Patent: Tamron 115mm f/1.4 VC

[Canon Rumors]

It seems to be a never-ending parade of optical formula patents from Tamron, this time it’s a 115mm f/1.4 VC. This is another fast and unique lens concept from Tamron.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2016-151661</strong> (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2016.8.22</li>
<li>Filing date 2015.2.17</li>
<li>f = 113.000</li>
<li>Fno = 1.456</li>
<li>ω = 10.632</li>
<li>Tamron patent</li>
<li>Positive and negative positive</li>
<li>Inner focus (the second group)</li>
<li>Vibration proof group (one of the group)</li>
</ul>
<p>Announcements from Tamron ahead of Photokina should be coming any day now. I suspect most will wait until after the EOS 5D Mark IV announcement and chatter has cooled down.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Talley]

Oh h0h0 buddy.... I would sell my wifes dog to buy this sucker! WANT!!!!!

 

[ahsanford]

A lens the size of a traffic cone that weighs six tons and relies on historically rockstar third party AF routines to nail a paper thin DOF?

What could possibly go wrong?

- A

 

[ahsanford]

All lenses in this patent include "vibration control".

Yep. Such is their niche. They've put IS on a 24-70 f/2.8, on a 15-30 f/2.8, on a bunch of f/1.8 primes.

But going all Sigma on us and making a first of a nutty wide aperture lens is not their bag at all. To my knowledge, they've never offered anything faster than f/1.8 for Canon or Nikon. Curious to see if their AF can pull it off.

- A

 

[Chaitanya]

That would make a lot of people asking for 105mm or 135mm fast lens for portraits happy.

 

[Luds34]

A lens the size of a traffic cone that weighs six tons and relies on historically rockstar third party AF routines to nail a paper thin DOF?

What could possibly go wrong?

- A

Actually many people, myself included, have had a very reliable, consistent focus experience with Tamron lenses.

 

[ahsanford]

Actually many people, myself included, have had a very reliable, consistent focus experience with Tamron lenses.

Sure, but 115mm f/1.4 is another ballgame altogether. The working DOF on a close up would be exceptionally thin and you'd be chimping all day to confirm you nailed it.

I'm not saying it can't be done, it clearly can. But let's say they deliver a 75% AF hit rate when shooting wide open -- would you still buy it?

- A

 

[aceflibble]

Focus isn't really an issue, or at least, it shouldn't be. 115mm at f/1.4 is about the same kind of 'challenge' you get with an 85mm f/1.2 or a 200mm f/2 lens. Very similar depth of field at most distances; it's not like you'd expect to get away with using a lens like this for macro, anyway.

So, if this hypothetical lens were to be made, it should pose no more of an issue, from a mechanical and focus performance point of view, than the 85mm f/1.2L which countless Canon users have used perfectly fine for decades.

That said, as someone who routinely uses 6x6 and larger format film for work with lenses which are equivalent to 160mm f/1.0 in 35mm terms, I can't say I'd be bothered either way. If you've got decent eyesight and a decent viewfinder/focus screen, you will quickly learn to focus such lenses very accurately manually, in the times when AF seems unreliable. (Not that AF is even an option when it comes to medium format and large format film...)


Anyway, this is your regular reminder that patents =/= lenses being made. They are merely a sign that a company has worked out a design which it wants to 'reserve' before anybody else makes the same thing. The vast majority of lens patents never actually get turned into retail products. So I wouldn't get too worried or get too excited just yet. This isn't to say that it definitely won't get made, just that it's no indication that it definitely will, either.

For what it's worth, I'd very gladly take a 100-120mm lens that can do f/2 or faster. (Yes, I know Canon already makes a 100mm f/2, but it's 25 years old and doesn't really old up with modern high-resolution sensors.) 115mm f/1.4 VC is the kind of lens which would allow me to use digital for work much more often, and greatly speed up the workflow.

 

[Jopa]

If it's as sharp as the 85 f/1.8, has VC and f/1.4 - count me in! The size should be definitely smaller than the 200/2.

 

[Wizardly]

This patent also includes two optical formulas for a 85/1.8 lens. There are also two 115/1.4 variants, the second of which looks quite good.

All lenses in this patent include "vibration control".

I read 3 85mm examples and 1 115mm example.

 

[ahsanford]

Focus isn't really an issue, or at least, it shouldn't be. 115mm at f/1.4 is about the same kind of 'challenge' you get with an 85mm f/1.2 or a 200mm f/2 lens. Very similar depth of field at most distances; it's not like you'd expect to get away with using a lens like this for macro, anyway.

So, if this hypothetical lens were to be made, it should pose no more of an issue, from a mechanical and focus performance point of view, than the 85mm f/1.2L which countless Canon users have used perfectly fine for decades.

You make my point for me (above). Canon has demonstrated an ability to deliver consistent/reliable AF in these wide aperture primes. Sigma rather famously has not. Tamron, for all their improvements, is simply unproven with something so demanding. So I'm not saying this lens won't do its job -- I'm implying our credit cards might stay in our wallets until someone does an AF hit-rate study with one (or three).

