Patent: Tamron 115mm f/1.4 VC

[FramerMCB]

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

Touche'. I would add that the Tamron Engineer's in and whilst designing the 85mm f1.8 VC (just recently released) were in all likelihood drawing up this 115mm at the same time. I would agree with others that just because there is a patent, we should not automatically assume a retail copy is in the offing. However, it is nice to dream and based on Dustin Abbott's results with his Tamron 85mm f1.8VC buoyed most recently with his review and actual use of the newly released Tamron DOCK (to dial in his 45mm f1.8VC and his 85mm f1.8VC: very interesting read I might add), I would say any photographer that had misgivings about Tamron's future compatibility with new Canon bodies (i.e. the soon to be released 5D Mk IV) should now be assuaged. At least for their 4 newer lenses with the new badging/product line: 35mm 1.8VC; 45mm f1.8VC; 85mm f1.8VC; and the 90mm f2.8 Macro VC. (All having VC and all having weather sealing and all-metal bodies...with typically better out-of-box autofocus consistency than the Sigma Art series. (Based only on the reams of reviews I have read.)

 

[Refurb7]

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.

I don't think I would buy a 115/1.4. I'm a big fan of the Tamron 85/1.8 VC — a fine lens — but that's already a bit big for an 85/1.8. A 115/1.4 would likely be gigantic. An interesting lens for sure, but I have a feeling the size & weight would put me off.

Tamron is doing some good things lately. Besides their line of f/1.8 VC lenses, I think it was pretty clearly shown that Tamron also holds the patent for the Zeiss Batis 85/1.8 optical design, which is not the same design as their own Tamron 85/1.8 VC.

 

[James Larsen]

If this worked out, and Tamron makes it, I'd instantly buy. I was actually looking at the 85mm f1.8 for a long time, but I'd probably prefer this focal length - especially since its smack in the middle (well, kind of) between 85 and 135...

Do it Tamron!

 

[scyrene]

If there are any problems with Tamron on Canon then I think the problem lays in the EOS part, not elsewhere.

Doesn't matter where the problem lies really, does it, if the result is the same?

 

[ahsanford]

If there are any problems with Tamron on Canon then I think the problem lays in the EOS part, not elsewhere.

Doesn't matter where the problem lies really, does it, if the result is the same?

+1. No one is saying Tamron and Sigma make poor products, but if they don't work as reliably on our cameras as first party lenses do, perhaps they are less of a great value than they look on paper.

And I am not trying to dissuade people from buying them -- I'm saying a consistently front or back AF is correctable, but an inconsistent AF is a death sentence on an f/1.4 lens unless you prefer manual focusing. So rent it before you buy it or find some AF hit rate studies before you commit the dollars. Tamron or Sigma offering up a new f/1.4 lens is simply less of a sure thing with AF than a new Canon f/1.4 lens. The 35 Art vs. the 35L II is a perfect example of that.

That said, I wish Tamron luck with such an ambitious lens. I hope they kill it.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Spoken as someone who hasn't shot a Tamron lens before.

You are correct, and with good reason -- I'll get into that.

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.

Let's look into that, shall we?

On Tamron's 70-200:
http://www.lenstip.com/375.10-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_70-200_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Autofocus.html

"In studio conditions the number of misses reached 8% which is a good result but not very good; anyway the brand-name products of Canon and Nikon were able to perform better." (For reference, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II had a 1% miss rate at the same site.)

The Tamron 150-600 is better -- the same site pegs a 3% miss rate, while the Canon 100-400L II (closest Canon offers) had a 0% miss rate.

Again, I'm not smearing the company. I'm saying they've never pulled this AF-demanding of a lens off before. Caveat emptor, that's all.

I don't use Tamron or Sigma glass because reviews or rentals demonstrated iffy AF. I really value reliable AF, and I think the 35L II is actually priced correctly for the one massive thing it does better than the Sigma Art. You may value AF less if the style of shooting you do grants you the chance to try again. This Tamron may be the jam for you, then. But I'm no fanboy -- get the right tool for you.

- A

 

[Maiaibing]

"In studio conditions the number of misses reached 8% which is a good result but not very good; anyway the brand-name products of Canon and Nikon were able to perform better." (For reference, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II had a 1% miss rate at the same site.)

The Tamron 150-600 is better -- the same site pegs a 3% miss rate, while the Canon 100-400L II (closest Canon offers) had a 0% miss rate.

8% seems pretty significant.

Canon 100-400L II is just such a joy to use. Will have to write a review one day. Incredible build. Very nice IQ. Beats the 300mm f/4 IS L for sharpness. In fact as sharp as the 100mm IS L Macro prime! Far better than the original. Shines on the 5DS/R.

