Patent: Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 VC

[chrysoberyl]

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY! predicted that Tamron would come out with a 150-600 F6.3 lens for $1000. It is a great lens and sells very well. Yes, the image quality suffers a bit at the long end, but up to 400mm it is surprisingly close to the Canon 100-400 II yet about 40 percent of the price. The AF works quite well with this lens, but start adding things like the Sigma dock into the picture and you now have the ability to field upgrade software.

As an aside, Olympus had the ability to field upgrade lens firmware through the camera body from the launch of their 4/3 cameras..... this is not a new concept nor is it a novel concept.

Changing the zoom from 150-600 to 100-400 means smaller elements, and this means smaller size and smaller price.... this zoom should definitely be priced under $1000, and that gives them a huge advantage over Canon.

Tamron has created the affordable long-zoom market. Sigma dropped prices and came out with the competition. I think that this is just the start of the battle and more is to come, particularly with the affordable long prime.

I can easily see a 600F6.3 prime out there for under $1000..... and with the cameras starting to come out with F8 AF, someone must be thinking of an 800F8 prime. The market for $1000 lenses is probably a thousand times larger (if not more) than the market for $15,000 lenses and at some point, someone will address this.

Well said! I really would prefer an affordable prime with decent AF in the 400-600 range, but I will consider this 100-400 if the price, resolution @ 400mm and AF are decent.

 

[Loswr]

...
I can easily see a 600F6.3 prime out there for under $1000..... and with the cameras starting to come out with F8 AF, someone must be thinking of an 800F8 prime. The market for $1000 lenses is probably a thousand times larger (if not more) than the market for $15,000 lenses and at some point, someone will address this.

Whilst I agree that the market is there, I'm not sure (yet) that the engineering capability is there to meet that market.

Larger lens elements take longer to create and for the glass to "grow". A longer manufacturing time means a more expensive process. This is part of why a 50/1.2 costs more than a 50/1.4 - it's more than just the 'build'.

You're embarassing yourself, as usual. Glass doesn't 'grow' – it's made from sand with other minerals added, which are mixed then heated. Glass lens elements are either moulded then polished or ground from a larger blank then polished. They are made on demand, so there's no 'longer manufacturing time' due to larger elements.

You're confusing 'glass' with fluorite lens elements, which are ground and polished from fluorite crystals...those do 'grow', and the bigger they need to be the longer that takes (a year or more for some large elements). But that's irrelevant to the point you're trying to make (and failing, as usual), since a sub-$1000 supertele lens is not going to have any fluorite elements.

 

[FramerMCB]

Interesting, Tamron started this affordable super zoom race so I'm guessing what every they put out will be a step above the current 150-600. Something to compete with the Sigma Sport version, better at the long end.

Man, I would love it if they'd skip the zoom range and just flat-out make a 500 or 600mm f6-ish lens for budget-conscious/hobbyists.

That lens already exists. Its called the 150-600 VC... Seriously do you expect a $500 600/6.3 prime? not going to happen.
+2

not the same..... not even remotely close....

Zoom lenses are designed to cover a range of focal lengths.... as you zoom, sharpness (usually) changes. With the Tamrom 150-600, it is at it's worst performance at the 600mm range. They could EASILY! make a 600F6.3 lens that was significantly sharper than the 150-600, and without all the moving parts required for the zoom action it would be significantly cheaper to manufacture and lighter to boot. This would also result in a mechanically superior (tougher) lens that would not be a dust and humidity pump like all extending zoom lenses are.

Despite having a Tamron 150-600 in my camera bag, I would buy a Tamron 600F5.6 or 6.3 in a heartbeat... unless they also came out with an 800F8

A+++

 

[mnclayshooter]

...
Nikon did 500f5.6 for $1400, and practically speaking Sigma does sell a 600f5.6 for about $3,500 if you stick a TC on their 120-300f2.8 zoom lens.
So they could probably get a 600f5.6 prime out the door for less than $3,000.

Would you drop $3000 on a 3rd party 600/f5.6?

Sure, it's not $15,000 but it isn't $1000 either.

I'll meet you somewhere in the neighborhood of $1500-2000 if it gets me: vibration correction/Image stabilization (whatever trademark you want to use), sharpness of a prime and a focal length in the super-tele range of 500+. A bonus will be if it can take a 1.4 or 2x extender in a pinch.

I don't think anyone here is naïve enough to believe that such a lens would compete with an f4 for versatility/sharpness at that price point. But I, like others, I'm sure will contend that the couple tamron/sigmas I've used were pretty good for the value... which is a salient quality of this topic as a whole... a 3rd party is coming to the table with some options. Festivus for the rest of us, in other words.

Canon has the high-end market cornered, to be sure. But there's definitely room in the hobbyist/non pro market for expansion by 3rd parties for primes (zeiss on the high end, and rokinon/Samyang on the lower end as a key example). I highly doubt anyone who needs the functionality of the 600mm f4 and was already prepared to buy it would go for a f5.X-f6.X at a lower cost, unless it had sharpness/image quality that made the big dog f4 blush... in which case, a little competition is good for everyone... after all, innovation is the product of competition.

 

[StudentOfLight]

One advantage of a zoom over a prime is the retracted size. Its not a big deal with a wide or normal lens but a long zoom is pretty "long". How about a "collapsible" prime that packs down small. That seems like something that could improve on the current zooms at the max fl.

