the EF-S 60mm when I need to do macro work.

You are correct in saying that the Tamron 90mm VC Macro is undercutting the 100L but it appears you forget that it is still more expensive than the 100 non-L macro. I believe that the 35/1.8 VC can slot itself into the same type of gap in the Canon 35mm line.

Given Tamron's recent track record with lenses I wouldn't dismiss the possibility.

 

[moreorless]

The sizes will be interesting to see anyway, will the 35mm be inline with the Nikon and Canon F/1.8 and F/2 lenses rather than the Sigma F/1.4, will the 45mm be a pancakish size? obviously isn't going to be as small as the 40mm F/2.8 but it could still be pretty small.

 

[siegsAR]

^Saw it, turns out they're bigger than I wanted them to be. I'm looking to add a 40-45mm but for my intended purpose, the 40mm pancake would still be best for me.

I'd love to see how these new Tamrons perform though, I hope they're both very good for the price.

Btw, $599 - 45mm.