 

[j-nord]

Even though I don't shoot portrait, this lens would definitely catch my interest. Anyone want to ball park a price for such a lens? $950ish?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

That would be a very interesting lens that might bump the 135L out of my bag...under the right conditions. I've been encouraged by how well I've been able to dial the new primes with the Tap In, though, and the great focus results I'm getting. That will be needed on a beast like this.

 

[Sporgon]

That would be a very interesting lens that might bump the 135L out of my bag...under the right conditions. I've been encouraged by how well I've been able to dial the new primes with the Tap In, though, and the great focus results I'm getting. That will be needed on a beast like this.

I don't think you've actually said it publicly, but I get the impression that you find the AF on Tamron to be more reliable and accurate on Canon than Sigma. Is this right ? I've never gone for third party lenses, but some of these offerings are looking tempting.

 

[ahsanford]

That would be a very interesting lens that might bump the 135L out of my bag...under the right conditions. I've been encouraged by how well I've been able to dial the new primes with the Tap In, though, and the great focus results I'm getting. That will be needed on a beast like this.

I don't think you've actually said it publicly, but I get the impression that you find the AF on Tamron to be more reliable and accurate on Canon than Sigma. Is this right ? I've never gone for third party lenses, but some of these offerings are looking tempting.

Dustin, I'd love to hear that answer as well. You've tested everything! Who is more consistently hitting the target in your hands?

Tamron's also been wise to avoid f/1.4 like Sigma has pursued. It adds weight and size and is a more demanding bar for AF. It might not be as sexy as f/1.4, but their new primes' combination of [fast-but-not-screaming-fast / good AF / sharp images / relatively large max mag] seems pretty attractive to me.

- A

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Sign me up.....right......meow. I would literally take my card out of my wallet this instant for one.

With regard to the AF issues, I would have to agree. Based on my experience with the 24-70 VC as well as a 28-75 back in the day, I would not want to use this thing on a DSLR. However, I would be more than thrilled to mount it right onto my A7R2 which is the way I have been using all of the Sigma glass.

 

[Luds34]

Spoken as someone who hasn't shot a Tamron lens before.

You are correct, and with good reason -- I'll get into that.

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.

Let's look into that, shall we?

On Tamron's 70-200:
http://www.lenstip.com/375.10-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_70-200_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Autofocus.html

"In studio conditions the number of misses reached 8% which is a good result but not very good; anyway the brand-name products of Canon and Nikon were able to perform better." (For reference, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II had a 1% miss rate at the same site.)

The Tamron 150-600 is better -- the same site pegs a 3% miss rate, while the Canon 100-400L II (closest Canon offers) had a 0% miss rate.

Again, I'm not smearing the company. I'm saying they've never pulled this AF-demanding of a lens off before. Caveat emptor, that's all.

I don't use Tamron or Sigma glass because reviews or rentals demonstrated iffy AF. I really value reliable AF, and I think the 35L II is actually priced correctly for the one massive thing it does better than the Sigma Art. You may value AF less if the style of shooting you do grants you the chance to try again. This Tamron may be the jam for you, then. But I'm no fanboy -- get the right tool for you.

- A

It's completely fine that you have never used a Tamron lens and never plan to. However, I feel it's disingenuous to speak with such authority on something that you have zero experience with.

So you dug up one website that probably tests one copy of a lens and went by what they call a "miss"?

You grabbed my curiosity so I took a little time at this site. A number of modern Canon lenses have a percent or two missing as well, f/4 and f/2 of the 24-70. I looked at a couple of Canon lenses I owned.

70-200 f/2.8 - 4%
17-40 f/4 - 10%
100 f/2.8L IS - 3%
135 f/2 - 3%

Even the few Fuji lenses I looked at had "misses" (including the macro missing like 15% or something?). And this is a system that dials in the focus with contrast detection.

Oh, and those Sigma lenses that can't hit focus? Well I own one of those two, the 35mm Art, which they said:

We don’t have any reservations about the accuracy of the autofocus. The number of misses in studio conditions reached 2.5% which is a very good result. On both bodies, used in the test (the 50D and the 1Ds MkIII) we haven’t noticed any back or front focus tendency which can be also observed in sample photos below.

Before I went looking at this site, I was thinking, if they are missing focus in studio conditions, something is really up. Well, part of the issue may lie in just what they consider a "miss". Any MTF50 value that differs by more then 20% off the peak. That may sound significant, but you do realize whether it's 800 lines of resolution vs 1000, those are both in focus shots. What any normal photographer will consider an OOF shot will resolve less then 1/10th of the resolution of an in focus shot. Plus, there is a flaw that in their testing, if they by chance get one really lucky shot that just nails everything perfect, that is a greater chance the other "normal" shots will not live up the 20% threshold. That's why in Olympic judging the high/low scores are removed, the outliers. Here, they take the outlier (highest) and make it the norm. Leaving out the whole testing one lens most likely, how many shots are they taking that they feel they have significant numbers to have accuracy to single and half percentages? I could continue to pontificate however I'll spare the forum.

