Patent: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11726"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11726">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>A new Supertelephoto Zoom?

</strong>This is definitely a lens that Tamron would make. If you need length and you’re on a budget, this could be a one of a kind option if and when it comes to market.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2012-208434</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Release Date 2012.10.25</li>
<li>Filing date 2011.3.30</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 1</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length f = 152.3068-582.0002mm</li>
<li>FNo. = 5.12-6.45</li>
<li>2ω = 16.30-4.23 ° angle of view</li>
<li>18 sheets 13 groups lens configuration</li>
<li>5-group configuration of positive and negative positive negative</li>
<li>Inner Focus (the fourth group focus group)</li>
<li>Stabilizer (front group of the fifth group of anti-vibration group)</li>
<li>Reduce the size of the group of anti-vibration and focus group</li>
<li>To shorten the focal length of the front group of the fifth group, reduce the amount of movement of the time the anti-vibration</li>
<li>Joining the front group lens and the fifth group, when the spherical aberration correction of the anti-vibration, axial chromatic aberration and chromatic aberration of magnification</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2012-10-26" target="_blank">EG</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've had the long long Tamron 200-500. The Canon 100-400mmL is so much better that there is no real comparison.
Here's hoping that they can do a better job.

 

[Lee Jay]

It will all come down to the optical quality. It has to about match the 100-400L at 400mm and f/5.6. If it's substantially worse than that, and up-res of the 100-400L might beat it. If it's equal, then that's another story. And it will have to be equal regardless of where the stabilization elements might happen to be at any given time (the 100-400L is in need of improvement in this area).

 

[preppyak]

It will all come down to the optical quality. It has to about match the 100-400L at 400mm and f/5.6. If it's substantially worse than that, and up-res of the 100-400L might beat it.

I kind of disagree, simply because this goes to 600mm. If it can match the 100-400 at f/5.6, then thats a really impressive feat, but, I think its equally important for it to be as sharp at 60mm as the 100-400 or 400 prime would be with a TC on. Cause if it is, then the fact it does it natively could be another leg up.

But really, the key is gonna be price. If its around the same price as the 200-500, then the range it gives might cause birders to go with it over the 100-400 (IS less important, and 600mm more critical than 400mm). Especially if a new 100-400 comes out and raises prices. If it costs more like $1300, then I can't see as many going with it

 

[Lee Jay]

It will all come down to the optical quality. It has to about match the 100-400L at 400mm and f/5.6. If it's substantially worse than that, and up-res of the 100-400L might beat it.

I kind of disagree, simply because this goes to 600mm. If it can match the 100-400 at f/5.6, then thats a really impressive feat, but, I think its equally important for it to be as sharp at 60mm as the 100-400 or 400 prime would be with a TC on. Cause if it is, then the fact it does it natively could be another leg up.

But really, the key is gonna be price. If its around the same price as the 200-500, then the range it gives might cause birders to go with it over the 100-400 (IS less important, and 600mm more critical than 400mm). Especially if a new 100-400 comes out and raises prices. If it costs more like $1300, then I can't see as many going with it

What I meant was, it'll have to be as good at 600mm and f/6.3 as the 100-400L is at 400mm and f/5.6. If it's not, an upres of or teleconverter attached to the 100-400L could equal or beat the Tamron, making it pointless.

 

[Woody]

So, how heavy will this lens be? ~ 1.5 kg.

How does it compare to the Panasonic 100-300 f/4-5.6 lens that only weighs 500 g but provides the same FOV on a m43 camera? ;D

 

[heptagon]

It will all come down to the optical quality. It has to about match the 100-400L at 400mm and f/5.6. If it's substantially worse than that, and up-res of the 100-400L might beat it.

I kind of disagree, simply because this goes to 600mm. If it can match the 100-400 at f/5.6, then thats a really impressive feat, but, I think its equally important for it to be as sharp at 60mm as the 100-400 or 400 prime would be with a TC on. Cause if it is, then the fact it does it natively could be another leg up.

But really, the key is gonna be price. If its around the same price as the 200-500, then the range it gives might cause birders to go with it over the 100-400 (IS less important, and 600mm more critical than 400mm). Especially if a new 100-400 comes out and raises prices. If it costs more like $1300, then I can't see as many going with it

What I meant was, it'll have to be as good at 600mm and f/6.3 as the 100-400L is at 400mm and f/5.6. If it's not, an upres of or teleconverter attached to the 100-400L could equal or beat the Tamron, making it pointless.

That is always the problem of cheap tele lenses. Even the 100-400L has no edge over a 300+1.4TC.

 

[dolina]

So, how heavy will this lens be? ~ 1.5 kg.

How does it compare to the Panasonic 100-300 f/4-5.6 lens that only weighs 500 g but provides the same FOV on a m43 camera? ;D

More like 2kg or heavier. But no more heavier than 3.5kg.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
I'm currently using EF 400mm F5.6L and looking for cheaper option for longer reach with AF. If the 600mm @f8 had around the same IQ as EF 400mm F5.6L + 1.4x (560mm @f8), I'll surely seriously consider changing.

Have a nice day.

 

[wickidwombat]

I predict the following

- Vignetting from hell 4 or fives stops in the corners
- Woefull Autofocus both in speed and accuracy
- build quality like it came from a happy meal
- edges and corners softer than a bag of marshmallow (assuming you can see them under all the vignetting)
- Lots of CA and flare
- less contrast than a polar bear in a snow storm

Yeah I'm not tamrons biggest fan

 

[weixing]

Hi,

I predict the following

- Vignetting from hell 4 or fives stops in the corners
- Woefull Autofocus both in speed and accuracy
- build quality like it came from a happy meal
- edges and corners softer than a bag of marshmallow (assuming you can see them under all the vignetting)
- Lots of CA and flare
- less contrast than a polar bear in a snow storm

Yeah I'm not tamrons biggest fan

I don't think will be that bad... ha ha ha

The current 200-500mm f/5-6.3 had very good review and if new one is the same standard and not very expensive, it's worth consideration.

Have a nice day.

 

[tron]

A fixed focal length of 600mm and (preferably) f/5.6 would be a much better choice and it would be a little easier I guess to achieve good optical quality. YMMV.