But yes, with skill and experience shooting with manual focus, this is a non-issue. There are plenty of 135mm f/2 Zeiss and Samyang users that are happily snapping away sans AF.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

Focus isn't really an issue, or at least, it shouldn't be. 115mm at f/1.4 is about the same kind of 'challenge' you get with an 85mm f/1.2 or a 200mm f/2 lens. Very similar depth of field at most distances;

.....That said, as someone who routinely uses 6x6 and larger format film for work with lenses which are equivalent to 160mm f/1.0 in 35mm terms.....

For the same subject magnification the dof/aperture relationship holds true.

An 85 f1.2 has less dof than a 115 f1.4 if the subject is the same size in the viewfinder. A 115mm f1.4 has the same dof as a 50 f1.4 and a 35 f1.4, again when the subject is the same size in the viewfinder. Similarly a 200 f2 has more dof than a 115 f1.4 or 50 f1.4 for the same subject magnification.

What 6x6 and large format lenses are you using with 135 format equivalent f1.0?

 

[Maiaibing]

That would make a lot of people asking for 105mm or 135mm lens fast lens for portraits happy.

Yup. I'd dump a 135/f2L for a 115/1.4 VC, no questions asked.

If AF works (or the 5D4 can handle it) - I'll be getting one too.

Tamron smart to go with 115mm for such a fast telelens to keep size manageable. And VC on top. Wow!

 

[photojoern.de]

A lens the size of a traffic cone that weighs six tons and relies on historically rockstar third party AF routines to nail a paper thin DOF?

What could possibly go wrong?

- A

True, the autofocus has to be very reliable. And the optics also have to be super sharp to compete with the existing Canon L-lenses. I own the 100mm II f2.8 Macro IS and it´s an amazingly sharp lens with a wonderful bokeh. light, image-stabilized, 800 USD appr.. Hard to compete with this one or the 70-200 f2.8 II IS L lens from Canon. Let´s see if they bring this design into reality. And let´s see what this f 1.4 one will add in weight to your camera bag.

 

[jebrady03]

It's 5 AM and I read: "Patent: Tamron 115mm f/1.4 VC"

The following words came out of my mouth immediately: "holy f***"

 

[funkboy]

"ω = 10.632"

If that's the flange focal distance, then this is a lens for a mirrorless system (hopefully I'm wrong, but...). Notice that the patent data doesn't mention an image circle size.

 

[jeffa4444]

Tamron reacting maybe to the Nikon 105mm f1.4 going on sale this month. The Nikon lens Ive seen shots from and is a dam good lens that nails autofocus.
The Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM Macro lens is a very sharp lens that also nails autofocus, however 2 stops more on the Nikon lens is pretty useful.

 

[FECHariot]

Focus isn't really an issue, or at least, it shouldn't be. 115mm at f/1.4 is about the same kind of 'challenge' you get with an 85mm f/1.2 or a 200mm f/2 lens. Very similar depth of field at most distances; it's not like you'd expect to get away with using a lens like this for macro, anyway.

Actually with a given framing, say you are shooting a head and shoulders portrait, DOF is then determined by aperture. So a portrait (with the same framing) with a 35/1.4 at 1.4 will have essentially the same DOF as a 115/1.4 at 1.4. Obviously the perspective and total background blur will be significantly different, but from an AF standpoint, this shouldn't be that hard. Plus it seems that Tamron has nailed Canon's AF algorithms better than Sigma, while the opposite may be true for Sigma nailing Nikon's, scientifically based on the amount of forum whining I read.

 

[Luds34]

Actually many people, myself included, have had a very reliable, consistent focus experience with Tamron lenses.

Sure, but 115mm f/1.4 is another ballgame altogether. The working DOF on a close up would be exceptionally thin and you'd be chimping all day to confirm you nailed it.

I'm not saying it can't be done, it clearly can. But let's say they deliver a 75% AF hit rate when shooting wide open -- would you still buy it?

- A

Spoken as someone who hasn't shot a Tamron lens before. You appear to be spreading FUD more then anything. The DOF gets to be quite razor thin on both their 70-200 and 150-600 and you never hear complaints about inconsistent or missed focus. Some say there is a very small extra hiccup to lock focus, but that is different from hitting focus. I know Sigma has a bad rap but lets not throw all 3rd party under the bus just yet.

Certainly much better then a certain era of Canon lenses. Having beers with a photography friend just this past weekend and we were talking about the 17-40 and the 24-105 and how they have just failed each of us in the field from time to time just erratically missing shots on occasion. The Canon 50 f/1.4 USM and of course the old 50mm f/1.8 also come to mind.

 

[ahsanford]

Tamron reacting maybe to the Nikon 105mm f1.4 going on sale this month. The Nikon lens Ive seen shots from and is a dam good lens that nails autofocus.
The Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM Macro lens is a very sharp lens that also nails autofocus, however 2 stops more on the Nikon lens is pretty useful.

It's unlikely to be this. Patent applications don't get posted overnight. This lens -- at least at enough of a concept stage to define for a patent -- was put to paper a long time ago.

- A