My original point still stands, you are attempting to speak on authority on something you probably should not.

And for the record, my personal shooting style demands top notch focus accuracy. I love fast primes and if focus doesn't hit, nothing else in the shot even matters.

Oh, and it's be no means all roses with every lens I own, 1st or 3rd party. The Tamron 150-600 I have, while having top notch AF accuracy/consistency, I find myself fighting the VR from time to time. In fact in a perfect world, this shot of the loon below (uncropped by the way) would have been captured at 1/200 to 1/300 range. But the VR system couldn't handle the waves and bouncing/unsteady boat so I eventually had to kick up the SS and capture the shot at a higher ISO.

Loon on Gull Lake by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

That would be a very interesting lens that might bump the 135L out of my bag...under the right conditions. I've been encouraged by how well I've been able to dial the new primes with the Tap In, though, and the great focus results I'm getting. That will be needed on a beast like this.

I don't think you've actually said it publicly, but I get the impression that you find the AF on Tamron to be more reliable and accurate on Canon than Sigma. Is this right ? I've never gone for third party lenses, but some of these offerings are looking tempting.

To answer these questions: the answer is definitely yes. In this article: http://bit.ly/2b1ALqs or this video: http://bit.ly/2bv8tH0 I break down Tamron's new Tap In Console and how I've been able to get pretty much perfect focus results with my 45 VC and 85 VC lenses after spending some time in calibration.

Beyond that, though, I've been shooting events and weddings with the 70-200 VC for about three years, and it is rare that I ever miss a shot. The 24-70 VC is good, too, but I'll get an occasional miss. The 70-200 is as accurate (for me) as anything I've used.

And no, even using the Sigma dock, I've rarely been able to achieve that kind of focus accuracy with any Sigma lens save the 150-600 S - which has the best AF system I've seen from a Sigma lens (if only it didn't weigh so much!!)

 

[ahsanford]

My original point still stands, you are attempting to speak on authority on something you probably should not.

I really appreciate the reply and added personal experience with these lenses. And that you bring up LT's potentially-less-than-ideal hit rate method just goes to show that we need more folks like Dustin, Bryan @ TDP, etc. publishing hit rate studies with fair criteria. The reviewing community is largely not publishing on this critical consideration.

But in fairness, I don't believe I ever conveyed myself -- in tone or in presented credentials -- as an authority. I self-identify as a non-professional, an enthusiast, etc. as much as any poster I have read in this forum. I simply suggested people should rent the lens before they buy it or wait for testing on it because Tamron has never pulled this off before. Respectfully, I am as set in this position as when the conversation started.

- A

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Will this be seen first as a Tamron lens or as a Pentax lens?

Good point. The 15-30 was obviously a rebranding of the Tamron from the moment I saw it. Tamron has been making some underrated lenses because the f/1.8 apertures aren't as sexy as Sigma's 1.4 apertures and thus get overlooked. People want to compare them to the Canon or Nikon f/1.8 lenses, so they seem expensive.

 

[Talley]

I've had alot of Canon glass that simply didn't focus right as well as Tamron/Sigma/Tokina

Currently have more 3rd party glass than not and surprising the 200 F2 IS I own now has given me some struggles too.

In the end... alot has to deal with the camera operator and where he selected to focus.

 

[Maiaibing]

..surprising the 200 F2 IS I own now has given me some struggles too.

If I where you I'd send in camera & lens and have them calibrated to each other. You have paid to shoot the lens wide open. You need 100% accurate focus or its just an expensive paper weight.

 

[Luds34]

My original point still stands, you are attempting to speak on authority on something you probably should not.

I really appreciate the reply and added personal experience with these lenses. And that you bring up LT's potentially-less-than-ideal hit rate method just goes to show that we need more folks like Dustin, Bryan @ TDP, etc. publishing hit rate studies with fair criteria. The reviewing community is largely not publishing on this critical consideration.

But in fairness, I don't believe I ever conveyed myself -- in tone or in presented credentials -- as an authority. I self-identify as a non-professional, an enthusiast, etc. as much as any poster I have read in this forum. I simply suggested people should rent the lens before they buy it or wait for testing on it because Tamron has never pulled this off before. Respectfully, I am as set in this position as when the conversation started.

- A

Fair enough and to each their own.

Although if you get a chance to shoot a lens (in a shop, out with a buddy, etc), give it a shot. Some of these 3rd party lenses might surprise you.

Cheers!

 

[Ozarker]

I'll stick with the Canon 135mm f/2L.