Interesting idea. With a long FL prime there would likely be some portion of empty tube which could be telescoped back for more compact storage. I wonder how prone such a design would be to decentering.

 

[mnclayshooter]

One advantage of a zoom over a prime is the retracted size. Its not a big deal with a wide or normal lens but a long zoom is pretty "long". How about a "collapsible" prime that packs down small. That seems like something that could improve on the current zooms at the max fl.

Interesting idea. With a long FL prime there would likely be some portion of empty tube which could be telescoped back for more compact storage. I wonder how prone such a design would be to decentering.

If it could be built sturdy enough... similar to the old push-pull 100-400?, probably not a decentering issue of note. I would guess it would still have the much acclaimed (lamented) dust-pump accolade.

Dobsonian telescopes are loosely the same concept... but are completely open-sided... I'll throw it out there... call me crazy if you want.

Could you build a lens, similar to a dobsonian scope with a lattice/truss frame holding the lens groups separate at the prime focal length, and provide a snap-on, maybe even flexible (think plastic/leatherette for "luxury")removable cover over the middle section, thus allowing end users to clean the surfaces prone to dust-pumping? Solving problems? creating new ones? Making some crazy ability to potentially use the same mounted portion married up with different trusses and objective lens groups to create a kit of special dobsonian-inspired primes? (I'm not suggesting a convex mirror lens... just the open truss design of the large dobsonian.

I know way off topic... but it started a bit of a brainstorm for me.

 

[Ryananthony]

I would be interested in a 600mm 5.6 from Sigma that accepts extenders. Ive been considering a Canon 300 f2.8IS ii with a 2x, or a 600mm f4 version 1 to replace my sigma contemporary. The Sigma has treated me very well, autofocus has been incredibly reliable in comparison to my 50Art I owned previously. The biggest Pro for me with the Sigma 150-600C is the size. I love hand holding the camera hiking and at the moment have no interest in a gimbal. This is pretty much leaving the only 300f2.8IS ii. A sharp, light weight ( in comparison), and focusing as consistant as my contemporary 600mm f5.6, ill take it.

 

[AlanF]

One advantage of a zoom over a prime is the retracted size. Its not a big deal with a wide or normal lens but a long zoom is pretty "long". How about a "collapsible" prime that packs down small. That seems like something that could improve on the current zooms at the max fl.

Interesting idea. With a long FL prime there would likely be some portion of empty tube which could be telescoped back for more compact storage. I wonder how prone such a design would be to decentering.

If it could be built sturdy enough... similar to the old push-pull 100-400?, probably not a decentering issue of note. I would guess it would still have the much acclaimed (lamented) dust-pump accolade.

Dobsonian telescopes are loosely the same concept... but are completely open-sided... I'll throw it out there... call me crazy if you want.

Could you build a lens, similar to a dobsonian scope with a lattice/truss frame holding the lens groups separate at the prime focal length, and provide a snap-on, maybe even flexible (think plastic/leatherette for "luxury")removable cover over the middle section, thus allowing end users to clean the surfaces prone to dust-pumping? Solving problems? creating new ones? Making some crazy ability to potentially use the same mounted portion married up with different trusses and objective lens groups to create a kit of special dobsonian-inspired primes? (I'm not suggesting a convex mirror lens... just the open truss design of the large dobsonian.

I know way off topic... but it started a bit of a brainstorm for me.

The latest Swarovski telescopes split into two, an objective and an eyepiece half, each of which is waterproof. Would make an interesting concept for families of telephoto lenses.

 

[Plainsman]

...
I can easily see a 600F6.3 prime out there for under $1000..... and with the cameras starting to come out with F8 AF, someone must be thinking of an 800F8 prime. The market for $1000 lenses is probably a thousand times larger (if not more) than the market for $15,000 lenses and at some point, someone will address this.

There's just one other thing...

It is going to be getting a bit on the dark side looking through a prime lens with a maximum aperture of f/8.

That kind of lens would do well with an EVF that could compensate for the lower light levels.

The biggest problem for Tamron and Sigma is QC particularly when the factory is far away in somewhere like China.

Lets face it neither are going to invest in very long primes. The future lies in long zooms but the problem is getting a reliable well put together product to the consumer.

Anyway Tamron will probably still be asking 70% of the price of the Canon 100-400 II. So forget it!

 

[andrei1989]

Anyway Tamron will probably still be asking 70% of the price of the Canon 100-400 II. So forget it!

if it were like the canon f/4-5.6 it would be 70% the price of the canon, but if the lens will become reality and it will be like in the patent, f/4.5-6.3, then i expect it will be around 50% the price of the canon.

but then it will directly compete with the 150-600...unless it will be significantly smaller and lighter..

 

[meho1a]

One advantage of a zoom over a prime is the retracted size. Its not a big deal with a wide or normal lens but a long zoom is pretty "long". How about a "collapsible" prime that packs down small. That seems like something that could improve on the current zooms at the max fl.

Exactly what I was thinking.
Why don’t manufacturers try to minimize the size of prime lenses by making them collapsible. In my view the problem with bigger size is not the usability, because I find bigger lens easier to hold in my arms, but the transport. I prefer smaller size lenses when I go hiking because they are easier to pack and you can use smaller bags.
They could have full size lenses, which are more robust for pros and lower cost collapsible lenses, which do not have to be built like tank, for us - consumer non pro users.